Denise said:

It's outrageous. I think they're actually copying an awful T-shirt I once saw on some website, which had a naked woman labelled as meat joint body parts. Exactly like this. Some women had complained about it and been labelled humourless feminazis (surprise surprise).

Yes, I too am much more worried about the oppression and abuse of women rather than animals, especially when I see crap like this. Sometimes I think animals have more rights!

Posted on 01 March 2008 at 3:31 PM

Virago said:

As a vegan I find PETA's campaigns tiresome, offensive and irritating. They're using exploitative images of women to try and get attention, and while they're successful it's not positive attention, it's unlikely to change anyone's mind and ultimately adds to the thousands of images of objectified women we see every day.

Why not use women (and men) in a thought provoking way by exploiting our obsession with celebrity to catch our eye - just as the 'Here's Your Fur Coat' campaign does - and use the shocking enough images of cruelty to animals without resorting to using naked women?

Veganism and feminism are very compatible - both are against the exploitation of living things for entirely abitrary reasons. It's a shame PETA decide to use such distasteful campaigns.

Posted on 01 March 2008 at 3:36 PM

Seph said:

I can't understand what the hell this campaign is attempting to acheive, without the writing they could be adverts for perfume or knickers or just about anything. It almost seems like they're trying the cliche advertisting technique of making guys go "oh look at the hot woman! maybe if I buy/do that i'll get to sleep with her!"

Posted on 02 March 2008 at 12:27 AM

Lara said:

Thanks for posting about this! I am so sick and tired of PETA, and the unfortunate thing is that while there are lots of vegans and vegetarians who still support PETA and criticize feminists for being "prude" or "not getting it" when it comes to these ads, PETA also gives the animal rights movement a VERY bad name.
That second image of the murdered nude woman in a bag just makes me shudder. Who are the freaking morons who run PETA?
Maybe their acronym should be changed to P atriarchal E xploiters of T its and A ss :P
Jackasses.

Posted on 02 March 2008 at 6:00 AM

Lucy said:

I think it is pretty obvious that these images are not about humanising animals and meat produce because the women used are sterotypically beautiful. They have specifically chosen women who are supposed to be sexually appealing to men and therefore the message is completely lost in the various cleveages, skinny bums and hollow thighs on display. Personally i find the woman packaged to be the most offensive because of the comments made by "Australia's most senior Muslim cleric" a few years ago saying women who didn't wear the hijab were "uncovered meat" and deserved trouble/sexual harrassment/attack.

Posted on 02 March 2008 at 9:43 PM

kelly g. said:

Denise, I can assure you that non-human animals don't have more rights than women; certainly not in the US or the UK, and probably not anywhere in the world. Their "property" status pretty much guarantees it:

This view categorizes animals as property; not as legal persons with rights, but as things that other legal persons exercise their rights in relation to. Current animal law therefore addresses the rights of the people who own animals, not the rights of the animals themselves. There are criminal laws against cruelty to animals; laws that regulate the keeping of animals in cities and on farms; laws regulating the transit of animals internationally, and governing quarantine and inspection provisions. These are designed to offer animals some protection from unnecessary physical harm and to regulate the use of animals as food, but they offer no civil rights to animals, who have a status similar to that of human slaves before abolition. American legal scholar Steven Wise writes in the Encyclopaedia Britannica that the failure to recognize individual rights makes animals "invisible to civil law." [Wiki]

Posted on 03 March 2008 at 11:16 PM

ah-Q said:

your photos are very moving
--interesting and thought provoking

Posted on 01 April 2008 at 5:30 PM

Natalie said:

Tbh it isn't just the oppression of women or violence to which they are subjected to in many a culture; what about children ffs? The people who work for these campaigns should be helping charities such as NSPCC rather than PETA. Animal cruelty is disgusting but I do not think it makes me a bad person if I have more love inside of me for humans; and consequently the welfare of them, especially children.

Posted on 21 April 2008 at 5:51 PM

Stacey said:

I absolutely LOVE hearing people support women and bring attention to the fact that we are exploited beyond belief! I support the cause PETA stands for, but naked women as advertisements of animal cruelty? Is our world is so pathetic that we need a naked woman to advertise something as unappealing as animal cruelty? What’s next, a sexy abortion?

