Polly said:

Why don't they ever do this shit with men's bodies?

As if I don't know.

Posted on 30 May 2008 at 2:06 PM

Lady S said:

Women as meat! How original of them!

Posted on 30 May 2008 at 2:14 PM

Rhona said:

Great campaign, if you consider alienating 50% of your target audience as a hit in marketing strategy terms.

There was a recent post on the blog about an increasing number of charities using downright offensive words and images to promote their message - does anybody see a reason for this pattern?

Undoubtedly, some would argue that 'tough messages call for tough talking' and bring up that old chestnut about any publicity being good publicity etc, but I am quite frankly shocked that anybody involved in the charitable sector thinks it's acceptable to denigrate any section of society to promote an agenda.

The easiest way to protest is to a) complain directly to the charity's campaign offices and b) withhold any funding. Hitting people in the pocket is sad (especially when you agree *broadly* with their aims), but unfortunately, it is the most effective route.

Posted on 30 May 2008 at 2:14 PM

Soirore said:

Her comment that "flesh is flesh regardless of where it comes from" is seriously offensive. It may surprise her that many women see themselves as more than just flesh to be consumed by men. We NEVER see PETA using their male protesters in this way and it is clear why; they view animals as equal to women but men as more human and deserving of more respect and dignity.

Posted on 30 May 2008 at 2:22 PM

secretrebel said:

PETA use shock tactics to get column inches. I think they think of themselves as the advance troops, they're not aiming to convice people so much as to challenge them and gain a high profile for their cause.

Then more middle-of-the road pro-veg, anti-cruelty groups can follow up with op ed pieces.

There are a lot of problems with PETA from a feminist and/or liberal POV but their tactics aren't designed to win friends but to raise awareness.

Posted on 30 May 2008 at 4:46 PM

jennifer drew said:

Well I'm still waiting for PETA to do something really shocking. In other words I'm waiting for a naked man to be photographed lying face-up with a group of fully dressed women hovering over him with meat knives in their hands. Now this would be shocking because there would be huge cries of 'misandry, misandry.' Will it happen - no because men's bodies are not 'flesh' they are individuals with intelligent minds unlike women who are just 'flesh.' That is according to PETA'S mandate.

Posted on 30 May 2008 at 7:02 PM

Chloe said:

It's really lame that their anti-fur adverts are obviously targeted at women, who tend to buy and wear fur, and yet they use naked women to sell that idea.

I think their adverts using Shirley Manson, Peaches, and Le Tigre (as well as countless men), clothed, are far more effective than a naked porn star wearing a bra made of lettuce or whatevs.

Posted on 30 May 2008 at 9:25 PM

Anne Onne said:

PETA completely miss the point. It's ironic, really, because they are supposed to be about improving rights, but they really don't have a clue. Using naked women to sell your idea is exploitation in this current social climate, because women are exploited, not just animals.

If they made a habit of using white male protesters (ie the only people really recognised as fully human in society) naked to prove a point, I might have not hated their campaigns so much had they truly tried to be shocking (though it's a pretty silly idea to me), but just going with the status quo is hardly revolutionary.

I do believe animals need more protection and recognition under law, but I find parallels between them and oppressed minorities (slavery, holocaust, women) very disconcerting and counterproductive, because these groups of people have been fighting to be recognised as fully human, and comparing animals to them has the effect of making them seem less human.

And nobody who thinks the rights of marginalised people are worth sacrificing in the hope of getting better treatment for animals is worth listening to. You can't fight for the rights of one oppressed group (animals included) by oppressing others. It wouldn't be right to campaign against sexism by being homophobic, or racism by being misogynist, so they get no sympathy from me.

Posted on 30 May 2008 at 9:48 PM

Virago said:

As a vegan PETA's campaigns enrage me. All they do is give vegans and animal rights campaigners a bad image rather than spread awareness. You don't get the populace on board by objectifying 50% of the population and severely pissing the rest off, but this seems to be their only tactic.

Just as being a woman and/or feminist means that whatever you do you are judged by others as a representative of your gender/feminism, being vegan means everyone who meets you judges every other vegan on the planet by your actions. And with PETA giving us a bad name showing people that not all vegans are bigoted nutjobs (we're quite normal really!) is made all the harder.

Frustrating, really frustrating.

Posted on 30 May 2008 at 11:51 PM

Sarah said:

I truly despise PETA for these campaigns.

A woman being barbecued is a famous Hustler image, what next, a recreation of the even more famous 'woman being passed through a meat-grinder' image?

And how does this work? How many women (and men) do they alienate, and how many misogynist men whose attention they can only catch with such images are they actually going to convert?

"Gee, I didn't give a shit before, but now you've shown me titties ..."

There are plenty of vegetarian/vegan/animal welfare charities out there who don't resort to these sexist images. Anyone who gives money to PETA should stop, and tell them exactly why they've stopped.

And to pre-empt anyone who may post here saying that the woman chose to take her clothes off and get on a barbecue, and that she must have found it empowering to do so, so it isn't a problem; if it's all subjective, then our subjective opinion that it's degrading is equally valid to her (putative) subjective opinion that it's empowering.

Posted on 31 May 2008 at 12:44 AM

Seph said:

I can't understand what PETA are trying to do with this, it seems like the implication is we should stop eating animals and eat women instead.

Posted on 01 June 2008 at 12:54 AM

jacinta said:

my friend thinks it's coz feminists are usually vegans/animal rights type people anyway (I know that's a bit of a stereotype, though) so PETA can't be bothered to preach to the converted. But I dunno, I think they are really trying to p*ss us off. I am not the kind of girl who gets easily offended by ads, you know? I am the kind of girl who reads other women's complaints with this gnawing feeling at the back of her head: why didn't I notice that? But even I can tell the PETA ads are bloody sexist. Even Adriane Curry thinks they're sexist! Well, okay, she didn't use the term sexist - just "mean" - but in a few years' maybe....

Maybe PETA are actually trying to convert loads of Playboy models to feminism??? Whatdja think?

Posted on 02 June 2008 at 4:49 PM