PETA, Sex, & Whiners
Print This Post
Recently, I said this about some feminists’ reactions to PETA’s rejected Superbowl commercial for vegetarianism:
“When people (including YOU) start talking about vegetarianism and veganism without needing provocation from PETA’s sexy ads, then ‘it’s time to stop using sex to sell vegetables.’ Until then, kindly stop your whining.”
Honestly, so long as everyone was consenting and there’s no promotion of violence, I don’t see a huge problem. My main issue with ads like this sexy PETA one is that they reinforce mainstream beauty standards and they seem to put unrealistic appearance expectations on girls and women.
But… I simply can’t get behind any meat-eater’s criticism of PETA…. EVER. If you want to criticize PETA, GO VEGAN FIRST.
So it was funny when my husband found this Chris Hannah (from Propagandhi) quote where he basically feels the same way. He said this about PETA and their Sexy Vegetarian awards:
“remember whiners: if people could just smarten up and not treat animals like living garbage, Peta would go away and not bother you with their ‘frivolous’ campaigns while you stamp your feet and demand your right to be able to gorge yourself on a dead pig’s a–hole.”
So… my question is… should I start a punk band?
It’s hard for me to love any campaign that panders this much to the lowest common denominator. However, since that is what they’re advertising to, I suppose it makes sense.
~ Recent blog post: Fat and Lazy Pants ~
I don’t see how it’s OK to objectify women in order to show that objectification of animals is wrong. Feminism and veganism are linked, but apparently PETA doesn’t know or care. I think PETA gives AR activists a bad name.
I am a vegan because it makes sense to me. It’s the morally correct choice. If my only exposure to veganism was via PETA, I’d probably still be a meat eater.
I really dislike PETA and Ingrid is a misogynist.
I think American’s are way to prude. Anytime something has anything to do with sex people get all bent out of shape, especially if it involves women. It is apparently okay if a woman develops her body for sports (and thus reinforces mainstream athletic standards) and then allows the image of her body to be “objectified” on a Wheaties box, but if she does the same thing in a sexual way then people get all upset. I don’t get it.
It is the most oppressive societies in the world that tell women how they can and cannot dress and how they can and cannot express their sexuality. In Afganistan, a woman would be derided for showing her ankle. In America, the nudity standards are a little looser, but when people start criticizing a free woman for using her body as she chooses then they share a similar ideology as the Taliban in my opinion.
Men appear in sexually provocative PETA ads too: http://www.furisdead.com/page/rodmanthink-72.pdf
The sexually provocative ads that feature women are probably more successful than the ones that feature though, and thus they probably do more of them. You use what works.
America, get over it. There is nothing wrong with sex, sexuality, sexually explicit images or women or men using their bodies in a sexual way to promote compassion, love, or well… sex.
Warrior Two, how is it you figure that people who are attracted to sexuality are the lowest common denominator. Are you falling into the same mental trap as the rest of America and think that if it has to do with sex then it is dirty, shameful and immoral?
In this country we teach our children to think that making love is bad (hence the XXX ratings for some movies) and that violence is okay (hence the violent TV shows and even Saturday morning cartoons like Tom and Jerry). We teach children that sex and nudity is dirty and bad and to be ashamed of their own bodies. No wonder people in this country are so screwed up. We’ve all been sexually abused as children.
I wrote about this here:
http://elainevigneault.com/naked-women-are-not-a-problem.html
Specifically, I think in order to call the ad sexist, it requires a deeper analysis than the proclamation, “Naked women = sexist objectification.”
I’d begin by asking these questions:
1. Consent is a problematic concept: what does it mean to give consent in a sexist society?
2. How much influence do the actresses have over the final product given the influence of videographers, editors, publicists, etc?
3. Interpretation: Who defines the message? NBC, PETA, the viewers, the women, Francione, me?
4. What does “rejection” here really mean? Did NBC reject PETA or nipples? Did NBC reject women/ women’s bodies?
5. When nothing is actually for sale, what does commodification mean here?
6. Is the analogy between “eating up” a woman’s image and eating up a chicken’s body really fair? Presumably, the women consented and were not harmed. The chickens didn’t consent and were absolutely harmed.
7. What’s the role of irony and humor? Can the ad be seen as subversive, perhaps encouraging solo sex and female autonomy?