Posted on 20 May 2008 at 4:37 AM

Justin said:

In my opinin PETA doesn't care about humans, they only care about animals. Its obviously wrong for humans to kill animals, but if a bear mauls a human its the humans fault. The food chain is part of life people will eat meat its out right. Somtimes i would like to see some PETA members mauled by bears to show them how the world works.

Posted on 19 June 2008 at 10:44 PM

Elizabeth said:

If PETA is trying to use the 'naked human body' formula get attention, or to make the audience think "how would we feel", or to shock us, WHY is it always a naked woman used? I'm sick of the fact that if ad companies have to use a naked/semi naked, sexualised body, it’s always female. Why is it never a male naked sexualised body? I'm so sick of the 'hot woman' formula being used to advertise everything from things obviously aimed at men (where you could almost understand why they are using that 'bait') to ads that are meant to be aimed at us women too. I strongly object to the default sexuality constantly being pandered to always being male, (like Seph said: it "almost seems like they're trying the cliche advertisting technique of making guys go "oh look at the hot woman! maybe if I buy/do that i'll get to sleep with her!". But this ad is meant to be aimed at both men and women surely? The issue of animal rights would have a large female audience. Imagine the outcry if the default sexuality used was female: ie using images of hot men, hot male body parts, young, tanned, male skin, bums, abs, biceps, beautiful males etc used in various ways to promote products/issues that are completely unrelated or are supposed to be used by both genders. Men would object I’m sure. There’s no thought for what it feels like to be a woman watching what feels like her own body constantly being the only subject of public scrutiny/titillation. Ad companies are just reinforcing the message that the female body is public property, that it’s right and completely normal for it to be so. Surely this belief leads to a thousand problems from the obsession for only beautiful female bodies to extremes of rape or murder. If advertising companies have to use nakedness/sexualisation why can’t they use men too? At least then the issue would be more one of the 'naked human body' rather than only womens' bodies being used. The constant use of only women in this role just reinforces the belief that it’s our role to be exposed, objectified and available and men's role to 'watch, desire, judge and take'.

Posted on 20 June 2008 at 12:46 AM

Glen said:

The standards of so-called beauty that exist in todays western society have done little more than minimize anyone who doesn't fit within the fashion of the day. I believe strongly in celebrating women's form, likely past the point that is accepted here, but it disgusts me that people are willing to be so despicable as to insult someone who doesn't look like a carefully posed, lit and airbrushed model.
While the degree of destructiveness that results from this situation may victimize women more, it also creates a self-image problem in males and amplifies insecurity created by their own body image issues and the 'macho' expectations required for modern western man.

Posted on 13 July 2008 at 1:50 PM

Laurel Dearing said:

i get that we are supposed to be more vulnerable or whatever, and that they are playing on the "piece of meat" thing but all they are doing is adding to it! showing women as victims and making the meat one obviously sexually appealing.

Posted on 13 July 2008 at 4:19 PM

Pete said:

I also dont like peta in general, not just for this use of female pictures. However I also find it quite offensive when you say say sexist remarks such as "how many women do you think are killed by male violence and oppression", this is a typical feminists view that a man always has to be responsible. You want men to stop opressing females? You won't get it if you fight it with more sexism in return.

Posted on 18 July 2008 at 11:05 AM

Sarah said:

I don't understand Pete's objection - how is it sexist to say that men are responsible for male violence?

Posted on 18 July 2008 at 11:50 AM

Pete said:

First of all, im in no way trying to draw attention to male power!? I was reading this after searching google for peta, and agree with many of the points, but didnt appreciat one remark.

I am in no way anti feminist, I just worry that feminists are too easy to persecute every male going sometimes and have the opinion a bloke is always trying to show off his power etc. as shown by your reply to me.

Also i didn't say "we’re going to get it even worse if we behave badly?". I just dont agree that you can fight years of sexism to females by turning it around and tarring every male with the same brush. I don't see how this will make progress.

Posted on 18 July 2008 at 12:09 PM

Pete said:

It's not that men creat male violence I was objecting. It is more that this post is about peta using distasteful images of women, and the remarks make it try and make men look bad. Im sure there are plenty of women behind these campaigns as well, but you forget to mention their hand in female opression.

