The feminist in me is not too pleased with #1 and #5.  #1 sounds like fun and games, but it's really quite disturbing. Women probably shouldn't be having babies because of financial inventives from their governments. I read that the main reason why Russian women are having fewer babies is because they're not confident about the future. If I lived under Vladimir Putin I probably wouldn't be so excited about bringing another baby into the world either, so I sympathize with these Russian women.  Now they have their families pressuring them to have a baby so they can materially benefit.  Uhh. And besides, doesn't a kid's food, clothing, daycare, housing and college education needs cost more than an SUV?  

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

As a woman and a vegan, I am continually amazed and offended that PETA uses sexism to combat speciesism. Though exploiting women to underscore the exploitation of nonhuman animals may be richly ironic, its net effect is to set women back and disrespect us.
 

Marketing women as sex objects evokes the same mentality as marketing non-human animals for food, clothing, and other resources.  PeTA should know that.  Clotheless?  You mean Clueless.

Can someone who thinks this is sexist spell out how and why? How does this exploit Alicia Silverstone (or anyone)?

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.

Alicia is a confident, healthy, intelligent woman who is in good shape. This is empowering, not degrading.

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

It's sexist because it promotes the stereotypical role of women as sex objects.  

Call me a salty old dog, but I think the message should speak louder than the media presenting it.  The message I think that PETA is trying to convey is that one does not have to be a stick thin model to be a vegetarian.  One can be healthy and energetic and still be a vegetarian.  A common fear for people who are considering becoming vegetarians is that they will not be healthy or will lack some vital nutrients; or "it's not natural to not eat meat".

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).  

meat.org and goveg.com are peta sites, aren't they?

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.

PeTA can show vegans/vegetarians are healthy without marketing flesh.   That Silverstone may be intelligent and sincere, and that she's an adult who made a choice is all besides the point.

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.  

as i always say, "stripping for animal rights" is like "hunting for feminism." i mean, sure, with campaigns along those lines you may appeal to the macho, patriarchal mainstream - but how are you bringing about any real change at all? and what about the "collateral" harm you're doing? and why would such an idea occur to you in the first place?

Anyone can disagree, of course, but PETA's President, Executive VP, and Senior VP for communications are feminists (and female), and they disagree that using sex appeal to focus on a message is exploitative.

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).

ah, yes, the old song-and-dance about peta being run by women and thus automatically being "feminist," in spite of its sexist campaigns...

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.

... somehow i'm not surprised either that you're linking to a jimmy kimmel video or that you don't see how that "spoof" is supporting what those who criticize peta's approach are saying. (you really don't?? how much clearer can it be spelled out that the problem with what message people are getting from the peta ad has to do with what "naked body of a certain type" means in our culture... and how peta is exploting that?)

That's it, I'm sold.  Wolfy, I am penciling you in for PETA's next nude, slo-mo ad campaign.  ;-)

Yeah, I have to say that a man who can be stopped in his tracks merely by a naked female body is not a man to give up meat.  Might slow him down on his way to Hooters for those fricken' mind-blowing chicken wings, but can we really count that as a gain?  I think not.  

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

What a GREAT discussion.  And nobody has cussed or spit online!!  I can really see the con on this one, on the other hand, if it does get somebody to listen to a PETA message who wouldn't normally(and I'm quite sure these salient, salacious sallies do just that)perhaps they are doing more good than harm.  Frankly, I think more social justice organizations need to use more wit and humor to get the message out.

Wow; this ad really got some folks panties in a bunch.  It sorta harkens back to our country's Puritan roots.  An add like this in Europe wouldn't get a scribble in the tabloids.  Try lightening up; live and let live, I say.  Although, it is reassuring that some folks found some humor in this whole situation.

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!)

Thanks for explaining. Of course, the fact that a lot of people think something doesn't make it true; even people who agree on most things have big disagreements over the smaller things. It's an issue in every movement, of course.

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

I figured out why they call us Deniers.

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).

There are disagreements in every movement, but justice for non-humans cannot be everything to everyone.  Like human rights, animal rights are based on respect, not on regulating how or where animals are bred, raised, and killed. Groups that modify animal husbandry (including PeTA) are animal welfare groups.    

