From Population to PETA

Regarding #5, I'm for the pro-veg message, but I'm a little annoyed when women are objectified to spread a message.  

Is any nudity sexist, by definition (if it's a woman)?

It seems to me that the two Grist editors that posted the item, both female, didn't think it was sexist. I assume they're both feminists.

I think calling Alicia Silverstone sexist requires more explanation.

Check out www.Meat.org & www.GoVeg.com.

Do you think any piece of art with a naked woman is inherently sexist? Where's the context?

I eat small amounts of meat occasionally - and Wolfy is a 305 lb, 6 foot tall tank.  If I can thrive on an almost 100% vegetarian diet, anyone can.  I think PETA's message is a good one.  They have chosen an inspiring media to do so (rock on, Alicia); it sure beats their old method of getting their message across by blowing up animal testing labs (and lab workers).  


Most times for evil to win it doesn't take a large, horrible event; it just takes a lot of people each doing just a little bad. AOOOOOOooooooooo.........

Personally, I'd give Alicia Silverstone the benefit of the doubt on this: I've seen her interviewed on "The View" and other talk shows, and she seems savvy, smart, thoughtful, and committed to making the world a kinder place--including by promoting veganism.

So if someone is going to call her sexist, I think they should spell that out a bit more. I just can't imagine Alicia doing something SHE saw as sexist, so if she is missing something...

Again, is any female nudity sexist? That is the only standard by which this advert could be seen as sexist, it seems to me.

But I may not be seeing this correctly. I do see myself as a feminist, and I think feminists can't just accuse people of Alicia of sexism without explaining.

I did check out the link at www.PETA.org; Alicia's message about the advert seems totally value-focused.

Check out www.Meat.org & www.GoVeg.com.

in all seriousness, the only "message" of that ad, politically speaking, is that in the pursuit of promoting vegetarianism/veganism/animal rights and encouraging people to stop objectifying animals, it's perfectly ok to objectify women as much as possible! (and, sure, that alicia silverstone is a sexy celebrity. go peta!) it's really very simple - and it's an ooold schtick of peta's: use women's bodies as they're always used by the media for their own ends, and you'll get people's attention. which is all that matters. but the problem is that peta should choose such a tactic, not that alicia s. got roped into it.

no, not all nudity is sexist... sometimes one is nude for good reason. but a whole lot of female nudity is used to reinforce the sexist status quo, where women's bodies are objectified and commodified, and women are systematically relegated to being the "sex class." just like animals are, for the majority, the "food class." it's all about exploitation, and enforcing and profiting from the status quo in some way.

and peta does this reinforcing of the status quo as far as women's objectification very consciously. they've been approached plenty of times, criticized for their campaigns like "i'd rather go naked than wear fur", "fur trim. unattractive", "show me your udders!", "state of the union undress", and so on, and so forth... but they've said repeatedly that they don't care, and they don't see the problem, and any publicity is good publicity/the ends justify the means.

all i can say is, read those couple of links at least, check out this page for a gallery of past such ads from peta and also peta: where only women are treated like meat... and look at all those images together and try to NOT see all of it as sexist and exploitative and the opposite of promoting respect for the dignity and freedom from oppression of all beings, and let's imagine what the "ends" really are in this case...

and so far you've been the only person to call alicia sexist. nobody else did. i wanted to stress that the point is not that she's being sexist by "stripping for animals" - rather, the fact that peta's using those kind of images/tactics in their campaigns is sexist and is feeding and supporting mainstream sexism.

I don't think the ad will prompt men to give up meat.  It may reassure young women they can be vegetarian and sexy, but I think that's a very egotistical approach to animal rights-- one in which the animals are very secondary.

Giving up meat and other animal products should be based on an ethic, not how sexy it can be.  

I have heard it said that feminism is not what you say, it's how you actually run your organization. One would be hard pressed to find more women in positions of power than we've got at PETA. Of PETA's highest positions and board, there are four women, three gay men, and no straight men.

Obviously there is a lot of disagreement among feminists re: what is exploitation and objectification. I have asked that the director of our correspondance department (a woman) post our official response, which addresses the accusations more specifically.