Posted on 18 July 2008 at 12:19 PM

Michael said:

I firstly must say, congratulations with a strong blog, these are the blogs that make equality that more reachable. Now on the PETA-campaigns. I'm a vegan activist for a smaller group in Belgium and I heard about this article from my peers. The thing is people just love looking at a woman. When a passerby sees a commercial, there's always an element that attracts them. Choosing for woman (nude or not) is strategically a very good choice. This catches ones eye and then he'll see the message of animal welfare portrayed. And you are right when you say that the dead animal pictures do that much more but then again we'll have enraged parents whining about their children having nightmares. I once had a scouts-leader asking me to get rid of the posters we were using during a Meet Your Meat-campaign only because he thought it'd affend the children. I called to one of my fellow activists (which happened to be a female) for some support, because one against a whole scouts-team isn't something easy. And all of the sudden the guy's hormones went wild and he listened to everything she had to say. A lot of people can only be reached by a nice, friendly woman's face. Now, before you ladies start throwing the counterarguments. I do feel that PETA is overdoing it on the females. The "I'd rather go naked then wear fur"-campaign just wouldn't be as powerful without nudity of course, but like the woman that's being marked for certain meatparts, that is a bit over the top indeed. The campaign with the "Human Meat" did also contain wrapped up men. But as you se, it's the female that gets the attention. In the end, you should also have to think that it's those females themselves that say 'yes' to it. PETA is after all an organisation dedicated to the veg. and animal welfare goals. If they all of the sudden decide to use men only, would that be better? Or how about the use of foreign people, should the anti-racist fronts be outraged? That's a story that'll never end.

In short, I feel sympathy towards your goal and PETA should become more creative with the campaigns but after all I think it shouldn't become such a hatecampagin towards them.

Posted on 20 July 2008 at 10:30 AM

Anne Onne said:

People just love looking at a woman? I think you'll find that not everybody is strongly sexually attracted to women. Some of us are heterosexual women. Some of us are homosexual men. Some of us are neither, and don't have sexual urges.

Also, why would someone listen if their 'hormones' go 'wild'? Funnily, as a woman, I don't find that my
People resond well to a polite, smiling person of either gender. And I find your divorcing the nudity and therefore sexual element from this problematic. It's not that PETA are using well-spoken good-looking women to lure in supporters. They're using the degradation of naked women, likening them to animals. The cheap ploy that 'sex sells' is being used, rather than this mysical idea that everybody listens to women. The women aren't actually being allowed to put forward complicated, compelling reasons to care about animal welfare, they're just being told to get their tits out. And in a society where women are brought up to believe that it's integral to their gender to dress up or dress down for male attention, it's not surprising that some women agree to use their nudity for a campaign. It doesn't change the context, though.

Also, we're women, not 'females'. the women who pose for the campaigns are not 'females'. They are people, their choices are their own, and it does not mean the campaigns cannot be criticised because some women chose to take part in them. Feminists don't believe women are always right, or always make good choices; though we do believe choices should be respected, we reserve the right to criticise the situation.

Posted on 20 July 2008 at 2:22 PM

Laurel Dearing said:

On some forum, a guy in advertising said how 70% (or something significantly high) of advertising is aimed at men. I find this strange considering that they aren't such a huge amount of the population and that is an excuse to exploit. Also I'm not sure I buy that. There are many household items marketed at women as well as enhancing one's self. >.>

Then again, the pregnancy test looked like it was made for men -"the most sophisticated thing you will ever pee on"- but hey it was refreshing.

Off topic. sorry.

Posted on 20 July 2008 at 5:16 PM

Fireweed said:

My question is, how do those of us who recognize that the exploitation of women and animals is inextricably linked, get PETA to change, when their deliberately provocative ad campaigns that so clearly reinforce sexist stereotypes DO succeed in attracting media attention? Even if the women who seem willingly to participate in these particularly 'edgy' kinds of campaigns believe they are 'in control' of how their bodies are being exploited (unlike other animals), they are still reinforcing the 'patriarchal gaze' that objectifies both women AND animals.
This thread illustrates how PETA sets women up who don't appreciate their tactics to have to 'choose' between the interests of women and animals, when in fact, this is a false dichotomy. All oppressions are interconnected. “The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men.” (quote from Alice Walker)

Posted on 21 July 2008 at 8:32 AM

Sassine Salem said:

can anyone answer why is it that there are more campaigns and activists rallying for animal abuse than for human abuse ? and why Media focus more on such than on human life for instance ? who is trying to cover who's murders ?