@bruce: a lot of a.r. people don't want veg*anism promoted? really? and what kind of a.r. people might these be? or what are they really saying? we're talking about principles and ethics, and you can make it sound as if criticism about peta's sexism is as ridiculous as a.r. not involving promoting veg*anism or as complicated as whether we should work on reforming factory farming at all... but my point was that it isn't, that in fact it's an obvious problem with an obvious solution, if you all are so "feminist!" that along with all kinds of feminists who aren't a.r. people, so many of us who are doing both feminist and a.r. work are criticizing peta for these ads, refusing to support a group that's so blatantly willing to discriminate, and peta has never acknowledged that.

"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.

something tells me wolfy didn't get greta's joke. :)

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.

Whoa, Geez!  More tight panties.  Some of the things that I see wrong with our "society" is the inability to take a joke; agree to disagree; find middle ground.  Face it: the extremists speak for the rest of the country - the 2/3 of folks in the middle either don't care or don't know or don't want to know.  So keep on grandstanding as though you are the only ones who really know what the deal is;  PETA made a nude ad, for shame, for shame.  Big deal.  Seems to me like a minor thing to get all worked up about in light of all the things going wrong in this world.  Chill out, you'll live longer.  As for me, I'll still be laughing.  

@bruce. i'm also not returning soon as i will be quite busy until wednesday, but perhaps you missed my point about "stripping for animal rights" being the same as "hunting for feminism." i totally agree with you about the problem of other progressive movements and groups not caring about the plight of non-human animals, i am very vocal and i do a lot about that as well... but i wouldn't support a group that mounted a campaign promoting hunting for feminism or for some other progressive non-a.r. cause, for instance. i think it's a little different with food... there's lots to say there... but anyway, i would never support a group that had meat-eating or any other type of animal abuse as a campaign of any kind. that would be my answer to your rhetorical question.

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).

the one thing i don't understand is that while you're drawing that comparison, which i think is quite valid, you're also saying that we disagree about those ads. and then my question is: so is there a problem with the ads, which peta is just brushing off like others do with a.r. issues, or is there no problem at all, as peta always insists?

Alicia's video reminds us, contrary to what the lingerie industry would have us believe, that the human body can be at its most beautiful when naked: for those who see only sexuality I think the old-fashioned but perfectly serviceable word is prude.

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

I should add that the case would be entirely spurious of course, as it would be not difficult to show a healthy and fit carnivore and a flabby obese vegetarian. But I can still enjoy that our side got the best tune in this instance.

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?

Totally nude hot female model holding an assault rifle -- say with the gun butt covering the Brazilian wax and barrel pointing upward. (Gotta make it look phallic, ya know.)

HEADLINE OPTIONS:

"Got feminine protection?"
"Feminine protection for those heavy days"

maybe a smaller, say Glock, gun could be used with the appropriate:

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

Hehe.

I've enjoyed this exchange- loved the antifeministbingo, thanks, Ruxandra- Bruce, your mother's art was wonderful and she was a lovely person, as was what you and your father wrote... Greta, you have a great sense of humor- your NRA ads reminded me of the anti-Victoria's Secret ones showing the sexy "angels" with chainsaws logging the old growth forests for their catalogs.  I don't know- our culture is so damaged... I think being nude is great and healthy and love to see all types and ages without clothes.  I recently saw an art piece with a photo of "Mary age 91" without clothes and just loved her spirit shining through (the photographer was taking photos and quotes from women all ages and cultures).  Will we ever live in an age where it all is seen as beautiful?  For both men and women?  All ages?  In the sixties I remember my first mother-in-law (later to be a MS Woman of the Year) very seriously asking me "Are you one of those aggressive ball-cutters?" about me being a feminist.  No way to answer that one... I have no point or side to take here, clearly, unless it's Can't We All Just Take Our Clothes Off And Be Feminists?  Love, Karen  

Ruxandra 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?"

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.  

PETA has the support of lots of beautiful, famous (and not-so-famous!) veg, compassionate women. Some of those women choose to speak out on behalf of animals and health and all of the other benefits of going veg using their bodies and sexuality - emphasis on "choose".

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?

Ruxanda,

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

Not necessarily, VegSwimer.  Women have found a way to be powerful in dresses that touched the floor.  That nudity is accepted, doesn't change the reaction all that much, either.  Often, and certainly in the case of PeTA's ad, a naked woman is still a sex object.  

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.  

wait, did i say that in order to convince people around me to stop eating meat i usually take my clothes off in slo-mo? actually, i crawl naked with a seductive smile on my face... aka "exercise." aka fighting the good fight, liberated woman-style.

and for my final 2 cents:

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?

