Ah, PETA… I see what you did there…

Objectifying women to promote animal rights.

I love how you are the saviors of poor innocent animals and yet you have no problem objectifying women, thereby instilling this notion that while animals deserve rights and respect, women, in your opinion, still do not. How stopping elephant abuse in the circus or animal abuse full stop requires nude women posed just-so to somehow push across the idea of “as nature intended” is problematic on several levels.

The first of which comes to mind is if concerned with ethics, is pushing your message with female nudity ethical?

How about furthering the objectification of women full stop?

Is it ethical to continue to push the media ideal of the female figure?

If it was really about how nature intended, how about you cease with the air brushing and stop promoting unhealthy bodily ideals and expectations for women worldwide?

Or HEY! I know! Lets discuss the ethics of sexualizing an abused woman, shall we?

Originally the PETA nudity ads were about boycotting fur.

I get that. I think it’s bullshit, but I get it. Explain to me how Olivia Munn wanting to speak out against Elephants being abused in the circus requires her to be naked in her PETA promo ad? What’s that you say? There is no good and valid reason? I didn’t THINK so… and yet?

How about this little doozey?

This one crosses the line. Jenna Jamieson is a porn star. Too much sex can be a bad thing as a tag line with a porn star? Hmmmm…. so the suggestion is sterilization? Do they not see the disturbing message this brings with it? Fucking is fine, just don’t let her breed. Wouldn’t want to spoil her fuckability now would we? Having a sex industry worker saying lots of sex is only bad because of the chance of conceiving is a really twisted message to be promoting and dehumanizes Ms. Jamieson by equating her to nothing more than a fuck kitty who you don’t want dropping litters and spoiling the fun.

Classy PETA. No really.

What does vegetarianism have to do with media ideals of air brushed naked women? And don’t even get me started on the whole chillis covering her vag. Why don’t they go for a scope shot of a happy clean colon? What? Not so appetizing? Good thing there is a gorgeous naked woman to appease the appetite then, hey?

Neat! If I go vegetarian, I get to…. look like her? Fuck her? Meet her? Just what exactly are we going for here?

I hope PETA takes an unequivocal stance against abortion… oh and ovulation. The stupidest thing about this ad is how grossly misleading it is. Hens lay eggs regardless if there is a Rooster around to fertilize it. They do not have an emotional attachment to a single egg they drop until they go broody on a clutch of eggs and attempt to hatch them. Maybe PETA should brush up on their chicken husbandry knowledge before using guilt tactics like this.

Oh hai, I see what you did there. You carved up a womans body for consumption to demonstrate how an animals body is carved up for consumption. The worrying thing is, womens bodies are carved up for consumption every fucking day across the world in tidy little packages (flat tummy, tits, ass, thighs, etc) to sell products and you not only do not have a problem with it, you use the same tactic. Fabulous.

Before I go ahead and say that this ad is a little more RELEVANT and to the fucking POINT when it comes to animal fur,

I’d like to point out the startling fact that of all the women who are featured in these ads, the only ones naked are white women. Apparently consumers don’t have quite the same hunger for dark meat as they do light meat, hey?

In summation I’d like to say Fuck You PETA. For objectifying women, putting animal rights above respecting women, for pushing unhealthy body ideals onto consumers and basically being a bullshit animal rights entity that claims the righteous high ground when it comes to rescuing animals but still manages to euthanize hundreds ever year. You’re hypocrites, liars and have no right to claim the ethical high ground in any way, shape or form. In fact you should be ashamed of yourselves.

PS. That fox would bring that wittle baby chick chick to a quick and violent end to make it his midnight snack. It’s called life.

Advertisements

8 Comments

  1. Christa said,

    April 28, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    had a chuckle when I read your PS. 🙂 But seriously…. those ads are horrendous!! The messages they send are blatant, and that first one is just disgusting. I like PETA as an organization anyway, but this totally proves they believe animal’s rights are of greater importance than humans.

  2. Snooty said,

    April 30, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    Holy shit! O_O I’m so relieved I don’t get out much. Because this? This would cause me to lose my goddamn mind. Sexist, racist bullshit. Period.

  3. May 27, 2010 at 8:51 am

    If only more people would read this.

  4. May 31, 2010 at 11:28 pm

    herwholeidealism.wordpress.com’s done it again. Amazing article.