Posted on 11 September 2008 at 12:35 PM

Nicola said:

Having entered PETA in a search engine, I noticed the fourth suggested page down with the TAG 'Fuck You PETA'. (Classy, and oh so articulate).

I initially thought it must be a website where carnivores and cavemen convene to talk down any charity that dares to advocate a vegan lifestyle and Animal Rights. I was pretty shocked to discover the actual nature of the website....

I feel I am letting myself down entering into a debate that is so ludicrously pointless, yet I feel this needs to be said.

Having read Law at University I do not consider myself to be a 'flaky, lentil-munching hippy' as is often the stereotypical image of a vegan. What I am however, is an individual with my own mind. As we all are. It is not for any of you to criticise people who support Animal Rights charities. Conversely, it is not for me to suggest plagarising paragraphs from feminist text, and criticising those who don't live with your remit of acceptability is far from a constructive use of time.
Having seen dogs caged for months only to be skinned alive, I can assure you that it is not a pathetic or un-noble cause to fight to eradicate animal abuse. Quite frankly if a women’s naked body generates interest in PETA and raises its profile - then I consider that a success.

BTW...Children in Need, Comic Relief, Live Aid, Red Nose day.....to name but a few of the national televised events that generate millions for 'humans' - can't actually recall an event of such magnitude for any animal charity

Posted on 25 September 2008 at 6:25 PM

kerensa said:

I understand your point that the campaigns with dead animals are more effective than the ones with naked women, but you keep referring to the fact that by using naked women in abused situations seemes to encourage that abuse towards women is ok, when this is ridiculous as it's suppose to be symbolic, showing that abuse towards ANIMALS is NOT ok.

You also say "55,000,000 animals killed a year for meat - how many women do you think are killed by male violence and opression PETA? and do you give a shit?"

so your basically saying fuck you peta because they're not supporting another cause? how stupid do you think thats sounds, seriously. Everyone knows that domestic violence towards women is wrong and yes it should be campaigned against, and that everyone should be made more aware, but your saying they should stop their campaign and focus more on this issue even though they're the People for the Ethical Treatment of ANIMALS. right....
and just because they campaiging for animal welfare in a controversial way it doesnt mean that they dont give a shit about welfare for people, thats just not what they're organisation's about though.

and by the way, the 2nd photo is not meant to be female orientated, just people in general as its suppose to be yet again symbolic that "if you wouldn't eat a person why eat an animal", so its not offensive towards women, not even about women which is what your're trying to make it out to be. and as for that asshole's comment saying "that's the kind of meat i do like to eat" thats just a joke, not a clever one but still a joke and no harm meant by it.

now that i've said that some postive feedback. I think your right in the fact that naked women shouldn't be used and that the campaigns such as the third picture you showed are much more effective.

Although the campaigns where the women are naked but parts covered are suppose to show that you can be glamourous without a fur coat, and that they'd rather "bare skin then wear skin". it's also NOT saying that you have to look like that and it's NOT just trying to attract men to their campaign, it's trying to be clever and symbolic.

Posted on 31 October 2008 at 12:03 AM

Sabre said:

@ Nicola

re. your comment 'It is not for any of you to criticise people who support Animal Rights charities.'
That isn't who is being criticised here. I think it was clear from the post that it wasn't animal rights, or supporters who were being criticised, but PETA's advertising campaign with its seemingly chronic UN-ethical treatment of women.

re. your comment 'Quite frankly if a women’s naked body generates interest in PETA and raises its profile - then I consider that a success.'
When it comes to drawing attention to animal rights, the end does not always justify the means. If you are promoting the wellbeing of one type of living creature it should not come at the expense or degradation of another. The social impacts of these types of images in our media is obvious to most of us; associating women with animals, or women in cages, women as meat... think about it. To try and erase one type of suffering by saying a big 'fuck-you' to women is wrong, wrong, wrong. To illustrate, how would we feel if images of children were used in this way? Children as dead meat? It might make people more aware of animal rights but would cause an absolute uproar and wouldn't be acceptable.