“But… I simply can’t get behind any meat-eater’s criticism of PETA…. EVER. If you want to criticize PETA, GO VEGAN FIRST.”
Lots of vegans are critical of–in fact, can’t stand–PETA, and I’m one of them. They give veganism a bad name with their incessant stupid publicity stunts. There are creative ways to get people’s attention without demeaning or turning off anyone.
It’s disingenuous and insulting, Matt, to claim that people’s objections to the ad have anything to do with being prudish or opposed to sexuality. As a matter of fact, I teach a college course in human sexuality; believe me, I have nothing against sex, nudity, etc. The problem with PETA is that this ad is part of a general pattern where they CONSTANTLY are using women’s BUT NOT MEN’S nude or semi-nude bodies to “sell” people on a vegan diet. The problem isn’t sexuality, it’s sexism.
A few things I think:
1. Meat-eaters have no grounds to criticize PETA for anything. If you have a beef with PETA, stop gorging yourselves on animal suffering and then we’ll talk.
2. PETA is wickedly good at raising awareness… and ultimately more awareness = more vegans. It’s no accident that so many people associate AR/veganism directly with PETA. It’s because, absent PETA, many of these people would never have heard of AR/veganism at all. Awareness is REALLY important.
3. PETA is pretty bad at some of the other stuff they do, especially some of their “welfarism.”
4. PETA runs some campaigns that are undeniably offensive/sexist. IMO, a short spot of women rubbing veggies on themselves is NOT one of them. That spot has important elements of satire and sex-positiveness that, at the very least, cloud the issue.
5. From veganprimate:
Yes, you’re probably right. But that’s my point. PETA doesn’t turn meat-eaters into vegans. PETA just executes on the first step of that process, which is to make meat-eaters aware of veganism. Other groups/websites/activists step in and turn the aware into the interested, the interested into the “flexitarians”, and then the “flexitarians” into vegans.
No one group can possibly work all by itself. The movement relies on its heterogeneity to be successful. And, at the moment at least, PETA plays a vital role in the process.
I agree with everything Plump said above. Everything. WOW.
I have one more thing to add:
Consider how NBC’s role in this. The ad was rejected by NBC because NBC deemed it “too sexually explicit.” That makes Matt’s point about our culture’s prudishness.
PETA knew the ad would get rejected. Through rejection they get just as much publicity but they don’t have to pay for it.
So… PETA is capitalizing on our society’s prudishness. You can call that sexist or you can call it savvy.
Jeff wrote: “The problem with PETA is that this ad is part of a general pattern where they CONSTANTLY are using women’s BUT NOT MEN’S nude or semi-nude bodies to “sell” people on a vegan diet.”
I agree that they use women’s bodies more than men’s, but it’s not accurate to say they never use men’s bodies. (see here for examples: http://nakedpeta.blogspot.com/ ) Part of the reason so many people think PETA only uses naked women is because women get all the press. And hence, it becomes a vicious circle where PETA chooses to use women because they’re get more press.
The sexism criticism lies just as much or more with “the media” as it does with PETA.
Eccentric Vegan wrote: “I agree that they use women’s bodies more than men’s, but it’s not accurate to say they never use men’s bodies. (see here for examples: http://nakedpeta.blogspot.com/”
Okay then, hardly ever. A look around this Web page as well as PETA’s own page certainly doesn’t do anything to challenge the view that they’re capitalizing on society’s sexism to try and sell veganism.
Eccentric Vegan, I love your post at: http://elainevigneault.com/naked-women-are-not-a-problem.html. I agree with you 100%.
Jeff, I didn’t mean to be insulting. I just don’t see the difference between ads that portray fit, athletic bodies to promote some idea or product and ads that portray fit, erotic bodies to do the same thing. The only difference is that one involves sex and nudity and the other involves sports. Sex and sports are both legitimate activities. I never hear anyone get upset about people’s bodies being used to sell things when it involves athletics. It’s only when human bodies are used in a way that involves sex or nudity that people get upset.