I'm not keen on disagreeing with feminists about something, especially since I'm male and try to give female feminists the benefit of the doubt on what is and isn't objectifying and sexist.

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

yeah, thank you, but your responses haven't addressed my concerns at all either. i explained how they didn't. you've not discussed anything, for a host of reasons, of which one now seems to be that you  choose not to disagree with feminists and you want to give them the benefit of a doubt about what's sexist... except when you don't. you don't have to know me, it's not personal, it's about some issues. the only thing that came even close to addressing part of the criticism has been your stating "those ads DON'T objectify." but they DO - that's their whole premise, it's how they function... by repeating "not" you're being either deluded or dishonest, and insulting people's intellect if you expect them to see what you're doing and believe that you're NOT doing it. if you want, i'll define objectification. i'm sure i don't need to do that - but look at the specific criticisms: the "cuts of meat" image duplicates an old-school misogynistic one and works along with equating women with animals and demeaning both, the "fur trim" works along with shaming women about body hair, the "kindness is a class act" evokes underage porn, and so on and so forth... how is all of that NOT sexist? again, it's not about nudity, or someone's sex appeal, or their right to be sexy, or anything like that. it's about peta using female bodies, in ways that are conventionally exploitative, demeaning, meant to evoke or straight-out be misogynistic porn, for your own ends, which have nothing to do with women's sexuality. and it's a criticism directed at peta, not these women.

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.

Well, sure, one may quibble about the taste, wisdom or effectiveness of any PETA ad campaign.  People have been doing that for years.  But in this case, why does Bruce Friedrich deserve blame for giving a positive interpretation to a decision freely made by Alicia Silverstone?  Or did I miss the part where it says that the PETA people had put a gun to her head?  She is intelligent, she is articulate; so, ask her herself how she may or may not relate the cause of justice for women with the cause of justice for animals.

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.

Seriously, they have no idea what to do with their time and money, or how to advocate what they're focussed on.

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.

I don't think anyone is blaming Bruce Friedrich for PeTA's ad, but since Bruce and other posters support it, the argument is with them.  

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.    

In response to Ellie's question,

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?

"I don't think you can compare this to a naked ad about Darfur..."

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 forgot the most pragmatic point, the problem with its direct message: the implication that just by going vegan you are going to lose weight and look amazing is b.s. - every person has their own experience with veganism, since "veganism" means "just" not using or consuming certain things - there's no prescription for what you will be consuming. the only thing you can say about veganism that's universally true and that should actually encourage people lots is that 1. it's not that hard to do and 2. you can fit veganism into pretty much any lifestyle you want... simply put, the majority of people don't need animal products. but as a vegan you can be unhealthy, you can gain weight (which is ok, by the way)... and you can be utterly unsexy. and that's my psa. :D

ok, not if your lifestyle of choice is as a matador or something. but many lifestyles, anyway.

Thanks for your answers, Paul and Ruxandra.  Yes, I think some people might opt for veganism if it's seen as the "in" thing, but the problem with fads is they don't last long.  If young people (and this ad is directed at young people) want to emulate movie stars, when the novelty of one wears off, they can just as easily follow another who happens to like hamburgers.  

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.    

You are right that adopting a vegan diet for frivolous reasons is not likely to last.  Then again, I've known plenty of people who went vegan for apparently the right reasons, then stopped, though it must be less common.

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. . . ).

If PeTA's wants to display health and vibrance, there's no need for nude celebrities.  PeTA is obviously selling sexuality, but it seems we'll just have to disagree.

If a viewer is interested in more than sexuality, they can download the link you mentioned, though I don't see it on the printed version, and I wouldn't be surprised if many viewers don't bother to check it out if they can.  

Still, I think it's worth considering the right reasons for adopting a vegan diet.  From what I've seen, it's people who go vegan because of the conditions on factory farms, who are most likely to resume eating animal products when they can buy the "free-range" or "certified humane" labels.  

This is an animal welfare approach which fails to address the animal's interest in not being exploited to begin with.  Once visible cruelty is removed, these people can't imagine animals have an interest in not being farmed.  