Clearly, Alicia didn't see this as exploiting or objectifying her. She is a strong, articulate, and compassionate woman. And she did this because she cares (none of PETA's celebrity adverts involved any compensation--the celebrities volunteer because they care about the issue).

the mere fact that there are women in position of power somewhere doesn't necessarily mean anything. margaret thatcher didn't advance the feminist cause any, i'm pretty sure. actually, "feminism" is perhaps nothing so much as what you DO, and if part of what you do is to systematically objectify women because it just "appeals to the public" (really, it does, who knew?!), then your feminism is a bit... absent.

it's not so "obvious" that "there is a lot of disagreement among feminists re: what is exploitation and objectification" at all. peta thinks so - but SO MANY animal rights activists i know who also do feminist and anti-sexist activism are put off by peta's campaigns involving women and women's bodies being commodified and "sold" - obviously that means something. anyway i'd be pretty surprised if the official response acknowledged this in any way... 'cause you all haven't bothered to in the past (my own letter from about 7 years ago got an answer along the lines of - "we don't think those ads are sexist, but anyway we like to use shock tactics and we find them hugely effective, so if it appeals to the public we're going ahead, and that's it"). but i'd love to be surprised.

I wasn't trying to imply that because it's run by women, it's automatically feminist. I just re-read my email and I think I was clear that they are feminists who disagree with your analysis. i.e., Ingrid and the others at the healm are strong women who are feminists, and who disagree with you. I'd guess that Maggie was a strong woman who is not a feminist (like Phyllis Schlafly and Ann Coulter).

In any event, you clearly disagree; can you explain when nudity is okay and when it's not? Is nudity in art okay? You refer to the body type, but I assume you're not suggesting that nudity is okay or not based on body type.

I posted the Jimmy Kimmel piece because I thought it was funny. You don't think so?

I don't do much Blog posting, so I'm not clear on the etiquette. This seems like you and I are having a conversation; it seems odd to me to have that conversation here. Feel free to email me off the Blog, at BruceF(at)peta.org.

BTW, my mother was a charter subscriber to Ms. Magazine (literally) and a strong feminist for more than forty years; she didn't find these campaigns, where men and women volunteer their time and get naked to make a point, to be exploitative or sexist. She found the campaigns to be feminist in nature, because they were done by strong women using their sexuality for a cause they believe in.

I know you don't agree and I am aware of the response to this (often expressed as though disagreement is insane betrayal), but my mom was a feminist artist who dealt with serious sexism for decades, and that was her take on it.

To see some of her progressive and feminist art, check out www.ThistlewoodPress.com.

Respectfully,

Bruce

We noted a lot of people getting naked for peace in recent years (and some getting naked to protest clothing).

I admit that it self-selects, but I've personally gone naked repeatedly, including completely naked at Buckingham Palace:
http://www.ananova.com/images/news/bush_streakerPA350x473 ...

Fred Flinstone, party of one, your table is ready.

NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org

anyway, your mom's art is amazing. and i assume she was supportive of something like this, perhaps [to give another example, i've personally seen some naked blocs at protests, with both guys and girls removing all clothing, not just "threatening" items, in order to march and prove a point... and while i think there's still problems with that, 'cause people are going to react differently to a topless woman and a topless guy... and threats of violence to the two are different... that's another discussion] - but with regards to something like this?? i really really doubt it! again, the whole point of this discussion is how much exploitation of sexist cultural givens is involved, what does this campaign that's supposedly about "justice" reference, what does it try to evoke? and what kind of images are being promoted? (if it tries to evoke mainstream porn and all of its attitudes towards women, that's not "feminist"... if it promotes airbrushed, unrealistic images of women, that's not feminist... if it reduces women to their nakedness, in a context where nakedness has no relevance, that's not feminist.) it's the same with art. of course there can be nude human forms in art; whether it's sexist or not depends on... whether it's sexist or not.

also, we're not really talking about actions with "regular people" here (though we can talk about that too). we're talking about these ads with celebrities that peta's campaigns are based on, which peta spends huge amounts of money on (even if the models are not compensated), and which is what the majority of the public sees. the "we take everyone" is a major exaggeration, isn't it? i'd say that there are exceptions that prove the rule, really... and anyway the ads being what they are there's the underlying fact that this person is naked either to appeal to the public as a sexual object - in a way we all know and love - or as a "quirky" take on that tradition... but peta is relying on that tradition anyway.  

ps: no, i didn't find the jimmy kimmel spoof funny in the least. and he is an avowed misogynist.

See the Los Angeles Times story and PETA ad here: http://tinyurl.com/2yt4l5

You can also see the ad at the PETA website: http://www.peta.org/feat/alicia_psa/index.asp.

The page includes testimonial from Alicia about her love of animals and the health benefits of her vegan diet.

I learned about this from Dawnwatch, an animal advocacy media watch that looks at animal issues in the media and facilitates one-click responses to the relevant media outlets. You can learn more about it, and sign up for alerts at http://www.DawnWatch.com.