You object to the fact that PETA seems to feature more women than men in their sexually provocative ads. I think that has more to do with what does and does not work than sexism. I think men are more visually stimulated than women and the visual representation of sex and nudity are very attractive for men. I think that is not so much the case for women. I realize that may seem like an unsupported claim, but I think if you look into it you’ll find I am correct. Men purchase more pornography than women. Women purchase more romance novels than men. (No value judgments. Just observation.) Here is one bit of support for this claim: http://www.womens-homepage.com/guys-visually-stimulated.html
My point is, images of naked women work better, sell better, than images of naked men. If the reverse were true, I’m sure PETA would feature more naked men in its ads. PETA surely does enough marketing analysis to know which of its ads do better then others. Do you really think it matters to PETA, or it’s heterosexual female head honcho Ingrid Newkirk, whether it is female nudity, male nudity, or no nudity that works best? No, it doesn’t. PETA is going to use the ad technique that garners the most attention. Sexism has nothing to do with the decision making process except that I’m sure PETA realizes that the controversy these ads create will generate even greater publicity.
You say: “There are creative ways to get people’s attention without demeaning or turning off anyone.”
I think that is true, but I don’t think sex is demeaning, nor do I think it turns more people off than it turns on. I think the old-school feminist theorists who were fighting against sexual oppression of women may have overstated their case and now too many people are stuck in the same old rut that if it involves a naked woman’s body that it must be “objectification” or “exploitation.” The only people being exploited by PETA’s ads are the men (and women) who find them too attractive to resist. It is unfortunate that our society views interest in sex as immoral and shameful and women’s participation in sex and nudity as demeaning. I call it being prude.
If there were a better male/female balance in the ads/protests involving nudity & sexuality, I’d have no problem with them. The object should be to make a political point to as many people as possible. So, even aside from the sexism involved in using almost exclusively women’s bodies in that fashion, just from a practical standpoint, if you’re going to use sex appeal to make political points, why restrict your target audience to heterosexual men and gay women? It only makes sense to show both sexes about equally.
Go to the magazines at your local bookstore and visit the “Women’s Interest” section. Observe the covers and make note of the gender of the person on each cover. Then go to the “Men’s Interest” section and do the same. I think you’ll find women predominantly on all the covers (though somewhat less clothed on the men’s covers).
Women’s sexuality is used to market to both heterosexual men and to heterosexual women. Not defending it, but you’re off-base if you think these ads/images don’t market well to hetero women in our society.
Matt wrote: “I think that is true, but I don’t think sex is demeaning, nor do I think it turns more people off than it turns on.”
No one is calling sex demeaning. They’re calling imbalanced portrayals of hypersexual, idealized women demeaning.
Matt wrote: “I think the old-school feminist theorists who were fighting against sexual oppression of women may have overstated their case and now too many people are stuck in the same old rut that if it involves a naked woman’s body that it must be “objectification” or “exploitation.””
I suppose even one person thinking a naked body must be exploitation is too many in this case, but it’s probably worth mentioning that almost nobody believes this. I mean really, how many radical feminists are there? (Of the sort who hate sex and penises, that is, not the enlightened “sex positive” sort.) I’ll wager there are fewer of them than there are vegans!
Anyway, it’s not really naked women per se that’s the problem. The problem is overwhelmingly imbalanced gender representation, hypersexuality and artificiality. The message, ultimately, is that a woman’s worth is defined primarily by her appearance and femininity. These sorts of images are inextricably linked to, for instance, the fact that women make up only 14% of Congress.
I’m all for PETA using whatever measures to promote its cause, but to think the way it uses women isn’t exceedingly sexist is absurd.
Matt,
Take a look at the post “PETA: Please No Klansmen” in this blog (referenced at the bottom here) if you think that PETA folks have a good handle on what “sells” or generates more positive than negative attention.
And as important as animal rights are, that doesn’t justify an anything-goes approach where even techniques for promoting the cause that are harmful in other ways are okay. And make no mistake about it, a culture in which young, very thin, attractive women (typically not wearing very much, even in the women’s magazines) are ubiquitous in ads and on magazine covers but are rarely featured in such a way for other attributes such as their brains or athleticism, whereas that isn’t the way men are portrayed, is 1) very sexist and 2) harmful to women. Young women especially see these images and, if they don’t happen to look like that, often develop a poor self-image with respect to their appearance, and may develop eating disorders, get breast implants, or do various other things that are harmful to themselves because of their insecurity about their looks and the fact that society pushes looks as being what’s important so much. There are even studies that have found a significant correlation between how thin the average model in magazine covers and advertising was and how high the rate of eating disorders was at the time.
Do you really think it’s ethically acceptable and not a sign of extreme sexism that, for example, Sports Illustrated features far more skimpily clad women who often are not even athletes on the cover than it does female athletes? How is it any more acceptable for PETA to have the same sort of sex bias in its publicity?
For my part, Jeff, I take it to be permissible (and distinct from the content of, say, Sports Illustrated) because it’s a means to a just end and I take PETA’s brand of sexism to be wrong, but not immoral.
Jay said: “For my part, Jeff, I take it to be permissible (and distinct from the content of, say, Sports Illustrated) because it’s a means to a just end and I take PETA’s brand of sexism to be wrong, but not immoral.”
The end doesn’t justify the means though, Jay. Partaking in reinforcing a cultural norm in which women are portrayed as sex objects more than as whole people (many of whom, yes, are very attractive to look at) is not okay for any cause. We live in a society where young women can hardly walk down the street sometimes without getting whistled at, ogled, made obscene gestures at, etc., where “no” is taken as “yes” in sexual encounters by some men, where rape, sexual abuse, and domestic violence are common, where (even though the majority of women on magazine covers are thin but not anorexically so) the rate of eating disorders among young women is significantly higher than it was a few decades ago, and where, despite much progress, women are still discriminated against in employment and many other aspects of daily life. PETA needs to have better gender balance in campaigns that feature people’s nude or semi-nude bodies, and they need to more frequently feature women in ways that aren’t focused on what they look like. Anything else is indeed unethical.
For my part, as a young, female vegan, these ads were one of the reasons behind PETA losing my support. Even if I didn’t take issue with the idea of using so many hypersexualised images of women to ’sell’ veganism, I really think we ought to question the efficacy of these campaigns in actually getting our messages across.
Sure, it might be the choice of the women involved, and it might get attention, but when that attention is focused on women’s bodies (as Jeff pointed out) rather than our views, I think PETA misses the point. I personally can’t see many people being swayed into long term veganism, or even into just looking into it, on the basis of suggestive footage like PETA’s superbowl ad, when the animal suffering involved doesn’t even get a mention. The omnivores I know, at least, would be far more likely to scoff at the idea that vegetarians have better sex and tease vegans for promoting sex with vegetables than to question any of their beliefs as a result of this ad.
Consequently, I don’t see how investing so much into advertising a pretty shallow reason for vegetarianism, in this very controversial way, is at all warranted or effective, especially as the ethical reasons for veganism are so strong, motivate the majority of vegans anyway, and can be promoted without discrimination of any kind. I don’t think it’s ‘whining’ to suggest that PETA would be doing much more to further animal rights if they moved away from these superficial sexual ads that alienate so many people, whether we agree that it’s sexism or not.
Eccentric Vegan wrote: “I simply can’t get behind any meat-eater’s criticism of PETA…. EVER” but I really think that a valid criticism of PETA is relevant whoever points it out – attacking the speaker ad hominem or for hypocrisy does not defeat their argument. In fact, if omnivores have (reasonable) criticisms of PETA, these are things that the organisation should really be trying to address, as omnivores are ultimately their target audience. I think most people assume that PETA’s beliefs are synonymous with vegans’ beliefs, and so if PETA leave themselves open to criticism, it’s easy for people to equate that with a fault in veganism itself and dismiss it. This, I think, is where rogue vegan outreach comes in. =)
Alex, The reason I say that is because whenever you start listening to a nonvegan about their criticisms of PETA, it usually stems from their core belief that eating animals is acceptable, moral behavior. The nonvegans use valid criticisms in order to attack the essential vegan idea. The criticisms of PETA may be valid, but the nonvegans’ use of the criticisms are NOT.
Analogy: anorexics who use veganism to hide/mask their eating disorders. They are not honest when they talk about veganism and when you get into more serious discussions with them about it, you can tease out their true motivations, which are NOT for people, animals, and the planet.
