Why Peta still sucks

29th January 2009

posted in Feminist Topics, Pop Culture, Vegetarianism |

Regular readers know that while I’m vegetarian, I’m certainly no supporter of Peta. Peta does some good work, but I can’t get behind them for a number of reasons, mostly because of the paradoxical ways in which Peta treats women like a piece of meat to encourage others (mostly a young, hetero male demographic) to stop eating meat. Lisa de Moreas at the Washington Post wrote a piece yesterday about Peta’s latest shenanigans and no I’m not talking about the new Sea Kitten campaign (which I don’t think is all that ridiculous despite its ridiculousness). Now it seems that Peta has gone from treating women like a piece of meat to treating them like, well, vegetables.

Peta Veggie Love banned Peta created a controversial ad to air on NBC during the SuperBowl knowing full well that it would be nixed for explicit sexual conduct. The spot, described by Peta as “featuring a bevy of beauties who are powerless to resist the temptation of veggie love,” (emphasis mine) features lingerie-clad women in various stages of undress getting jiggy with vegetables before proclaiming, “Vegetarians make better lovers!” (I have yet to find any such study backing this up; I also don’t think the video is all that lurid for TV when considering how primetime stations, including NBC, had no qualms airing the equally-offensive and just as racy Paris Hilton Carl’s Jr. ad).

Peta’s move was a strategic one. Consider this: A 30-second Super Bowl spot goes for about $3 million, a heft price tag for any non-profit, even the world’s largest animal rights organization. Indignantly decrying a banning by a major television station, especially when that banning is based on sexually-related content, and then suggesting that station to be a sexual prude? Awesome way to drive millions of viewers to your website where they can just so happen to watch the naughty video of uncensored hot-and-bothered scantily-clad women at a tenth of a fraction of the cost for Peta. It’s Vegan Girls Gone Wild.

I know, I know… by posting this I’m only playing in to the whole Peta viral strategy, but I discuss this solely to illustrate yet again how Peta seeks to advance its pro-vegetarian and animal rights causes – many of which I share — on the backs of women. Literally. In many of its ads and campaigns, Peta simply replaces the bodies of tortured and dead animals with that of naked women’s bodies. It’s zealous in its anti-fur campaigns, which disproportionately target women, while neglecting a much larger consumer market for leather. Society women make much easier targets than do menacing looking bikers sporting leather jackets, chains and tattoos.

women as meat By presenting women as commodities – in some cases, quite literally as meat-based objects to be consumed by the male gaze and appetite – Peta only perpetuates and reinforces the genderization of meat as a masculine endeavor. It’s the “you are what you eat” principle: In America and many other cultures, red meat and beef are considered to be food sources that carry an abundance of strength, power, and vitality. The identification of red meat with male dominance thus holds far more social implications than the question of “What’s for dinner?”

It wasn’t always this way. The exploitation of women by a so-called animal rights organization, that is. Pleas for kinder treatment of animals and even legal action protecting animal welfare can be traced back in the U.S. to colonial times, but the first organized animal advocacy movement didn’t officially begin until just after the Civil War (”animal rights” did not enter into use until the 1960s). Although initially run by men, movement members overwhelmingly counted a white, middle-class female demographic. These women activists quickly formed their own auxiliary groups and slowly appropriated control from men to combat a range of “feminine” issues.

Caroline Earl White A radical, mostly female American Anti Vivisection Society — started by one Caroline Earle White, right, who also co-founded the Pennsylvania SPCA — led the charge against animal experimentation with limited political successes. In fact, women’s participation here was so pronounced that pro-vivisectionalists often resorting to misogynist arguments, dismissing protestors as hysterical shrews who neglected their husbands, children and wifely duties and even suffered from the mental illness “zoophilia,” an unofficial diagnosis fabricated by pro-vivisectionialist doctors.

From 1915–1945, a largely women-led movement reached out to children, military service animal appeals and Hollywood with animal welfare messages. They started kennels and animal shelters and promoted pet population control policies. Women continued to figure prominently in leadership positions in the postwar movement, helping to garner some of the movement’s most notable successes: the 1958 Humane Slaughter Act; the 1966 Laboratory Animal Welfare Act; the 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act; and the 1973 Endangered Species Act.