Perhaps the NRA could take a lesson from this; forget crusty old Charlton Hesston and crazy Ted Nugent - get some sexy models sporting some major firepower!  Just kidding; the NRA is doing very well this administration by spreading fear and hate.  Get a machinegun for granny before Saddam gets granny!

Maybe I will pose for the next PETA shoot.  (thanks for the smile, Greta!)


Most times for evil to win it doesn't take a large, horrible event; it just takes a lot of people each doing just a little bad. AOOOOOOooooooooo.........

A lot of a.r. people think we shouldn't try to reform factory farming. A lot of a.r. people think we shouldn't promote vegetarianism (and others think that we don't promote it enough). And on and on. We try to listen and explain our view, while giving thanks for variety in the movement for animal rights and for everything everyone is doing to make the world a kinder place.

I didn't know that Jimmy Kimmel was an "avowed mysoginist." Isn't he partnered with Sarah Silverman? It's hard for me to imagine that SHE is with an a mysoginist.

Anyway, thanks for spelling out your view. It seems to me that if someone wants to take off their clothes for a cause, they should be allowed to, regardless of their body type.

Sincerely,

Bruce

We deny Al Gore his speaking fees and book tours.

We deny Richard Branson the right to stink up the planet with airplanes and claim to be Green.

We deny the right of Hollywood Superstars to tell middle class Americans to save a gallon of gas while guzzling more consumer goods than Croesus.

We deny the right of IPCC Eurocrats to scarf free brie and espresso at endless Geneva conferences on our nickel (Global Climate Tax).

"It seems to me that if someone wants to take off their clothes for a cause, they should be allowed to, regardless of their body type."

sure, but that's completely not the point. i'll repeat: the point is what tactics you, as an organization that supposedly wants to promote respect for all beings, are willing to use, and why. you cannot build a movement for the rights of some on the backs of others - if that's part of your tactics, then what exactly is "ethical" about what you're proposing? and the thing is, as far as the criticism, you haven't explained your view. you are not doing it here; as soon as it gets to a true discussion you bow out. and peta has never explained - as i said, they've always reacted precisely like this: we don't see the objectification of women as an issue, in fact it's "empowering," the models are doing it for free, and we are going to keep making these ads because we like it, end of discussion.  

merely repeating "we are a feminist organization" does not equal explaining. or cancelling out the non-feminist actions.

as for the "but these ads reach a lot of people and resonate with them and are therefore good" spiel, that's just it: a lot of people see these ads and take away the message that a.r. is compatible with misogyny - that in fact if they are to care for animals they should compensate by viewing women as "other" as much as possible and treating them accordingly... which "resonates," sure, because it's a stance that the patriarchal mainstream culture is predicated on. but why is it something that peta promotes?

like ellie and greta have said - other than catching someone's attention for all the wrong reasons, how is seeing a naked female body convincing anyone to give up meat on ethical grounds, to have respect for their fellow beings?

and not that social justice is all fun and games anyway, but... just because jokes are usually at the expense of women, because misogyny is funny to a lot of people, doesn't mean that's the kind of humor we should all use and doesn't make it any less bad if a "social justice" group employs it in their campaigns. quite the opposite.

The thing that I don't like about these sorts of exchanges is that they're so impersonal; we seem to be talking past, rather than with, each other. And I also think that in a forum like this, people tend to say things in ways they don't intend. It hasn't happened on this forum, but on the two vegetarian forums on Grist right now (check them out in the "most commented" section), and also on my piece on www.CommonDreams.org, things are out of hand, I think (both sides). It's weird--we agree on so much more than we disagree on, and we pillory one another over the disagreements.

Anyway, I suspect we're not going to convince one another. We both know the other side well. I won't be near a computer again until tomorrow, when I'll be working, so I may not be able to get back on Grist for a few days. Regardless, we seem to be talking in circles. But if you want to keep doing so, shoot me an email at BruceF(at)peta.org.

"Some a.r. people don't want us to promote veganism": I was not implying that this is you--sorry if that's the impression you got. We hear all the time from a.r. people who say it's not realistic, that we should promote humane meat or less meat, but not veganism. We hear this even from vegans, who simply want us to be as effective as possible. We don't agree, though I won't go into that argument here. I'm just telling you what I meant, b/c you seemed incredulous.

You say I brushed you off; this is hard for me to understand. I tried very hard to explain my view to you; I simply don't agree with you. It seems to me that you feel so strongly that you're right that you feel that disagreement indicates non- acknowledgment and "brushing off." I tried to reply to your points; it seems to me that you just don't like my answers.