  5. Norm said,

    June 1, 2010 at 2:00 pm

    1. PETA has been roaded into misogyny and advancing patriarchy, its recent ads are disgusting. Especially those that sexualise violence toward women.

    2. I do not think they are ‘putting animal rights above the rights of women’, as that – distressing as it is – would still be an effective strategy from their perspective. A more devastating criticism of their tactics would be that they are exploiting one type of animal – female human-animals – in an attempt to advance the rights of another – non-human animals. Such a strategy is fundamentally counter-productive when viewed from the animal rights perspective because the abuses of our society are fully integrated – domestication and patriarchy go hand in hand. By taking this strategy, they are advancing patriarchy, advancing domestication and the abuse of all animals – human and nonhuman. They have been roaded so as to become ineffectual and counter-productive within the contexts of the animal liberation movement. This would be a better criticism to levvy, as hardline animal rights activists might argue that nonhuman animals suffer more abuses under our current structures than any human and triage requires that activists focus on nonhuman abolition. It is difficult to counter such a claim, because it is difficult – and I would argue, a waste of time – to quantify suffering/abuse of the oppressed groups. I disagree, of course, think it more appropriate to challenge all of the structures simultaneously, because they feed into one another.

    3. The poster about the chicken and the egg was suggesting that the *broken egg* was the lucky one, because the live chicken will in all likelihood be abused for the rest of their life to produce meat and or eggs in a factory setting. You have unfortunately misinterpreted this poster – check the fine-print at the bottom.

    4. “That fox would bring that wittle baby chick chick to a quick and violent end to make it his midnight snack. It’s called life.”

    Just as PETA have been roaded into abuse and must be disbanded as a counter-revolutionary and abusive organisation, I suggest that you check your own speciesism. Whilst it is absoltuely correct that life can be violent and often involves death, I believe we all recognise the difference between abusive and non-abusive violence. The violence directed at nonhuman animals within civilisation, which occurs along along the hierarchical and dominating structure of domestication, is more similar to the violence directed at disempowered and abused humans than it is similar to the violence directed at prey by predators or predators by prey. In the sense that the violence directed at nonhumans within civilisation is part of much wider a campaign of domination and degradation, a social and cultural structure that has existed and perpetuated itself for thousands of years. This organised, enslaving violence is not like the predator-prey relationships that exist outside of civilisation’s influence.

    ‘That’s life’ does not apply so readily to a slaughterhouse or battery farm, as the tone of your PS seemed to indicate. It applies more readily to the hunting practised by non-civilised communities. Slaughterhouses and battery farms are part of the concrete abuse of domestication, justified through ideologies of carnism, speciesism and entitlement. They are artifacts of a fundamentally abusive and degrading civilisation, not a necessary fact of life.

    I hope you keep criticising PETA, but I think it’s important to be careful about the subtext of your criticism. Are you criticising PETA because it is contributing to the abuse of women under a patriarchal civilisation format, as you rightly should, or because they are protesting the abuse of animals under a domesticating civilisation format?

    • June 1, 2010 at 4:07 pm

      Whoa holy insightful, thoughtful comment batman ^_^

      Thanks for your post – it really did give me more points to think about, especially regarding the violence aspect of predator and prey/domestication.

      I criticize PETA for their contribution towards the abuse and degradation of women in their ads. I am fully against animal abuse and domination and especially and strongly against the current way we have utilized domestication and mass farming of animals for our absurd food consumption requirements. I am not, however, vegetarian and I do not think it is the only moral high ground as being a carnivore is a wholly natural state for humans to maintain as animals. How we go about procuring our meat is what I take extreme issue with.

      Last if you’re right about that chick/egg poster I totally got it wrong lol. I thought they were arguing from a vegan perspective. My bad ;c)

  6. Adam said,

    June 23, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    I understand where you’re coming from and I even read the entire article (something I rarely do). But something stood out to me. You said only white women are featured semi-nude, when this could be farther from the truth. Olivia Munn is on two of those ads, and she’s half Asian.

    • June 23, 2010 at 3:42 pm

      Hmmmm fair enough. Saying that, looking at her I had no idea she was half Asian – now that you’ve said it I can see it but she does, predominately, appear “white”.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: