Peons who Epitomize Tasteless Advertising (PETA)
These days, it seems almost futile to protest the rampant exploitation and objectification of women in the media. Given its mainstream prevalance coupled with the rather disturbing aura of complacency and acceptance among women, I decided to abandon hope of trying to incite a feminist backlash against these outrageous beauty standards. In fact, female activism in general has been relegated to some back alley of political obsolescence and antiquated history.
News Flash:
Daily bombardment with glamourized, pornographic images of women does not constitute "female liberation". Likewise, parading yourself in local meat markets as a sexual commodity for male consumption is not a form of "self-expression".
That said, I would like to personally sodomize the director of PETA's advertising campaign with an electric cattle prod. Not only does it show a blatant disregard for women, but it also serves to hamper the animal rights movement by alienating the majority of its supporters.
Today we meet Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and incidentally, an advocate of "female liberation". As such, she feels compelled to support this recent wave of offensive ads featuring scantily clad women that reinforce female beauty standards.
Anti-fur Campaign
Exhibit A: Trichotillomania
Apparently, PETA finds it necessary to ridicule hirsute women in order to persuade its audience that excess hair is both unsightly and grotesque. By some miraculous leap of faith, it also purports to extend this analogy to animal fur, thus convincing people not to purchase fur for fear of being viewed as "hairy".
Strangely enough, some people failed to grasp this logic, as one disgruntled NOW president Galen Sherwin wrote to PETA president Ingrid Newkirk:
To Whom It May Concern:
I am outraged by the most recent advertisement by PETA featuring a woman's unshaven panty line with the tag line "Fur Trim: Unattractive". This is a gratuitous and insulting image that makes its point at the expense of women.
As an organization that works for equality for women in all areas of society, the National Organization for Women is committed to countering negative and degrading images of women in the media and advertising industries. It is ironic that PETA, an organization that works so hard to counter what the mainstream media tells women about what they need to do to be considered beautiful (i.e., wear fur), would choose to do so with an image that reinforces beauty standards that are oppressive to women. This ad basically says that women's natural state is unattractive - hardly an original point, as that is what women are told in one form or another by countless ads for beauty products, accessories, and clothing lines. It also resorts to a crotch shot to make its point - a cheap shock tactic with a twist that ads insult to injury.
Enough already! Why don't you try protecting animals without objectifying women? I think you'll find that this approach is much less likely to alienate those who would be inclined to support the work you do.
Ingrid Newkirk's response was less than conciliatory: *Please take note that I've interjected a few comments*
I was dismayed to read your snotty letter about our panty ads.
One might think this was a lingerie company rather than an organization designed to protect the welfare of animals.
I would be surprised if you don't shave your legs or under your arms. I'll also bet that if you have ever worn a bikini you've made sure not to have hairs poking out the side of it. If you didn't, you would have been the only woman at the pool or the beach not to be so particular.
In other words, its acceptable to play on female insecurities because "everyone else does". I thought we were trying to affect social change here, not reinforce stereotypes. If that were the case, we might as well continue to slaughter animals for our personal consumption just as we have in centuries past.
PETA's ad speaks to something the overwhelming majority of women worry about-grooming. Since we left the 60's style of unshaven leg hair and bushes being, most people, regardless of gender, like the groomed look better. It's not sexist, it's just a fact.
Most people like pizza and ice cream too, its just a fact.
A depiction of a woman's waxed legs or crotch isn't automatically exploitive. Do you order NOW to picket Bloomingdale's when you open the paper on any weekend and see the underwear ads? I'll bet not. In fact, if you're like the majority of women, you have probably thought "that's a nice push up bra" and cut out the sales ad for panties. If women didn't do and think those things, the stores would stop running the ads. They aren't for men. And what if they were? If you see a picture of a cool-looking man in BVDs, do the women in the NOW office all pitch a fit, or do the heterosexual staff linger over it? If you're a lesbian, substitute some hot chick for a guy and tell me the harm in enjoying the scenery.
Again, you do not represent the fashion industry, but instead an organization that promotes animal rights.
Do you not wear pantyhose because it creates an exploitive look? What about skirts? Or are you only threatened by the sight of women's "naughty bits" uses as a political statement? Frankly, I'd be amused to see Christian women "jigglin' for Jesus", or how about relief workers using their sexuality for their cause by showing their buttocks? Think of it: "Fannies Against Famine!"
Simply because the majority of women conform to the stereotype out of fear of being ostracized does not imply that the stereotype itself is innocuous. If that were the case, perhaps men should continue eating meat because otherwise their masculinity might be called into question.
Please stop this knee-jerk, reactionary rubbish. There are a ton of women out here, including longtime feminists like me, who don't appreciate being "spoken for" in this repressive way. We can use our bodies for pleasure, profit, and politics if we want. Please stop playing the role of outraged father, brother, or boyfriend!
By your definition then, prostitutes and exotic dancers are the most "liberated" of all women, despite the fact that this is their only ticket to financial independence.
Exhibit B: Appearance-Driven Smear Campaign
After several fruitless exchanges with Vogue editor Anna Wintour to cease its blatant advertising for the fur industry, PETA finally decided to take matters into their own hands. In fact, one might say that their efforts to categorize women on the basis of physical appearance rivals even that of the most discerning fashion critics.
No doubt Ingrid Newkirk deems herself an expert in what constitutes conventional beauty:
Exhibit C: Pornography
I find it astounding that an organization which seeks to discourage use of laboratory animals in the testing of commercial products would indirectly promote certain stereotypes which keep those industries afloat. Take for example the cosmetics and modeling industries. Both make gratuitous use of animals for testing female beauty products, which in turn plays on the insecurites of women by inundating them with images of airbrushed perfection in order to create a market for their products. Enter PETA, who decides to use those same images to manipulate the masses into supporting their cause, which eventually turns around to bite them in the ass once women start buying cosmetics in order to measure up to the rigorous beauty standards featured in those ads. Take for example their penchant for pornography:
Now I don't know about you, but seeing naked women in degrading positions certainly does little to sway my opinion in their favor. In fact, I am now convinced that I will need one cashmere sweater, a leather jacket, and suede pants in order to conceal my cellulite-ridden ass and flabby thighs.
Thanks PETA.
After further contemplating PETA's stance on female exploitation, I have decided on a new title for their organization.
People for the Extravagant use of Topless, Air-brushed models
I think that fits them rather nicely.
Dairy-Tales
Exhibit A: Complexion Crisis
Apparently, PETA has made a scientific breakthrough in the treatment of acne. Forget about accutane and tretinoin creams, all you have to do is stop drinking milk. After all, PETA has conclusive evidence from years of academic research that milk is solely responsible for the overproduction of sebum in the sebaceous glands and tissue sensitivity to androgens. Of course, it is likely that milk even regulates how much testosterone and DHEA is secreted from your adrenal glands. Who knew that milk could play such a vital role in human physiology, especially since we were programmed to stop drinking it after infancy.
Exhibit B: Organ Donor
And in case you had an lingering doubts as to PETA's ulterior motives, their latest mascot should convince you of their altruistic drive to promote a healthy lifestyle:
No doubt PETA would prefer infection with Hepatitis C virus over the catastrophic effects of milk consumption. Clearly, PETA regards the liver as a nonessential organ in this swinging ad:
Now who wouldn't take a minor ailment such as liver sclerosis over a monumental acne breakout any day?
Backlash
Inevitably, it is the animals who will suffer most from this sort of brutish advertising. An excellent example of this can be found below:
Furthermore, the retaliatory efforts of certain anti-PETA groups have culminated in the International Eat an Animal for PETA Day, which naturally punishes animals for the sins of their human advocates. So in effect, PETA has not only insulted and debased women, it has also antagonized people to such an extent that the innocent beings they profess to protect will suffer the consequences.
Well done PETA.
News Flash:
Daily bombardment with glamourized, pornographic images of women does not constitute "female liberation". Likewise, parading yourself in local meat markets as a sexual commodity for male consumption is not a form of "self-expression".
That said, I would like to personally sodomize the director of PETA's advertising campaign with an electric cattle prod. Not only does it show a blatant disregard for women, but it also serves to hamper the animal rights movement by alienating the majority of its supporters.
Today we meet Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and incidentally, an advocate of "female liberation". As such, she feels compelled to support this recent wave of offensive ads featuring scantily clad women that reinforce female beauty standards.
Anti-fur Campaign
Exhibit A: Trichotillomania
Apparently, PETA finds it necessary to ridicule hirsute women in order to persuade its audience that excess hair is both unsightly and grotesque. By some miraculous leap of faith, it also purports to extend this analogy to animal fur, thus convincing people not to purchase fur for fear of being viewed as "hairy".
Strangely enough, some people failed to grasp this logic, as one disgruntled NOW president Galen Sherwin wrote to PETA president Ingrid Newkirk:
To Whom It May Concern:
I am outraged by the most recent advertisement by PETA featuring a woman's unshaven panty line with the tag line "Fur Trim: Unattractive". This is a gratuitous and insulting image that makes its point at the expense of women.
As an organization that works for equality for women in all areas of society, the National Organization for Women is committed to countering negative and degrading images of women in the media and advertising industries. It is ironic that PETA, an organization that works so hard to counter what the mainstream media tells women about what they need to do to be considered beautiful (i.e., wear fur), would choose to do so with an image that reinforces beauty standards that are oppressive to women. This ad basically says that women's natural state is unattractive - hardly an original point, as that is what women are told in one form or another by countless ads for beauty products, accessories, and clothing lines. It also resorts to a crotch shot to make its point - a cheap shock tactic with a twist that ads insult to injury.
Enough already! Why don't you try protecting animals without objectifying women? I think you'll find that this approach is much less likely to alienate those who would be inclined to support the work you do.
Ingrid Newkirk's response was less than conciliatory: *Please take note that I've interjected a few comments*
I was dismayed to read your snotty letter about our panty ads.
One might think this was a lingerie company rather than an organization designed to protect the welfare of animals.
I would be surprised if you don't shave your legs or under your arms. I'll also bet that if you have ever worn a bikini you've made sure not to have hairs poking out the side of it. If you didn't, you would have been the only woman at the pool or the beach not to be so particular.