Thanks for the compliment re: my mom's art; I like it too. She didn't like some of the people with whom PETA works, but she felt that anyone should be able to participate in our campaigns in whatever way they wanted, and she liked that we were thrilled to have anyone. She also liked that some people who don't agree with her on certain issues wanted to help animals. She didn't think the naked campaigns were sexist, for the same reason we don't. She didn't think that nudity was exploitative, even if the naked people are of a certain body type.

The thing that you say that I find most perplexing from you as an animal right activist is this: "you cannot build a movement for the rights of some on the backs of others." Two points:

1) We disagree that our naked campaigns are on the backs of anyone. We're not ignoring you, brushing you off, etc. We just don't agree.

My larger confusion though, is this:

2) Every progressive, peace, and feminist event I've attended that had food (tons, going back more than 25 years) served animal products--all but some of the peace rallies literally served animals' corpses, in addition to serving eggs and dairy products.

For background, before I came to PETA, I ran a shelter for families (mostly single moms) and a large soup kitchen in D.C. for more than 6 years; we (who ran the shelter and kitchen) also participated in all the peace and other progressive rallies. From the time I could walk, my parents were bringing me to feminist, gay rights, civil rights, sanctuary (Central America), and peace events (so for more than 30 years).

Very few progressive or anti-war groups, and not a single civil rights or feminist group other than FAR has a vegan policy. So animals are being horribly abused and their corpses devoured by progressives, environmentalists, civil rights and peace activists, feminists, and so on (this is why I'm an animal rights activist, by the way).

My point IS NOT (so please don't interpret it this way) that it is okay for a.r. groups to be racist, anti-progressive, sexist, or pro-war because the civil rights and other progressive movements are so deeply anti-animal (it doesn't get any more anti-animal than eating animals' tortured corpses). My point is that if you as an animal activist belong to any of these groups, it seems to me that you're applying a speciesist double standard by supporting groups that are trying to "build a movement for the rights of some on the backs [well, the tortured corpses, actually] of others." i.e., human rights groups can pay for tortured animal corpses and refuse to address the issue at all, and you support them.

By the way, my feminist wife and I are monthly donors to the ACLU, Doctors Without Borders, AFSC, and other progressive groups, and I continue to attend peace and other social justice meetings and rallies. I wish they wouldn't serve meat, but I still support them, because I like most of what they're doing.

Of course I don't think that you should withdraw your support for non-a.r. groups, but you might want to think about why you have such antipathy for PETA over one thing with which you disagree, even as you support many groups with which you vehemently disagree on the issue of the horrible animal abuse they're supporting.

Again, I won't be back on here until tomorrow night at the earliest.

and, yeah, i think we agree on lots of things but you are refusing to see the point and brushing off the concerns (with any come-back imaginable, just nothing that addresses why go there, why choose blatant sexism and objectification).

Nuggets and Hummers and fish sticks, oh my!
PETA VP argues vegetariansim is the best way to help the planet
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/17/16200/7809

PETA's dogma is all bark and no bite: Animal rights group makes
the stupid claim that enviros must be vegetarians
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/12/9262/63548

Vegetarianism and Environmentalism: PETA's latest campaign
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/16/174625/254

Can't we all just...........be vegans?
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/16/161924/884

The subjects of PETA and vegetarianism
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/14/1698/31472

Not so fast....on meat eating and global warming
http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2007/09/17/index.html

From Population to PETA
http://www.grist.org/etc/gristlist/2007/09/21/index.html

Guilliermo, not so much. But taken together they do make a priceless case for veg!

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

I do find it hard to imagine a better visual illustration of the the case that carnivory is inessential to human health than to show a healthy (ever-so-discreetly) naked human body at exercise, voiced over with the personally-identified subject's own pro-vegetarian narrative. Tell me again where the sexuality/exploitation/reification comes in?

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

HEADLINE OPTIONS:

1. "Got feminine protection?"
   
2. "Feminine protection for those heavy days"

3. "Feminine protection for those light days".
   
4. "Feminine protection...I never leave home without it."

Precisely, it's an ad that appeals to human vanity and an interest in the opposite sex-- the living beings it purports to represent get lost in the publicity.

It's easy to dismiss objection as 'prudish', but it means the difference between self-centered activism and making the interests of non-human animals the priority.  

This is part of the reason why "animal rights" has become an umbrella term, to the point where it's meaningless.  It's been co-opted to suit the activists, not the animals.  So-called "AR people" who try to modify animal husbandry corrupt the ethic that speaks for non-human beings.  

What is sexist about that? Keep in mind that the most oppressive, misogynist, conservative societies are those that force women to keep covered and silent. The most liberal, open societies are those in which women are free to wear (or not wear!) what they want and speak out as they wish.

Alicia is a beautiful vegetarian woman who chooses to speak out for what she believes in a manner that will get the most attention. What's the harm in that?