@ kernensa

re. your comments on the second photo, if they could have used a man as meat, why didn't they? They could have used a man for any of their images; why don't they? Put these images in the context of their campaigns and it's clear that expoloiting women's bodies sells. And in the 'woman as dead meat' image, why is she wearing make-up and jewellery if it's not to sexualise the image?

Posted on 31 October 2008 at 3:32 PM

Aimee said:

"This catches ones eye and then he'll see the message of animal welfare portrayed"

Yes. But what will SHE see? You know, the other 52% of the population that is constantly ignored, patronised or belittled when it comes to (among other things) advertising.

Posted on 02 November 2008 at 10:48 AM

Sarah Accident said:

Wow. Those images just look like porn. They've got the attracting-attention bit, and maybe making some people want to take it home and put it on their wall. But where's the rest?

Posted on 14 November 2008 at 9:04 AM

sal baccalas said:

I am neither A feminist nor a vegan,but I find PETA and it's tactics repulsive.A serious organization that defends animal rights should not be using pix of nude women-or actual nude women to attract attention,even if it works. This is something you would expect "Hustler" magazine to do. PETA can probably find someone else than actress Pam Anderson to represent them also.I have nothing against Ms.Andersen personally ,but since she is basically known for showing off her body to cameras she doesn't make PETA look too serious. PETA member's attacks on celebrities wearing furs are also asinine.No one has a right to attack or throw objects at someone just to further their cause or get publicity. Wearing furs is not against the law. I don't wear furs,but I do not attack or hassle those who do.The PETA member who threw a "flour bomb" at fur-clad actress Lindsay Lohan in front of a Paris night club recently is a fascist and a hooligan-as is PETA for supporting such actions. I wonder had Lohan been a 75 year old anonymous grandmother instead of a young and attractive celebrity if this would have happened. PETA can go to hell.

Posted on 15 November 2008 at 11:39 PM

Sabre said:

@ sal baccalas

I agree with your comments... and find it difficult to understand why you don't think of yourself as a feminist. Are you just afraid to identify as one?

Posted on 17 November 2008 at 10:35 AM

yvonne said:

I don't really feel like getting too into this right now but I do have a little comment I'd like make:

sal baccalas
"No one has a right to attack or throw objects at someone just to further their cause or get publicity. Wearing furs is not against the law."

You're right, throwing a bag of flour on Lindsey Lohan was not the classiest move and won't win PETA much respect and supporters. However, I don't think this debate should be based on what is lawful. Lawful things aren't necessarily right and unlawful things aren't necessarily wrong. Laws are made by people with personal and cultural prejudices. The law didn't used to cover much women's rights either. If feminist thought "hey lets not get upset, female oppression is perfectly legal" than the world would be a much darker place today.

Posted on 26 November 2008 at 2:33 AM

Jake said:

I am also a vegan and care about animals passionatly. Although I do love how hard PETA try, I think that they could do some more hard hitting stuff rather than sexy woman in plastic bags to grab desoerate mens attention. I am also outraged at how they can insult people for doing animal unfriendly things, yet they themselves kill thousands of animals every year. I am also very upset that PETA cannot take abouse animals from people like the RSPCA can. Thanks

Posted on 10 December 2008 at 10:08 PM

HH said:

Thank you Elizabeth, who earlier (although totally ignored by some of the following posters..Michael..) pointed out what to me is the most important point: "sex sells?" to whom? Are women not permitted to be sold to with sexually appealing images? Why are there zero images of naked men, presented as pieces of meat or sexual fodder? I think a lot of men (and yes, some women) are so socially conditioned to find naked women the norm, that the very idea of a woman viewing a male "piece of meat" in a predatory and voyeuristic manner is an unsettling idea. Most men think images of naked men look "gay" as they have only previously been presented with such images in this light. The truth is PETA could repair all of this damage with many women now - by balancing their actions and releasing an ad campaign featuring young, muscular, intimidatingly handsome men like David Beckham, etc.