Since its very inception, women have used animal welfare activism to their advantage through the renegotiation of traditional, yet fluid gender roles. They achieved notable successes and their participation not only ensured the movement’s survival, but also its notoriety and sheer relevancy. As both a feminist and a vegetarian, it’s quite depressing to see a movement made strong by women and one which has proved so empowering for women now devolve to the same kind of exploitation that has figured so prominently in the historic subjugation of women.

Luckily there are other influential organizations that lobby for animal rights without resorting to these kinds of sexist and stereotypical tactics. A few of my favorites: Feminists for Animal Rights, Compassion over Killing, Farm Sanctuary and Mercy for Animals.

Click to Bookmark

This entry was posted on Thursday, January 29th, 2009 at 2:39 am and is filed under Feminist Topics, Pop Culture, Vegetarianism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

1 On January 29th, 2009, lilacsigil said:

It really irritates me that an organisation whose whole aim is to stop animals being treated as commodities rather than living beings will happily treat (young, normatively sexy) women in exactly the same way. It could be self-aware or a parody of the meat industry, but I’ve seen no evidence of this, just more naked women.

posted on January 29th, 2009 at 3:18 am

2 On January 29th, 2009, hera said:

I was a supporter of PETA until I learned that they advocate vegetarianism for cats. All felines are demand carnivores who must eat meat to survive, and PETA’s attempt to convince people to convert their pet cats to a vegetarian diet proved to me that their agenda is NOT animal protection. It’s too bad, really, because they’ve got a great PR department.

posted on January 29th, 2009 at 5:01 am

3 On January 29th, 2009, AndyJo said:

Your comment about the leather jackets made me snort. In the early 90’s (back when PETA actually did mostly sane stuff), they held a concert with some good rock bands here in NYC to support their anti-fur campaign. At the time, my husband and I were trying to be vegetarian, and I’d been active in walkathoning for an organization that supported alternatives to animal testing.

We wanted to support the anti-fur initiative, and went to the concert. At the time, we both had leather jackets (had for many years), which were our warmest coats. It was COLD. We DID NOT wear them, as we thought it might be not only hypocritical but also in poor taste. We froze our you-know-whats off while standing in line outside, but the rest of the people in line were ok. They all wore their leather jackets. I had never seen so many leather jackets in one place in my life. We’re not talking about leather substitutes here, but real leather, really expensive, and really nice.

Oh well… We froze, but at least we could feel morally superior <>

–Andy Jo–

posted on January 29th, 2009 at 8:39 am

4 On January 29th, 2009, Rachel said:

At the time, we both had leather jackets (had for many years), which were our warmest coats.

I have an old pair of Doc Marten leather boots purchased before I went vegetarian (and that was six years ago; Doc Martens last forever!) I’ve had people say to me, “Oh, how can you wear leather and still call yourself a vegetarian?” My rationale is simple: I bought them before I went vegetarian and I bought them used. By me continuing to use them, I reduce the need to purchase a new pair of boots that even if made of faux leather, the very manufacturing of them harms the environment.

posted on January 29th, 2009 at 11:45 am

5 On January 29th, 2009, puellapiscea said:

I too am a vegetarian and try to avoid use of leather (fur too but that has never really been an issue) I have owned a lot of pet birds in my life and let me tell you how much down they shed. Because of this I always thought down was collected from animals just like wool from sheep and no birds were harmed (I won’t get into the fact that they may have lived in bad conditions, but I didn’t think they were killed). I loved my down pillows, comforter and even mattress pad. The horror I felt when I found out that birds were killed for their down and feathers was awful. I admit that now it seems naive to think that they weren’t killed, but still. Fortunately my dogs loved chewing on pillows and comforters so it wasn’t long before I was able to switch to down alternative. But I still giggle at my ignorance.

posted on January 29th, 2009 at 12:10 pm

6 On January 29th, 2009, pennylane said:

Thanks for this post. I’m a vegan and at least five people have e-mailed me a story about this ad saying “Look what your people are doing now!” and yet I have not heard ANY vegetarians/animal rights folks speak positively about this crap. Or about PETA. I guess they have cleverly gotten their ad played but it only contributes to the view that there is no actual substance to animal rights arguments.