*    http://www.LettuceLadies.com/broc.html
*    http://www.PETAIndia.com/mods3.jpg
*    http://www.FurIsDead.com/feat-Rodman2.asp
*http://www.barewitness.org/photoalbum/Paris-fur.htm

You might find it interesting to consider that it is the societies that allow women to wear revealing clothing in which women have the most rights and the most power. Likewise, it is the societies that punish women for wearing revealing clothing in which women have the fewest rights and the least power--they are considered chattel who must do as they are told. Should women only be allowed to participate in activism if they promise not to show their bodies or use their bodies as political statements? If a person chooses to use his or her physicality and sexuality to convey a message of his or her choosing, aren't those who would censor him or her, even if their motives are good, also somewhat guilty of disrespect and repression?

Take Ms. Traci Bingham, for example, who posed for our "All Animals Have the Same Parts" ad campaign (http://www.GoVeg.com/feat/tracibee/). She is a deeply committed vegetarian who is known to millions for her television work, including beating out a platoon of men to excel in an endurance test called "Boot Camp." She is strong-natured, and she has chosen to use her body as a political tool to grab public attention for serious animal issues. In this case, Ms. Bingham felt offended by the traditional "meat" posters that treat animals as "parts," and she wanted to make the point that neither they nor women should be viewed as parts--we are all precious.

As you know, billions of animals are bred every year for the sole purpose of having their bodies chopped up, stamped with the label "USDA meat," and stuck into tidy packages on supermarket shelves. Like us, animals raised for their flesh have personalities and feelings, and they form families and friendships if given the chance. But factory farms deny animals everything that is natural and enjoyable to them, condemning them to tortured lives in filthy, cramped cages, stalls, and sheds, where only a steady diet of drugs keeps them alive long enough to be prodded to the slaughterhouse.

Our purpose is to stop animal suffering like this, and we use all available opportunities to reach millions of people with powerful messages. We have found that people do pay more attention to our racier actions, and we consider the public's attention to be extremely important. Sometimes this requires tactics--like naked marches and colorful ad campaigns--that some people find outrageous or even "rude," but part of our job is to shake people up and even shock them in order to initiate discussion, debate, questioning of the status quo, and of course, action. After PETA publicized our "State of the Union Undress," for example, we were rated the number one "mover" on Yahoo's search engine, meaning that PETA received the greatest percentage increase of terms searched that day. The current situation is critical for billions of animals, and our goal is to make the public think about the issues. Although some consider our projects that include nudity to be controversial, many women express support for these tactics.

However, PETA does make a point of having something for all tastes, from the most conservative to the most radical and from the most tasteless to the most refined, and this approach has proved amazingly successful--in the more than two decades since PETA was first founded, it has grown into the largest animal rights group in the world, with over 1.1 million members and supporters worldwide. For more information about PETA's vital work for animals, please visit http://www.PETA.org/about.  

Please know that we respect your right to disagree with our tactics but hope that you will continue to support projects that you do agree with, such as our free vegetarian starter kit giveaways (http://www.GoVeg.com/order.asp) or our low-cost spay/neuter clinic (http://www.HelpingAnimals.com/).

Thank you for providing us with this opportunity to respond to your concern and for all that you do to help animal

I think the PETA form reply sums it up--we disagree with the idea that the ads are sexist or objectifying. We're not refusing to see the point; we're not brushing off concerns. We disagree. It's not a brush off to say "we disagree," though clearly, since you feel so strongly, perhaps any response other than agreement with your view will feel like a brush off.

If a group is serving meat at their events, they may as well be out there torturing and killing the animals themselves (heck, there would be some honesty in that, at least).

You say it's different to serve meat at events than "hunting to promote feminism," but I don't see any meaningful difference: First, there's no difference to the animals involved (well, since hunting is less cruel than factory farming, hunting actually wins out as morally preferable in this comparison). Second, by serving meat, they're serving tortured animals' corpses to promote their cause; how is that different from actually going out and shooting animals to promote the cause?

I'd say that if anything, a hunting trip to promote feminism would be less immoral than serving meat at feminist events.

Sincerely,

Bruce

But more than that, what do naked celebrities do for the animals?  If it were so affective, why are celebrities not stripping to end the genocide in Darfur, or for other causes?  No one is questioning the right to be nude.  It's a question of why it's done, and what's  accomplished.

You said:  "factory farms deny animals everything that is natural and enjoyable to them, condemning them to tortured lives in filthy, cramped cages, stalls, and sheds, where only a steady diet of drugs keeps them alive long enough to be prodded to the slaughterhouse. Our purpose is to stop animal suffering like this..."