Posted on 11 December 2008 at 4:52 AM

taylor said:

I definatly agree with Lara at the top. Although PETA has good ideas and the have their harts in the right place they go about the cause all wrong. PETA has turned many people i know off to animal rights activism and have ruined the reputation of many industries, Wool, Silk, etc... With all of this added on top of their adds exploiting women i do not understand how PETA has so many people who donate millions of dollars every year to an organization that does so much harm.

Posted on 28 December 2008 at 1:29 AM

Kerensa said:

@ Sabre

The fact that they didn't use a man doesn't even matter, that's like if they did use a man, a man saying "oh that's sexist why didn't they use a woman?". This also makes it seem that your implying that the only way to get a symbolic image of both male and female people is to use a man because they represent both genders. Right.

Makeup and jewelry isn't always used to "sexualise" an image, thats just your connotations of makeup and jewelry, which promotes a bad image of only sexy women wearing either, which just isn't true. Both average women AND men like to wear both of these. Yes makeup is used by women (and sometimes men) to improve their appearance, but this doesn't mean that because a model wears makeup that the image is offensive, because it's not just makeup or jewelry which make up the TRUE offending images, such as women being made to bare themselves for an unworthy cause or even no cause at all.

But I see your point but thought I would explain that PETA did not INTEND to be sexist, as many people seem to think.

Posted on 09 January 2009 at 11:33 PM

Daniel White said:

Personally, I'm not a fan of PETA's methods because they are far too juvenile and outrageous to be taken seriously. I understand that extremism works sometimes, but in the case of PETA, the kind of extreme they use takes away from the campaign.

In my opinion, I think that the add they used could have been effective had they used both men and women, and not only beautiful, clean-shaven women, but women and men of all types. In this way, it would represent actual humanity, instead of the womanized, pop-culture "humanity."

Posted on 20 January 2009 at 4:23 PM

Sabre said:

@ Kerensa

I know make-up and jewellery doesn't always mean the image is sexualised. but PETA are repeatedly using images of slim, attractive-looking women to sell their point, not a mix of men and women, not people who look like my mum, or my friends, just the type of woman considered most sexy, and mostly naked too. Therefore I would say that make-up and jewellery are being used to increase the sexual aspect of these particular images.

I'm not one of those who look at one image and slate the whole organisation - this is a pattern in PETA's campaigns, that's why it's irritating and wrong.

As Daniel White said above, this is not showing actual humanity it is using womens bodies to sell a cause that doesn't really have a gender dimension.

Posted on 20 January 2009 at 5:44 PM

Chrissy D said:

PETA used Jenna Jameson, the 'porn' star, as their 'spokesperson' on the KFC campaign (Kentucky Fried Cruelty). As a result, all other campaigns involving the abuse of women or images of women don't surprise me. However, as a vegetarian and animal rights fan they do enrage me regularly. Obviously JJ cares more about the abuse of chickens and less about the abuse of women her kind of 'films' regularly encourage.

Posted on 20 January 2009 at 8:12 PM

Tori said:

Fuck you, Peta. I agree. I came across this picture on a poster some where quite some time ago and was absolutely flabbergasted. I am used to seeing women like this. But, when I do, it is generally an advertisement selling some magic pill or cream to transform real women into the women the beauty industry has made us think we are supposed to be. What was PETA thinking. I've never considered myself as a feminist before but to portray a woman as a piece of meat in any situation is deplorable. Fuck you, PETA.

Posted on 20 January 2009 at 11:06 PM

Sabre said:

Another wonderful advert by PETA (do not watch while eating any vegetables), this time a video:
http://londonpaper.viralvideochart.com/youtube/veggie_love?id=FpKa9AioyaA

It was mentioned in The London Paper yesterday for having been banned due to it being racist. Yes, RACIST. No mention of the overt sexism then. Of course the paper is quick to encourage readers to check out the video on their website.

This actually made me feel really ill. I don't want to eat broccoli ever again, so PETA, you have not converted me to vegetarianism. PETA, you are so unbelievably sexist that I almost want to go out and eat a giant steak while wearing seal fur just to piss you off!

Posted on 29 January 2009 at 4:48 PM

Maureen said:

The only reason I am not a member of PETA is because I can't handle going to their web site with all of it's depressing pictures. Yes, women are exploited all over the globe. Perhaps we should look at the lack of respect for animals and women at the same time because in many cultures they have about the same status!