I agree with you that this ad doesn’t seem any more salacious than the Go Daddy ads which will inevitably run during the game. So I kind of wish NBC had accepted the ad and made them pony up the money.

The intersection of feminism and animal rights/welfare is such a fascinating historical and philosophical issue.

posted on January 29th, 2009 at 12:20 pm

7 On January 29th, 2009, Bree said:

I heard the Go Daddy ad for this year was banned, but we’ll see.

PETA just keeps getting more and more crazy with their tactics. If they want people to support their cause, treating women as sex objects and insulting non-vegans and fat people is not the way to go! Otherwise, they’ll be treated as the rapidly growing joke they’re becoming.

posted on January 29th, 2009 at 1:04 pm

8 On January 29th, 2009, Ann said:

YESSSSS, thank you. I am vegan, and all of us animal-minded folks need to speak out and say this kind of junk is not okay. We are united with all struggles against oppression. And we need people to know that animal liberation/kindness (whatever you feel) does NOT equal oppression against any group of humans. The reverse, infact! Compassion goes everywhere.

posted on January 29th, 2009 at 1:15 pm

9 On January 29th, 2009, Rachel said:

PETA just keeps getting more and more crazy with their tactics.

In Peta’s defense, they’re simply following a tradition of absurdity. Henry Bergh, the founder of the first SPCA in America (New York), was a master of public spectacle who often staged provocative, media-attracting scenes to further animal advocacy agendas. Peta’s doing much of the same, only they’re using women and sex to gain attention and notoriety. I watched the documentary on Ingrid Newkirk last year and she explained, in essence, that Peta considers bad publicity to be better than no publicity. The question is, is this bad press effective or does it just further alienate and turn off would-be vegetarians?

posted on January 29th, 2009 at 1:24 pm

10 On January 29th, 2009, JupiterPluvius said:

“Provocative” is one thing, but with PETA it’s always the same provocation: naked women. Naked women, naked women, naked women, blah blah blah. Naked young, almost always white, slender but with fake breasts, women.

posted on January 29th, 2009 at 2:03 pm

11 On January 29th, 2009, Amy said:

Rachel – the divine Ms. de Moreas works for the Washington Post not the Washington Times. Very different papers. I am big fan of the Post and in this time of declining circulation wanted to defend my local paper.

posted on January 29th, 2009 at 2:09 pm

12 On January 29th, 2009, Baconsmom said:

The difference I see between the racy PETA spot and the Carl’s Jr./Go Daddy ads is this: In the PETA ad, women are using vegetables, by themselves, for their own sexual gratification. In the other racy ads that were not banned, women are being sexually provacative for men to stare at, for men to imprint their own fantasies.

In other words, being sexy for men is fine, and won’t get you banned. But showing women experiencing sexual pleasure without a man present is just too much.

Charming.

posted on January 29th, 2009 at 2:24 pm

13 On January 29th, 2009, Rachel said:

Thanks, Amy. I think I had the New York Times on the brain.

That’s an interesting observation, Baconsmom.

posted on January 29th, 2009 at 2:37 pm

14 On January 29th, 2009, Cindy said:

Disclaimer: I’ve only known three people who were members of PETA.

My experience with these folks indicated that they wanted ethical treatment for animals because they really, really hated people.

posted on January 29th, 2009 at 7:05 pm

15 On January 29th, 2009, William said:

Hi

Why not support this group

http://www.veganoutreach.org/

William

posted on January 29th, 2009 at 9:33 pm

16 On January 30th, 2009, Jackie said:

I feel PETA seems to regards animals as so superior to humans, that their idea of sexy now, has become about having women behave more like animals. It’s a zoophilia fetish, to have them show women licking a pumpkin like a dog, and have her getting off with vegetables like a monkey.

I wonder what we’ll have to look forward to next Superbowl season, are they going to have their women crawl around on all fours with dog collars on to promote vegetarian eating? Not much different than their protests, where they paint women in body paint to look like animals, then have them writhe around while saying “Would you eat her?” or something to that regards.