Reality check here-- as long as animals are bred, used, and killed, they will suffer.  I recently saw a photo of chickens on a "free-range" farm, hundreds practically standing on top of each other in a room.  No wonder they're still debeaked. I'm sure they still walk on their own feces, and like their caged cousins, they'll get killed in short order.

The same is true for other animals, and for regulations that mean nothing in terms of mass production.  Reforming factory farms certainly won't end animal suffering.  In fact, it often encourages meat eating, which is why animal industries are willing to cooperate.

But some activists need to feel they can make a difference, even when it doesn't exist.  This is the self-centered activism I'm talking about-- it's about making activists feel good-- not the animals.  The bar is set so low as to appeal to animal enterprise that it's easy to claim "victories", and attract membership in the groups that promote these tactics, but the animals are not winning.  

you are NOT addressing any of the issues: it is NOT about "tastelessness" or even "nudity" - so basically peta is answering some other points it likes to bring up, NOT the sexism criticism. that's what's called brushing off concerns.

and i and others already anticipated the rest of the "responses," i'm sure peta has seen these arguments lots of times, and just can't address them:
-- the fact that there are exceptions only goes to enforce the rule (yes, i'm glad there's a "lettuce lady" guy, that makes it all SO much better)
-- how "strong" and "beautiful" and "great" the women who are doing these ads are doesn't matter, and neither does the fact that they are not getting compensated and they are "choosing" to appear in these ads: the criticism directed at peta has to do with why peta, as an organization, is choosing these campaigns. it's not like sexism is just there, and peta can't help itself but partake and it comes through in its campaigns (although of course it is more than a little bit like that).
-- the fact that women are able to "express" themselves freely when that expression has to involve getting naked for their voices to be heard is not a feminist gain, and is not that much better than women having to stay covered in those "other cultures" that are so misogynist, as opposed to ours. NOT recognizing this at any level, refusing to see it, makes you un-feminist... and in fact it's anti-feminist.

and now a couple more things:
-- specifically about that ad with the body parts: how IRONIC and unbelievable that you should reference it when you probably know that an image exactly like that, with a naked woman whose body parts are marked as meat cuts, has been used seriously in the past, as a sexist illustration! though peta may not acknowledge this, misogyny and violence against women is out there, women are being compared to animals, demeaned and abused everyday, very seriously. so what is your message?? for a majority of people, that ad doesn't work as a protest against meat: all they see is a woman's body offered "for consumption," and that's common, and titillating, and ok enough.
-- which brings us to your point that your "state of the union undress" video "received the greatest percentage increase of terms searched that day"... so what?? it's not surprising that it did, as it featured a young woman getting completely naked - but as i said already sometimes the fact that something resonates with people is not a good sign, as you, as a group that's fighting to change the status quo in some way, should know! you should not measure your success by how much you appeal to the mainstream with things that are wrong about the mainstream in the first place.
-- if peta has reached so many people by pandering to the mainstream through shock tactics and whatever means possible, then how do you all measure the "amazing success" of this approach - and why haven't you had more actual results?? meat consumption has increased steadily, as i know you know... as a group with over a million of members and such convincing campaigns shouldn't you have been able to do more?!?

but you obviously don't care. and you don't care about alienating those of us who are trying to work on both fronts: against the objectification and exploitation of women as well as against the objectification and exploitation of non-humans. that's the concern, and you should pay attention - but i think nobody will be holding their breaths by now.

finally: bruce, i have to say i'm quite disappointed, even though i wasn't holding my breath: it seemed to me that you'd be able to get it, if you chose to. but you don't (not sure which), and your response to me is truly ridiculous. 1. when faced with a criticism you can't just "disagree," you have to explain how that criticism doesn't apply - and you haven't done that (i say those ads pander to the tradition that women have to get naked to count, their bodies have to be sexualized and objectified to appeal to people, and peta's choice to use women's bodies in pornographic ways to "send messages" about animal rights is not just sexist but misguided! that you just "disagree" doesn't mean anything), 2. i said that i wouldn't support a group that had meat eating as a campaign, either - my criticism of peta is not that its members are sexist or that they don't care about sexism or that peta's events have sexist aspects to them (not saying that shouldn't be done, just that it's not the issue here), but that you all are thinking up ad campaigns that promote and prop up sexism. i am not going to argue in the hypothetical example which is most cruel and should win out, hunting or factory farming, it's ridiculous; i didn't ask you to compare objectifying women and rape and which i'd prefer that peta did... "like hunting [or meat-eating] for feminism" was a simile to illustrate the fact that some campaigns are harmful and pointless and self-defeating - which you're rejecting because peta's ads are not sexist anyway, right? so let's stop talking about it, as it doesn't matter and we won't get to a real discussion of the issue at hand.