In fairness, I couldn't download the sound on the Meet Your Meat video as my speakers aren't working, but it does appear to take this approach.

just to make sure it's not unclear, my criticism doesn't mean i don't recognize that peta has done and could do lots of good work (i was once, long ago, the "peta college advocate" liaison for my student group but decided to stop supporting them, together with the rest of our group, after we got a response very much like the ones here, on exactly the same topic: we wrote a letter and peta wrote back completely dismissing our concerns and discomfort with its sexist and otherwise UNethical campaigns) - but they also do lots of things that make many people stay away from the a.r. cause or other a.r. activists away from peta, and in the end, coming from such a prominent, big-budget group it's detrimental to the movement and the cause on several levels. i could say i have hope, and i'd love it to be otherwise someday, but peta obviously chooses to do these things consciously, as a matter of "principle", and in spite of any criticism.

Maybe 5-10 years ago, now they are run by a former humane society officer and have become a humane society for farm animals.  I challenge you to find a single item on their website that isn't focused on  cruelty rather than use.

Well I really hate to defend PETA, I normally oppose their approach, and I agree they currently do as much to turn people off of animal rights as they do to bring people in.

I guess I just didn't see the AS ad as being all that bad.  Certainly nothing approaching their other naked stunts, their murdering of innocent cats and dogs, or their "economic reasons for Controlled Atmosphere Killing" factsheet.  Nudity in and of itself doesn't bother me.  I think nudity, when done artfully, is better, less silly, and less "objectifying," than things like lettuce bikinis.

Even if you disagree with me about the ad, you ought to have no trouble finding 100 things about PETA to complain about before getting to the AS ad.

i was not aware of a drastic overhaul in their leadership, but their campaigns and actions don't seem that different. well, for instance, on the site they have a lot of material on veganism (i'd call that "against use") and extensive stuff on "the free range myth" (this is one of their campaigns i remember from a while ago, when they were one of the few groups with info on the issue... and totally anti-use)! but, also, in my opinion we have to focus on cruelty to a large extent, that's much of the work that needs to be done and ideologically the fact that you condemn cruelty doesn't mean you're just for better conditions. i mean it can, of course, but... hm... is cruelty not the thing to focus on anymore?! news to me. oh, yeah, i'd actually disagree with ellie (though i do know what specific thing you're addressing, ellie) about saying that people who go vegan because of factory farm conditions are the least likely to stay vegan! why? to me, if it's for an ethical reason and for maximizing compassion and for animal rights, it has the potential to be a genuine, non-faddish, life-long thing - a stance against cruelty AND against use!

anyway. ok, i'm not that acquainted with the behind-the-scenes of cok these days, so they may not be as awesome as they used to. but i'm still recommending their site from what i can see.

"I guess I just didn't see the AS ad as being all that bad.  Certainly nothing approaching their other naked stunts, their murdering of innocent cats and dogs, or their "economic reasons for Controlled Atmosphere Killing" factsheet.  Nudity in and of itself doesn't bother me.  I think nudity, when done artfully, is better, less silly, and less "objectifying," than things like lettuce bikinis."

yup. agreed 100%. there are 100 things to complain about peta before getting to the a.s. ad. and personally i have - you just happened to see this particular complaint (however, as i explained i don't think the a.s. ad is either effective or sexism-free, because no matter how artful and set to "spiritual" music the video is, a.s. is crawling, shot from above, throwing coy looks over her shoulder etc. - so it's still got that signature "porn" style that peta usually goes for; it's reminiscent of the other naked campaigns. and the print ad is just... one slightly better one in a long boring sex-sells-so-let's-use-it-to-sell-veganism line).

ps: wait, what factsheet?

I think a group that implies it can be compassionte to kill animals for food or other  convenience is not an animal rights group.   If Compassion Over Killing exposes the free-range myth, great!  Just wish they'd change their name, because it's an oxymoron from the animal rights perspective.  Just like "humane slaughter".

The problem is the multi-million dollar groups which are making deals with even richer corporations, that turn animal advocates into animal husbandry activists.  That includes PeTA.  

If these groups were honest, I think they'd admit "humane" regulations don't work, can't work,  and they also give tacit approval to animal use.

From an animal rights perspective, it's not a question of cruelty, but the animal's interest in not being exploited.  To compare that to women's rights-- you can't rape a woman nicely.

And no offense, Karen, but Steve Best, for all his education, and misguided support of the ALF doesn't seem to understand that.

Way to go, Gristers!!

U.S. citizens are merrily burning up gas in their SUVs while thousands of their soldiers die for oil in Iraq, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die for, um, nothing.  The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights is being eviscerated by a frat-boy President who displays little intellectual understanding and even less curiosity about the world.  The global warming issue demands immediate attention while all of Washington fiddles.