Horny men don’t give a damn about animals when they’re um, getting down to buisness, so I don’t see what they feel they’re accomplishing. They’ve done this for a very long time, provoking news companies with some banned ad involving sexy women. Frankly, I’m starting to agree with South Park. Why doesn’t Ingrid Newkirk get over this, and just admit once and for all her fetishization of women as animals, is because she herself is a zoophile.

posted on January 30th, 2009 at 4:01 pm

17 On January 31st, 2009, David Goldbeck said:

I am really happy to see you make these well written and deserved comments.
My wife Nikki Goldbeck and I have devoted the last forty years to advocating vegetarianism. It has been very disconcerting to see PETA fundamentalize this issue. A story: We publish “Clean & Green” a wonderful book on nontoxic cleaning. It has 450 formulas. PETA wouldn’t sell it because one recipe used milk and another was for cleaning leather. (I wonder – facetiously – whether their dictionary has the word “meat” in it.) We have seen great progress in the acceptance of the meatless point of view. and it didn’t occur because of these strident tactics. The cuisine sells itself.
David Goldbeck

posted on January 31st, 2009 at 9:35 pm

18 On February 5th, 2009, Bookman said:

“Compassion goes everywhere.”

Well, not really. I embrace my predator side of my omnivore heritage, while actively encouraging the herbivore side, as well. Which is the lying, PC-speak way of saying that I love meat, but I am learning to love veggies, too.

Someone mentioned cats: PeTA hates the fact that you keep pets. Do your research. PeTA hates pets. PeTA hates pets so much that they protest shelters that euthanize, while PeTA euthanizes unwanted pets, too – with a much lower placement rate. Better to kill the poor critters than to make them into willing affecton-slaves.

Beyond that, PeTA hates my freedom to embrace my omnivorous heritage. P_eTA wants to force Veganism onto everyone. FORCE. Not encourage. I’ll spit on the feet of anyone who presumes to dictate to me what my freedoms are. I eat dead animals. It’s natural. If the fact that lions, wolves, dogs, and various other do it doesn’t convince you of the nomality of predation in nature, then look up how chimps hunt, or what pigs will do to a toddler if she tumbles into a pen. Then draw your own delusions.

OTOH, if /you/ don’t want to eat meat, then don’t. I don’t care. I really don’t. But I have no time for people with artificial holier-than-thou standards, be they Vegans or Christians.

I’d respect PeTA more if they were honest, but if they were honest, they wouldn’t be relevant. Ergo, they must lie.

posted on February 5th, 2009 at 4:11 am

19 On February 5th, 2009, Jackie said:

I’ve heard the sad stories about PETA being the hugest hypocrites ever, in euthanizing animals themselves. I think the website about that is PETAkills.org, but you should search it up on a web search. Since I don’t want to bother looking up the site myself, because understandably the reality they discuss on there is majorly depressing.

David, I’m sorry to hear that PETA didn’t sell your book. Maybe if you offered to put a cover on it, with women being sexually provacative with some of your cleaning products, that may have smoothed things over. They should change their name to Pornography for The Ethical Treatment of Animals. I love green cleaning products, because I have a sensitivity to chemicals in other cleaning products. Like, it makes me tear up and stuff, which I’m sure you’re going “Well duh! What do you expect when you clean with unnatural chemicals!” lol.

posted on February 5th, 2009 at 8:57 pm

20 On February 7th, 2009, Sami said:

It’s sad that PETA has to always resort to naked women to draw attention. I’m starting to get ticked off at them. For shame!

I also agree with what hera said about cats. They’re carnivores & they’re made to be carnivores, they’re not suited to properly digest carbohydrates.
They have over 60 taste buds on their tongues all designed for tasting meat.
The difference is that humans are omnivores, we weren’t designed to live off of one thing.
We can easily live off of a vegan diet while cats cannot.

posted on February 7th, 2009 at 10:54 pm

21 On March 7th, 2009, minervaK said:

Sami — See, what’s sad is, I know this, you know this, but apparently PETA, who is supposed to have ‘animal welfare’ as it’s guiding principle, appears not to. Either that, or they don’t care. Pfft. — MK

posted on March 7th, 2009 at 5:01 pm

22 On July 1st, 2009, Stripping fish AND women alive is not okay » The-F-Word.org said:

[...] Dutch animal rights group Animals Awake is taking a few cues from Peta, an organization I’ve criticized heartily for doing much of the same kinds of antics shown [...]

posted on July 1st, 2009 at 9:45 am