besides, i honestly don't know what events you're going to, but the majority of marches and actions i attend, other than a.r. related ones, don't "serve food"... and anyway many of the others do serve vegan food on principle. and if they don't - i try to make sure i speak up. right now i'm co-organizing a feminist event, and it will have a vegan baking workshop and exclusively vegan food; and i'd be very vocal if my group wanted to serve meat, LET ALONE have a campaign promoting meat.

but getting back to peta: you all have lots of money and lots of influence and will continue to be what the majority of people think of when they think "animal rights": just start "caring about animals," you don't have to care about anything else, not other social justice issues, not half the population... as long as peta is the number one "mover" on Yahoo's search engine everything's ok!

after seeing what some of the other peta-related discussions here are... the other "funny" thing is how peta couldn't be any more vehement and black-or-white about calling others on their b.s. but refuses to see their own and justifies their unethical practices with... statements. "we disagree." "we are a feminist organization." well, to all you peta staffers who seem to be on this site, calling yourself feminist when you're promoting misogyny and the exploitation of women is not only JUST like eating meat yet calling yourself an environmentalist*, it's more like eating meat yet calling yourself an a.r. person! and that's all aside from the points that ellie has made. what is peta really accomplishing? even on here? i've always wondered if peta realizes there are completely interconnected social justice issues in this world... or if they care about that, at all.  

--
* because though it's true that for the vast majority of "eco" people around veganism should be the first step towards reducing the ecological footstep, whether no one can be a "meat-eating environmentalist" actually depends on the definition of "environmentalist" as well as the context "one" is in: some people, in certain times and situations, have been known to use animals for food but (successfully) protect the environment first and foremost... the point, strictly environmentally speaking, is the ecological footstep one, right?

But I know PETA's women feminists better than I know Ruxandra and Ellie, so I'm going to lean toward agreeing with them. I'm also more convinced by their arguments, as noted above.

I agree that the generic PETA response didn't address your concerns, R, but my responses did. We don't think these adverts objectify. We do think people should be able to use their sex appeal for a cause. We don't agree that doing so is sexist.

And onto your other point: Every NOW fundraiser and dinner, every ACLU fundraiser and dinner, every progressive groups' fundraiser and dinner--they all serve the corpses of tortured animals, and they do it to promote their progressive cause. Actually, so do most of the big Earth Day events and a lot of the big peace rallies.

Anyway, I'm sorry we don't agree. We do hear what you're saying, but we disagree with your analysis.

That said, thank you for all you're doing to make the world a kinder place.

Sincerely,

Bruce

as for "onto my other point"... well, i don't go to now and aclu fundraisers or dinners. i did help out with fundraising dinners for a progressive group where i was on staff, for a couple of years; those dinners were all vegan. and i've been part of earth day celebrations where we, with the vegetarian society and the a.r. group, were the food providers. you're wrong, too - while way more progressives are meat eaters than should be the case, lots of grassroots progressive groups do not serve meat at their events. and i think you might agree with me (i expect you know enough feminists because of your mom, at least) that feminist groups are some of the most vegetarian environments outside veg* groups that you'll be able to find. lots and lots of the people doing hard work in vegetarian and animal rights groups are feminist women (and some men). (and as i said more than a few of us dislike peta's misogynistic campaigns and boycott you. which actually makes me wonder about all these feminist women in peta - where are they, what do they say, what are their views and are they really all the same?) anyway, i know i am not supporting, even slightly, any group that is advertising meat or promoting meat as a campaign. but this is all a tangent. i am not responsible for all the progressive groups in this universe and what their members eat, though part of what i do is to change things on that front - however, you are very responsible for your own organization and what it does! you and all the other feminist people in your organization should speak out about your own campaigns being sexist. i honestly do not believe you that you don't see them as sexist. which means i'm paying you a compliment. and that's about it from me.

http://moscowthroughbrowneyes.blogspot.com/2007/08/more-e ...

Not that environmentalists get much better treatment, either:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1648456,00. ...

Meanwhile, the two-part mammoth story presents no less than three different subjects, all fascinating:

1., the exploitation and commodification of Siberian Pleistocene fossils, with very possibly an adverse effect on our understanding the paleobiology of the region;

2., the impoverishment and decline of the Yukagir, along with many other Siberian peoples, whose culture and languages will soon be lost;

3., the degradation of Siberian permafrost, and the resulting release of methane as organic matter decays.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

They're target audience is NOT a bunch of men cruising the internet for porn. Chances are, not many of them are going to become vegetarians.