And what is that topic that, by far, appears to have most outraged the sensitive souls on this site?  Why, the nude PETA models that 'objectify' women!

Sigh.  Not exactly at the top of my list of topics meriting righteous outrage in 2007.  One would think we might better direct that outrage at, oh, say, impeaching the arrogant bastard who currently occupies the White House.  But heaven forbid that Alicia should allow herself to be objectified.  Barely makes it worth going on living, eh?

Ruxanda, sorry if I wasn't clear about this, but I think the least likely to stay with a plant based diet are faddists, those who go vegan because their friends did, or because they admire a celebrity who's vegan, at least temporarily.  

Avoiding cruelty to animals is ethical, but in the way it's usually understood, it's all about not causing animals pain.  So the focus is on only one part of an animal's experience, when there's so much more.  

When people see animals as commodities, which is how these campaigns require they be seen, then they can use animals if they believe they're treated humanely.  The "certified humane" label is making millions.

And I've read a number of articles by former vegetarians (even Molly Katzen who wrote the Moosewood Cookbook) who now eat meat and dairy products from "compassionate" farms.

...... if you can impeach him, go for it!  Caring about other living beings doesn't mean we care less about humans, the environment, the Iraq war, world hunger, the genocide in Darfur, and anything else worth caring about.

agreed.

Glad you agree, though I'm not sure about what :)

I'll try to compare your example of women's rights to explain what I mean.  Protection from abuse is part of these rights, but when a woman is threatened, we wouldn't leave her in that situation.  We wouldn't try to improve a marriage, for example, if she's being battered. To help her means getting her out of it.

That's an extreme example, but I think it's comparable to welfare (really animal husbandry) campaigns, in that animals remain farmed, or used in other ways.  

So if the goal is to free them, as we would free abused women; and given all the problems and hypocrisy of regulations, I don't see how such campaigns support that goal.   Some people think we can do both, and others think these campaigns harden animal use into law.  

I agree "humane slaughter" is a testament to speciesism.  About Compassion Over Killing, from what I remember reading years ago, they said they "hate killing", but if it's going to be done, it should be "humane".  I couldn't support it because I felt animals don't need better ways of getting killed.  They need not to be killed at all.  

But I see they support veganism, rather then killing.  Hooray!  So I guess the issue for me is whether they're still trying to modify animal use, as I'm one of those people who don't think it supports animal rights.

yes, i'd agreed about all the points in your previous comment and i realize what animal rights means. :) though perhaps it's useful to elaborate here.

as far as cok: to me it doesn't seem like they'd say that "at least killing should be humane" - they certainly don't say it on the website (that i've ever noticed), i've personally never seen a position like that from them and, on the contrary, i've always thought them to be strictly for animal rights, critical of "free range" and very vocal about that... but anyway. perhaps i'm wrong about them - if there's evidence that they're (no longer) against killing, i won't maintain they're awesome.

the only things i wasn't agreeing with you about, ellie, were the "people who go vegan because of factory farm conditions" comment and criticism of using the terms "cruelty" and "compassion" as if they're somehow not appropriate for animal rights discourse (just because they are also used by people who are not against all use). i just don't think it's those terms/concepts that determine the problem. rather, it's more what "cruelty" and "compassion" encompass and what they don't. ok, getting into semantics...

i DO know where you're coming from though! it's pretty interesting actually - just recently i had a discussion with someone who was saying that we should all watch stuff like "meet your meat" as much as possible because we owe it to the animals to witness their suffering and be aware of all the extremes of cruelty perpetrated against them in order to advocate for them, and my position was that i've never been able to watch that video in its entirety even though i've shown it to other people and sat in front of it multiple times, but that i feel like i don't need to force myself to watch it, as i've seen way too many images along the same lines before and it's enough, and what's more i'm totally uncomfortable with the idea that only because of extreme cruelty should we advocate for the rights of animals! and then i gave the example of sexual assault, and how i'm an anti-violence activist but i don't feel like i need to watch videos of assaults to know that they're wrong, that any abuse is a violation of women's basic rights and therefore wrong. my final point was that if we, as activists, suggest in any way that the only reason one should care about animals' fates is because they're victims of extreme cruelty, then are we advocating for rights or just against the cruelty, when all's said and done? which, ellie, is i believe exactly your point here. (though while i'm at it i do want to say that i know "meet your meat" has helped turn a lot of people vegetarian at least, and i do think videos like it are useful to a certain extent as activist tools.)

i think i may be done commenting peta ads right now.