In other words, its acceptable to play on female insecurities because "everyone else does". I thought we were trying to affect social change here, not reinforce stereotypes. If that were the case, we might as well continue to slaughter animals for our personal consumption just as we have in centuries past.
PETA's ad speaks to something the overwhelming majority of women worry about-grooming. Since we left the 60's style of unshaven leg hair and bushes being, most people, regardless of gender, like the groomed look better. It's not sexist, it's just a fact.
Most people like pizza and ice cream too, its just a fact.
A depiction of a woman's waxed legs or crotch isn't automatically exploitive. Do you order NOW to picket Bloomingdale's when you open the paper on any weekend and see the underwear ads? I'll bet not. In fact, if you're like the majority of women, you have probably thought "that's a nice push up bra" and cut out the sales ad for panties. If women didn't do and think those things, the stores would stop running the ads. They aren't for men. And what if they were? If you see a picture of a cool-looking man in BVDs, do the women in the NOW office all pitch a fit, or do the heterosexual staff linger over it? If you're a lesbian, substitute some hot chick for a guy and tell me the harm in enjoying the scenery.
Again, you do not represent the fashion industry, but instead an organization that promotes animal rights.
Do you not wear pantyhose because it creates an exploitive look? What about skirts? Or are you only threatened by the sight of women's "naughty bits" uses as a political statement? Frankly, I'd be amused to see Christian women "jigglin' for Jesus", or how about relief workers using their sexuality for their cause by showing their buttocks? Think of it: "Fannies Against Famine!"
Simply because the majority of women conform to the stereotype out of fear of being ostracized does not imply that the stereotype itself is innocuous. If that were the case, perhaps men should continue eating meat because otherwise their masculinity might be called into question.
Please stop this knee-jerk, reactionary rubbish. There are a ton of women out here, including longtime feminists like me, who don't appreciate being "spoken for" in this repressive way. We can use our bodies for pleasure, profit, and politics if we want. Please stop playing the role of outraged father, brother, or boyfriend!
By your definition then, prostitutes and exotic dancers are the most "liberated" of all women, despite the fact that this is their only ticket to financial independence.
Exhibit B: Appearance-Driven Smear Campaign
After several fruitless exchanges with Vogue editor Anna Wintour to cease its blatant advertising for the fur industry, PETA finally decided to take matters into their own hands. In fact, one might say that their efforts to categorize women on the basis of physical appearance rivals even that of the most discerning fashion critics.
No doubt Ingrid Newkirk deems herself an expert in what constitutes conventional beauty:
Exhibit C: Pornography
I find it astounding that an organization which seeks to discourage use of laboratory animals in the testing of commercial products would indirectly promote certain stereotypes which keep those industries afloat. Take for example the cosmetics and modeling industries. Both make gratuitous use of animals for testing female beauty products, which in turn plays on the insecurites of women by inundating them with images of airbrushed perfection in order to create a market for their products. Enter PETA, who decides to use those same images to manipulate the masses into supporting their cause, which eventually turns around to bite them in the ass once women start buying cosmetics in order to measure up to the rigorous beauty standards featured in those ads. Take for example their penchant for pornography:
Now I don't know about you, but seeing naked women in degrading positions certainly does little to sway my opinion in their favor. In fact, I am now convinced that I will need one cashmere sweater, a leather jacket, and suede pants in order to conceal my cellulite-ridden ass and flabby thighs.
Thanks PETA.
After further contemplating PETA's stance on female exploitation, I have decided on a new title for their organization.
People for the Extravagant use of Topless, Air-brushed models
I think that fits them rather nicely.
Dairy-Tales
Exhibit A: Complexion Crisis
Apparently, PETA has made a scientific breakthrough in the treatment of acne. Forget about accutane and tretinoin creams, all you have to do is stop drinking milk. After all, PETA has conclusive evidence from years of academic research that milk is solely responsible for the overproduction of sebum in the sebaceous glands and tissue sensitivity to androgens. Of course, it is likely that milk even regulates how much testosterone and DHEA is secreted from your adrenal glands. Who knew that milk could play such a vital role in human physiology, especially since we were programmed to stop drinking it after infancy.
Exhibit B: Organ Donor
And in case you had an lingering doubts as to PETA's ulterior motives, their latest mascot should convince you of their altruistic drive to promote a healthy lifestyle:
No doubt PETA would prefer infection with Hepatitis C virus over the catastrophic effects of milk consumption. Clearly, PETA regards the liver as a nonessential organ in this swinging ad:
Now who wouldn't take a minor ailment such as liver sclerosis over a monumental acne breakout any day?
Backlash
Inevitably, it is the animals who will suffer most from this sort of brutish advertising. An excellent example of this can be found below:
Furthermore, the retaliatory efforts of certain anti-PETA groups have culminated in the International Eat an Animal for PETA Day, which naturally punishes animals for the sins of their human advocates. So in effect, PETA has not only insulted and debased women, it has also antagonized people to such an extent that the innocent beings they profess to protect will suffer the consequences.
Well done PETA.