Posted on 21 February 2009 at 5:24 PM

Richard said:

Its pretty simple, Peta has shot themselves in the foot with the dramatic advertising and insane ways of getting publicity. For the animals sake they need new Representation because no one takes them seriously. They are merely a Joke

Posted on 07 March 2009 at 4:46 PM

Sharon Soileau said:

I loved this post! You made some excellent points. Too bad peta can't see the truth.

Posted on 21 March 2009 at 1:54 AM

Ryan said:

Seriously, I hope to god that more people will open their eyes to what PETA truly is! It is a political type group that has only their own interests in their sights! I am neither a vegan or any other sort of person who believes that animal "rights" are being abused but I am all for being logical about the use of animals and hunting of animals. To use propaganda such is a 100% MARKETING scheme(I have my MBA in Business marketing) This is totally what this country has become, take people who FEEL a certain way and turn their FEELING into that organizations BELIEF! PETA puts out a message that is totally opposite of what they do, look into their domestic animal morgue where they killed animals because it was better treatment than being pets? Its time to see PETA for what it is, A Self indulging political organization that is more cultish than ever before

Posted on 01 May 2009 at 12:47 AM

Dominic said:

"I'm a vegetarian, I care about animal welfare but, call me crazy, I'm actually more worried about the oppression and abuse of women across the globe than I am about animals."
I wouldn't call you crazy, I'd call you a hypocrite and a speciesist – putting womens’ rights above those of other animals merely because they are humans. I would argue that this is no different than me being more interested in the suffering of men over women merely because I am a man, or being more interested in the suffering of white people because I am white.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I understand that feminism calls for the equal consideration of men and women and as such points out and campaigns against the privileges held by men in society [e.g. http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/].
As a vegan, I’d ask you to consider what might be on a list of ‘human privileges’:
1. I can expect not to be eaten.
2. I can expect not to be the subject of fatal scientific experiments.
3. I can expect not to be the legal property of another.
4. I can expect not to killed for my hide.
&c.

"PETA, you are so unbelievably sexist that I almost want to go out and eat a giant steak while wearing seal fur just to piss you off!"

@Sabre Fine, then I find your comment so unbelievably speciesist that I almost want to go out and buy the extra-sexist edition of Nuts 'magazine'.

Posted on 03 September 2009 at 12:03 PM

Kristin said:

Dominic,
Re. your list of 'human privileges'.
1. Humans can't necessarily expect not to be eaten - haven't you heard of cannibalism? Which seems to be enjoying (if that's the right word) something of a revival in some countries.
2. Human beings have very often been the subjects of fatal scientific experiments. Numerous examples right up to the present, should you care to investigate.
3. There are still huge numbers of women in the world today who can only dream about not being someone else's legal property!
4. People have been killed for their 'hides' and still are. Especially when their hide is, according to some other people, the wrong kind!
Last - and certainly least! - good luck with buying that 'extra sexist' copy of Nuts, because either that or FHM has gone or is about to go bust. Falling sales, I hear.

Posted on 03 September 2009 at 4:12 PM

prof said:

Hi
I pretty much agree with everyones comments but my heart lies with animal welfare.As always...some guy...GUY..has come up with what he thinks is a great advertising campaign and for some reason...they seem to have the ability to convince people with the best intentions that it's in their interests even if it might feel against their gut instincts.
The advertising industry is full of failed directors..exclusively male...and a damaged ego is a powerful thing.
But looking at the bigger picture...what peta are trying to achieve is a good thing...maybe it's a similar situation to live aid...people like Bono telling us to dig deep and then flying his hat business class to America from the UK after leaving it behind after a gig.
I stumbled on this site looking for peta info but wanted to leave a comment.
I guess the problem is not with just these ads but advertising as a whole...the fact that it...like most things ...is a male dominated profession..and that's where the problem lies I think.
Thanks for your time...I am a bloke by the way :)
Prof

Posted on 05 November 2009 at 1:15 AM

Anna said:

I was thinking about going veggie today until I reread this blog post. Sorry PETA. You're the worst spokespersons for vegeterian/veganism ever. Quit now please.

Posted on 05 November 2009 at 2:06 PM