"if there's evidence that they're (no longer) against killing" should read "if there's evidence that they're not (any longer) against killing"!

Yes indeed, Ruxandra, I feel strongly that animal rights is not about extreme cruelty.  As horrible as it is, focus on the worst treatment of animals is almost always about modifying animal husbandry.

It's not about animal rights because it doesn't challenge the use of animals.  And when it singles out one perpetrator, I think people like to believe animals are treated better by others, which is probably not true.  

The undercover investigation of Tyson farms comes to mind. Plenty of people were shocked by the cruelty, but that didn't stop most of them from eating chicken.  If they cared, they bought a different brand, but who's to say that brand is not just as bad, or worse?  

I've even thought, well, maybe at least it puts animal industries on alert, but if they're worried about undercover investigations, I bet they'd be extra careful about who they hire.  Anyway, it's impossible to monitor how billions of animals are farmed and killed. That's why I think regulations and investigations can't work, even from the animal welfare perspective.

Also, I think you're right about terms like "cruelty" and "compassion"-- what they encompass is more important.  True compassion toward animals would not be considered cruelty to humans in their place.   But if it's the usual "compassion" of speciesism, then I think we wind up just promoting lesser degrees of cruelty.  

In fairness, what I remember about Compassion Over Killing goes back at least 4 years, so I might be wrong.  The important thing is I don't see anything that suggests they support "compassionate killing" now.  

Are you familiar with the Asilomar Accords?  To their credit, Compassion Over Killing is not a signatory.  

If animal welfare improvements lead to animal liberation, why has more than a century of this activism only led to more efficient and profitable ways of commodifying and killing animals?  Why is meat consumption increasing?  

The reasons to me are obvious.  Animal welfare requires non-human beings be seen as products, and this is precisely why groups like PeTA and HSUS can make deals with animal enterprise.  It also allows conscientious consumers guilt-free meals.

Let's also be honest about activism.  PeTA and HSUS have never promoted welfare improvements as "less vile".  If they did, they wouldn't encourage most activists to support their campaigns.  And both PeTA and HSUS promote so-called "humane euthanasia", which is wrong on both counts.  They may not call every regulation "humane", but they promote them as if animals will somehow enjoy their lives if these measures are in place-- and as if reformed farming is not cruel.  

Will gassing chickens be so much better?  Will their legs break when they are crammed into a truck and into the gas chamber?  Will veal calves live in a room like "free-range" chickens, where they can still barely turn around?  Can small family farms supply a nation of meat eaters?  

In my view, it's very unrealistic to think millions of animal consumers can be supplied without mass production.

So I don't think these are substantial gains by any means, and that's to say nothing of the impossibility of enforcing them.  

You say opposition to animal welfare is based on purity of vision.  I think it's based on realizing how little these measures improve animal lives, and that animal rights requires they cease to be seen as products.

The paternalistic movement which advocated better treatment for human slaves is not regarded highly these days.  Was it a stepping stone to abolition?  I doubt it because paternalists believed Africans were suited to slavery, just as most people believe animals are suited to being exploited.  

However it came about, abolition had to reject this paternalism in order to end human slavery.  Better treatment of slaves did not bring freedom.

Unlike advocacy for human prisoners, animals rights challenges the foundation of dominion, as the abolition of human slavery did.  The only way to liberate non-human animals is to support their right to be free of human dominion.

As you've clarified it, I agree with you.   The idea is not to turn our backs on cruelty.  Even in my very average life, I've had to intervene against violence and cruelty on behalf of humans and non-humans, more than I care to remember.  

What you're saying about helping women in these situations is, I think, similar to rescuing animals.  When it's honest and gives priority to animals, I support it 100%.    

As you said, it's very different from activism which promotes alternative abuse as "compassionate", and which collaborates with abusers.  

I can't even count the number of people I've met, on and off-line, who are proud of eating "free-range" meat and dairy.  I mean they actually believe they're doing animals a favor by eating them!  This can only come from the activism you and I oppose, where activists become advertisers for the meat industry.

And I think the misogyny and anti-vegetarian messages re: PeTA's ad are very sad.  Selling sexuality is no way to promote the vegan ethic, but I was naively unprepared for the hostility that goes with it.  