Eccentric Vegan, thanks for the clarification! Though it’s probably a tangential issue, I was under the impression that you would dismiss every criticism of PETA from a meat-eater simply because they were not vegan themselves. I agree that the vast majority of objections to PETA I hear from non-vegans seem to start from the idea that discrediting the organisation discredits veganism itself, which I agree is terrible logic, and largely a waste of time. When people I know make that wonderful deductive leap, I generally listen, and then tell them that I actually don’t support PETA, I support VEGANISM, and then they’re stumped. =)
However, I meant more that I don’t see a conflict in people voicing, or agreeing with, valid criticisms of PETA’s tactics or actions, irrespective of the lifestyles of their proponents. Where arguments against PETA are stretched to damn veganism as a whole, there’s obviously a problem with the use of that argument, but if a non-vegan has a valid objection to PETA’s actions, I think we should admit that they have a point, though only in the context of the organisation and not veganism itself.
For example, I might (and do) hate more or less everything the Centre for Consumer Freedom stand for, and they’re certainly not vegans, but if their claim that PETA ‘euthanise’ adoptable animals is true, then it’s a valid criticism of the organisation, however sordid their motives might be, and should be addressed as such. It does not follow that veganism itself is bad, and ultimately, I’m not in the business of defending PETA, so I see no conflict in sharing common ground with omnivores insofar as they have valid arguments.
I’m really sorry if I’ve misrepresented your views, but it seemed like you were saying that otherwise valid criticisms can be rendered invalid by their use by nonvegans for dodgy motives, as in your analogy you dismiss the anorexic’s arguments simply because the motivation for them is not the right one. However, I don’t think this is necessarily the case.
The only analogy I can really think of at the moment (and it’s not a great one!) is talking to someone about veganism – my motives for veganism, and encouraging others to go vegan, are purely moral ones, but I might choose to talk to a non-vegan friend about the health benefits of veganism, because, though it means nothing to me, it’s an aspect that I think might get through to them. That I, like the anorexic, have my own separate moral motivations, which I would probably bring up in a more extensive discussion, doesn’t matter – if my arguments about the health benefits of veganism are valid, they are valid on their own merit whether they are honestly what motivate me or not.
Similarly I feel that (though I don’t know the particular articles you were responding to), if some feminists have taken issue with PETA’s portrayal of women in their ads, then veganism should not be a prerequisite for them to be able to complain about it and be taken seriously. They might be the most anti-PETA, anti-vegan, people ever (though I really doubt they are!) and hate the cause enough that they say these things just to ‘whine’ at PETA, but from the responses here, a lot of (presumably unbiased) vegans think they have a fair point. I might be being too optimistic, but I think the objections from the majority of feminists about these ads are rooted in genuine concern for the status of women in society rather than defensive attitudes about meat, and I have yet to see any arguments from feminists that have used criticisms of PETA’s tactics to try to deride the animal rights movement or veganism as a whole. I never meant to make such a big deal of this, and I might be wrong, so I’d be interested in seeing the original articles and what everyone else thinks, but I think it’s probably an unfair oversimplification to call people with principled objections to PETA’s ads ‘whiners’, vegan or not.
Also, I don’t think we’ll ever have enough vegan punk bands! John Feldmann and Goldfinger were actually what really pushed me to research vegan theory as a teenager. =)
Alex,
You should read more feminist’s blogs.
Here’s a line from one: “PETA has no issue privilging animals over women.” The criticism isn’t valid; it’s twisted. They say that and then chow down on a hamburger!
Non-vegans can’t properly understand a vegan mindset, an ethical system that values animals’ lives, because they devalue animals’ lives at every meal.
(Just an FYI, I identify as a feminist and have a BA in Women’s Studies. And in fact, this website, Vegan Soapbox, began when anti-vegan feminist bloggers told me to “get off my soapbox” and stop talking about veganism. I realized that I needed a real soapbox and thus, the site was born.)
I’ve written about PETA’s sexy ads over and over and over… frankly, I’m tired of it. The “PETA is sexist” criticisms are almost always terribly shallow and virtually always simply a cover-up for deeper issues with PETA or animal rights in general.
My points in the post above is this:
Don’t listen to anti-AR people’s criticisms of animal advocacy because…
a) The criticism is often not valid,
b) even when valid, it is often just a cover-up for anti-animal beliefs
c) when valid, the criticism will be made by pro-AR people
d) All of which above are trumped by the fact that if animal advocacy weren’t so desperately needed, PETA (et al.) wouldn’t even exist.