People aren't going to go vegetarian because of some celebrity. And as for why so many people think PETA is sexist, consider that this kind of thing is about the only thing they ever get in the news for. My fiance was a member at one point - and they didn't even have the decency to answer a letter she sent asking why they objectify women in their adds, yet they continue to send things asking for money. That to me shows how much they respect both women and their members.

As for asking Alicia Silverstone, her motives were not in question here, but I think it's fair to say that like PeTA, celebrities thrive on publicity too-- and I wouldn't expect either to admit it.

Justice for women is an afterthought, but if nudity is supposed to convey feminine freedom, as some posters contend, the ad is hardly a pace setter.

I'm still wondering why some people think it's ok in relation to non-human beings, when it would be unthinkable for other causes.    

I come at this as someone who has thought that every naked PETA campaign is idiotic, not because of sexism, but because they trivialize a serious topic.  I agree with you that a serious issue deserves a serious approach.

Yet, I like the Alicia Silverstone ad.  Mainly, I think the message is not about the cause, but about vegetarians.  Bruce F streaking through London = animal rights activists are morons (sorry Bruce).  Alicia's ad = vegetarians are sexy.  I think it had much to do with the execution and artfulness of the AS ad.

If someone goes vegan due to ethics, perfect.  If they adopt a vegan diet because they want to be sexy or want to emulate a celebrity, not as good, but as they can then accept animal rights arguments without changing their diet, it may open a door for ethical vegan outreach that might otherwise be closed.

I don't think you can compare this to a naked ad about Darfur, but if a beautiful Darfur refugee wanted to do an ad like the AS ad to, in which she says "I am a Darfur refugee," well, why not?  Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, two beautiful people routinely "objectified" for their looks, went to Darfur, with the idea that the cameras are always following them, so why not have the cameras follow them and their beautiful bodies and faces to Darfur to draw attention to the region.  Was that wrong?  Was that sexist?

well, so then don't compare it. sexism, with its relations to power differentials and historical and cultural traditions of opression, is something else than "admiration for looks" - this is why alicia silverstone emerging wet from a pool in slo mo and looking seductively into the camera while crawling around naked is different from, say, brad pitt and angelina jolie just walking around going about their business. and this is why i was joking that when i try to convince someone to go vegan i don't do the kinds of things those peta ads portray. nobody does! why? because why would we? - to ourselves we're people, not "others," not abstract "things" (whose only worth is sexual). it's that simple.

i will admit that this alicia silverstone ad is not the "worst" among the different peta ads that try to capitalize on female objectification, though, and i also agree completely that one dimension of all these kinds of tactics is the trivialization of issues (as i said, how is thinking some celebrity is sexy making anyone have more respect for all beings?), but by bringing it all back to "tastefulness" when the issue is not how racy but how sexist this stuff is, you're trivializing something yourself.

my own answer to ellie's question (which is actually about the trivialization of certain issues too) is that, obviously, some issues are very easy for most people to trivialize! misogyny is an example. and further... this may seem unrelated, but the discussion here has reminded me at several points of another "debate" that i used to have a lot: "why are racial-based mascots racists"? the whole "but we're honoring them, we don't intend it to be harmful or insulting" rhetoric in that case (because, of course, we always "honor" those we respect on the football field) is to me exactly the same as the "but these ads are good 'cause we, the people who came up with them, say so - and you're deluded to find them sexist!" ... anyway, i wonder what all these kinds of disagreements are really ultimately about? hm...

I agree it's possible they might consider ethics somewhere down the line, but when the attraction to such ads is self-centered, I think the chances are unlikely.  And if they ever do become advocates, I think self interest can be a problem, as I described above.

I also agree it's easier to make light of some causes, which is why advocacy for the least valued beings on this planet should not be trivialized.   If non-human animals are so insignificant as to require Hollywood glitter, what does that say about them?

And of course a plant food diet will not make you sexy either.

So what are all these disagreements really about? For me, I think if thousands of years of oppression are ever to be undone, animal advocacy has to be based on uncompromising respect for animals.    

The ad ends with a link to website cite, and while the website may not be perfect, it could lead people to veganism for the right reasons.  Meet Your Meat has converted plenty of people.

I also think the AS ad has some particular relevance in the context of vegetarianism that might not apply to other causes -- that you can be vegetarian and be healthy and vibrant (though not as healthy and vibrant as the people in the herpes commercials, but still. . . ).

Please distribute

Eco-Eating: Eating as if the Earth Matters
www.brook.com/veg


Eco-Eating: Eating as if the Earth Matters at www.brook.com/veg