I still don't get it. How can we apply the label of  misogyny to Silverstone's unpaid, voluntary participation in this campaign in which she expresses her own deeply-held convictions supporting a cause she believes in? Wouldn't misogyny be more present in seeking to prevent a woman from such independent self-expression?

If she were poor, ill-educated and vulnerable, taking her clothes off for money to make rent and feed her kids, which of course she's not, I'd be concerned about the very real potential for exploitation. But misogyny? For sure there's plenty of misogyny in the world, and it doesn't need a PETA commercial to bring it out. But where exactly is it in this ad?

you know, it's your responsibility to understand. but i have already answered you explicitly. and you can check the reactions i linked to in the last 2 comments to see the misogynistic implications of the ad at work. AGAIN, what does it even mean to say that someone crawling around naked is them "expressing their deeply held convictions"? think about that for a second. do you crawl around naked to express yourself and to appeal to people? the only reason you're making such a point is because our patriarchal culture says women's primary role is to provide sexual titillation and be a "female body" first and a person second. in precisely the same way as it says that non-human animals' primary role is to serve people's interests. you should be able to see the parallel, and so should peta. and AGAIN what's misogynist about the ad is objectifying and othering this woman's body to sell some message... AGAIN, the criticism is not about a.s. choosing to pose for the ad, but peta's choice of campaign.

further, since you're asking: and what, in your opinion, constitutes all this "misogyny in this world"? because from your "poor, ill-educated and vulnerable" comment it seems you think only a certain kind of woman is affected, somehow, by "misogyny" and that the exploitation problem is not the social and cultural environment which glorifies and normalizes exploitation in this particular way - of which every ad and image that promotes female-bodies-as-objects is part of - but just some women's victim status. what is your point? (other than that you think a.s. did this of her own free will - which is pretty independent of whether the ad works on sexist principles or not.)

I understand misogyny as hatred of women. I read your links and the misogyny was well-evident in the comments. I was not surprised to find it there - any female public figure will be able to tell you that they have been exposed to such misogyny whatever their age and physical condition and whatever they wear or don't wear. I can still find no misogyny in the ad, in Silverstone's participation in it, or PETA's deployment of it.

Exploitation is a separate matter. I understand exploitation as taking advantage of vulnerability, and I have no disagreement with your thought that exploitation is not limited to that particular group I mentioned. I would also agree, if that was your point, that all women, indeed all people, are affected by exploitation (and misogyny) whether or not they are directly exposed to it. I have recently expressed concern elsewhere in Grist about the exploitation of child actors. I suppose it is possible that Silverstone has some vulnerability outside of the categories I described which has allowed her to be exploited by PETA for this ad, but I have heard no evidence of it, nor for any other participant in the campaign. I would concur that the susceptibility of many men to being unduly affected by the sight of a naked female body is probably being exploited. Somehow this does not trouble me unduly. That susceptibility is unlikely to vanish until we evolve into a less puritan culture in which nakedness is commonplace and unremarkable. In the meantime such susceptibility in men will continue to be under relentless attack for other far less worthy causes, in which the actors and other participants are undoubtedly being objectified - Victoria's Secret commercials come to mind. The women in those commercials are apparently very well paid to promote messages which are not their own but are fed to them by their employers - self-expression is certainly not paramount in these ads. Whether this amounts to exploitation I do not presume to judge.

the only context in which this ad would not work entirely on sexist principles would be if the content of its message had anything to do with a.s.'s body being naked and sexualized. but as a veg* campaign it doesn't - someone argued that the point is about her being veg* and (yet?) looking good, but even in that case there's no valid reason for the porn style. let's be honest and pragmatic: the ad is selling sex and titillation, supposedly "for vegetarianism." the only reason this is even conceivable is because we live in a patriarchal society that has this kind of use for female bodies. and peta is trying to capitalize on that. (and not even succeeding.) period.

my previous comment wasn't in response to your last, we posted at the same time, and i was just repeating another earlier point which is the bottom line of this debate for me. but it might've been a response, too - because your latest point, as far as i can tell, is that this ad is not so bad because it tries to take advantage of "men's susceptibility to naked women's bodies" for a noble cause and is therefore "not objectifying" like, say, a victoria's secret ad(??). actually, i would say this ad is at least as bad as victoria's secret ads and definitely MORE objectifying - at least victoria's secret is using lingerie-clad bodies to sell lingerie! it's more honest.  but let's not get into all that now.

for the last time (really) - the sexism criticism has nothing to do with nakedness or puritanism and everything to do with systemic oppression of women which is not just a certain kind of hatred but a whole culture built on treating women as "other," of which relegating them to the sex class and to providing sexual titillation is only a small part, although one of the most common and mainstream ones. what you call here "men's susceptibility" is another v. related part.

btw, how those people are reacting to this ad is a direct result of both the fact that there's general misogyny out there and the fact that this ad is attempting to bank on that misogyny. the only thing we agree about 100% is that, indeed, no matter what a woman does or doesn't do she will encounter misogyny anyway - which is actually where peta's going wrong with these ads even aside from the ethical issue involved in their using sex to sell vegetarianism: selling female sexuality will not get people to respect either the women involved nor any other being. and that's my initial point from many comments ago.

i hate that people don't get it unless you compare the misogyny with some other wrong that they can understand (which reminds me again of the "racist mascots" debates: people wouldn't get how making a native american chief into a sports mascot was dehumanizing until you asked them to imagine the same being done to a religious figure they cared about), but here's my last attempt to explain this:

imagine peta coming up with a campaign that showed some macho guy cutting down a whole bunch of trees and saying "i've never been so healthy and strong as since i turned vegetarian - it's amazing!"... and tell me you wouldn't care. and that you wouldn't criticize peta's choice to promote vegetarianism at the expense of cutting down trees and ultimately urging the public to disregard that harm. now imagine peta did this all the time, in different ways - and in response to criticism called itself an environmental organization... and imagine having to explain AT ALL why the tactic is wrong and misguided and unethical.

ruxandra:
The issue with the hypothetical lumberjack ad would be that the ethics of tree-cutting is a well-known environmental hot button, so such an ad would have a problematic appeal to environmentalists. I totally get that.

I understand you feel that the abuse of female nudity and the objectification of women common in advertising and showbiz should be as much concern to environmentalists as tree-cutting. I get that too, and even agree with it in an everything-is-connected-to-everything-else kind of way. But I still have a hard time seeing this ad as an example of that institutionalized sexism. It portrays Silverstone as author and subject - not object - of her own statement, including the nudity. Unless you define misogyny so loosely as to be virtually meaningless, I just think it's the wrong critique.

i explained the "definition of misogyny" part as well, over and over again already. i thought perhaps your difficulty was with seeing the bigger picture of what this ad does (thus the irrelevant "messages which are not their own" comment). but i notice that you are just completely ignoring the points about how a.s. is really portrayed here, how she's "othered," how her being naked and coy and titillating is irrelevant to what she's promoting, how this ad is part of a whole tradition of peta campaigns that objectify women and why peta is choosing this particular tactic over others, and you're just not responding to any of that so that you can keep saying you don't get it. well, i have better things to do than try to explain to you why you should see the obvious use of a naked woman's body as "bait" to promote a cause as sexism. you either care or you don't.

it wouldn't matter if the lumberjack in that hypothetical ad felt what he was saying from the bottom of his heart, if he was donating his time, if he seemed "empowered" or not - the trees would be cut, the message that harming the environment is no big deal would remain, and the campaign would still be wrong because it would still be a ridiculous, harmful and counter-productive way to go about promoting vegetarianism or respect for animals. and the organization would still be to blame for it.

+ that lots of people wouldn't care about trees getting cut would not change any of that.

Coy and titillating however is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not ignoring your points, I am simply disagreeing with them.

you don't "disagree," then, you see differently. so does peta. and i guess it's quite debatable which of these 2 ways of seeing happens to be patriarchy-friendly - a quality which may or may not be a sure way towards improving the lives of those the patriarchal order of things is either dedicated to protecting the most or not protecting at all... like women, animals and nature. but sometimes it's just so hard to tell.

actually, it bothers me much more that vegan outreach is on that list - as i actively support v.o.! i certainly wasn't aware they were one of the supporters of this whole foods initiative. i think i only saw a short version of that list at one point... but whole foods is bad news on a number of different fronts, including labor and business practices - i would've never thought that v.o. would extend official support to them even "just" on those ethical grounds! i mean, i'm pretty sure i've seen v.o. newsletters criticizing w.f. in all kinds of ways. and, besides, it's well-known that the w.f. ceo is someone who likes to call himself vegan to score "sympathy points" with a target customer base, even though he's not actually vegan... it's just indicative of so much about that company and what they do! argh. :( i'll be writing to vegan outreach v. soon.