Aug
17

PETA, You Just Make It So Easy

filed under beauty, body image, sexism

When many people hear someone start talking about PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, many of their minds immediately start freaking out, sending out red flags and wanting to scream ‘NOOOOOO’ at the top of their lungs. The biggest reason for this is because PETA is made up of a bunch of hypocrites; people who believe that animals shouldn’t be mistreated in any way yet don’t seem to give a shit about their fellow humans and even go as far as to say that people shouldn’t buy pets at pet stores because it is the equivalent of buying a human being as a slave. People also shouldn’t call their pets ‘pets’ because again, they make the comparison between having pets and owning slaves. I don’t know about you, but my cat has never once sparked something in my brain that made me start comparing her to owning slaves; but hey, that just may be me–But I doubt it.

A lot of people hate PETA, some people think it should even be classified as a terrorist group, which I have to say, I can agree with. The thing is–When it comes to organized groups, some members of a particular group can get a little skewed and a little extreme, hence describing these people as extremists or describing an entire organization, as PETA has proved itself to be, as an extremist organization. (Think of the pro-lifers who deem it necessary and effective to blow up Planned Parenthood clinics regardless of whether or not they actually perform abortions at that location.) You may be thinking to yourself right about now “But wait, just because members of a particular organization go all loony and start taking their efforts to dangerous territory that doesn’t mean these organizations are necessarily bad!” And you’d be correct with that assumption. Just because a wide range of PETA supporters feel it’s A-OK to tell small children that their mothers are going to burn in hell because they wear fur coats or post videos on their websites from PETA that show images that may be triggering, offensive and are just downright disgusting that could be seen by a young audience without as much as a warning posted before the video, it doesn’t mean that the organization as a whole is bad. However, when it comes to PETA, their marketing tactics are not only skewed, but they are so horrendous and in general bad taste that even when they try to explain or stand by their tactics, they come off as arrogant, obnoxious, ignorant and/or belligerent–And that’s being nice. How they choose to market themselves as an organization is their fault and theirs alone and when it comes to what ads they choose to release to the public, it is downright appalling.

PETA has put out severely sexist and just plain baffling ads that they should just stop trying to explain their tactics and simply come up with another way to tote their hypocritical bullshit to the public or hey, just stopping their organization all together is another viable option; I know of a lot of people who would be rejoicing if this were to happen.

After so many people have had negative reactions to their ads, PETA took it to the media in order to clear up any misconceptions people had about why they use naked women in the majority of their ads while the rest of their ads are degrading towards all people; all people who aren’t brainwashed by the many clever methods the organization uses to lure people in and keep them yolked and asking for more, that is.

When it comes to the unapologetic and purely sexist ads PETA uses to get their name out into society, they attempted to defend the nature of their ad to The New York Times, saying:

While cruelty to animals is a serious matter that should elicit widespread public outrage, efforts to reach the public through more serious means often fall on deaf ears in a world in which sex sells and there are both a war and an economic downturn.

Basically they just come right out and say it–PETA wants people to see their ads, have people say “Hey, hot chick.” and move on. That is what happens when you repeatedly use naked models and actresses in your ads; your message is not heard. Their comment also makes it sound as if they had used other types of marketing that simply didn’t work; however, that doesn’t seem to be the case as I went digging around for PETA ads.

In this appalling ad which came out in 2000, we can see that PETA has been using the technique of ridiculing women for the past 8 years at least.

PETA fur

Yeah ladies, how dare you go natural and opt not to shave your pubic region. Even PETA thinks it’s disgusting! This ad actually seems to go against the message they’re trying to get across and just using this ad as an excuse to ridicule women who don’t shave or wax and in turn, not living up to the social expectancy. The right way to go about this ad would be to say for ladies who do go all natural to feel good in doing that and think of animals whose fur is used for making fur coats, fur-lined gloves or whatever and make the conscious decision to not wear fut just because women know how good it may feel to them to not go through the torturous and painful act of waxing. But that’s just me, you know, not looking at it from the sexist goggles.

Ms. Magazine received 150 letters when they asked for their reader’s opinion on the above PETA ad and out of those 150 letters, only 6 agreed that PETA was on the right track and did not deem their ad to be sexist or discriminatory towards women and from my snap judgment, I’d have to assume that those 6 people happened to be PETA supporters.

PETA also likes to use images of naked actresses, or in this specific case, failed actresses with one big hit that did nothing but make her come off as a complete idiot–A lot. A recent 30 second ad spot they put out featuring Alicia Silverstone appeared pretty much everywhere for a good week or so.



The ad spot was put on websites and blogs of supporters and also on sites with webmasters who, like myself, wonder about the credibility of an organization who puts something out that a lot of people most likely turned the sound off for to watch and got pretty much the same effect from it–Hot chick, naked, pool…scene from Wild Things?

Other ads that show the true sexist core of PETA include:


PETA Jamelia

PETA PETA naked

The third ad in particular looks more like it came out of a page of Maxim, but again, PETA wants to shock people, they want people to look at an ad that looks as if it should have came out of a softcore porn magazine, enjoy the image of a size 0 woman and not grasp that the fact that there is even text on the image. The latest ad to be put out by PETA is this little gem:


PETA olympics

That is now two ads with the text ‘Be comfortable in your own skin’ written across it and by the nature of those ads in conjunction with the others makes me sense some sort of odd connection; that being the size of the women on these ads.

PETA wants women to be comfortable in their own skin and to lay off the buying and selling of animal fur. Okay, got it. Now, why is it that these ads specifically tell women to be comfortable in their own skin but only use women who are sizes 0-2, muscular and socially accepted as being the ideal, beautiful woman? Why not get a woman who is vegetarian or vegan to pose for their ads who looks like they actually eat? PETA is basically saying that yes, you should let animals keep their fur because you should be comfortable in your own skin–as long as you’re a size 2 and conventionally beautiful. There is not one other ad from PETA that uses women of varied body shape or size. This assumption is obvious since all of these ads have this fact resonating through them and not one ad from PETA has used a male nude body. PETA obviously respects the rights of animals over women since time and time again, PETA continues to disrespect women and simply throw their naked bodies up on an ad and say “Look at me.”

PETA’s public protests and demonstrations are also a glimpse at the sexist ideas they give their supporters to take part in such as topless women under plastic wrap and fake blood with a label reading ‘Human Flesh’ in an attempt to give the public passersby a shock by reenacting how meat is packaged. A nearly naked woman painted like a snake to bring attention to the way snake skins are harvested. Girls in yellow bikinis while holding up egg-shaped signs that read “Chicks Suffer for Eggs.” And perhaps the display that really rubbed me the wrong way–The one and only time a woman of a varying size is pictured at a PETA demonstration “just happens to be” a demonstration on pigs.

So thank you PETA, for making it so easy for people to not take you seriously, think your organization should be labeled as a terrorist group, shove images of conventionally beautiful women down our throats and objectify more women with one ill-conceived cause than I thought possible. Your organization isn’t worth the time I put into writing this post, but what you stand for needs to be seen.

delicious   digg   mixx   kirtsy   stumbleupon   propeller   newsvine   twitter   reddit   facebook   myspace
comment  

Related Posts

Viewing 8 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    This is a wonderful post.

    I used to be a supporter of PETA but their misogyny just became too much to bear. I do agree with them on one thing though - nobody should buy animals from a pet shop. Get them from a rescue or a reputable breeder, but not a pet shops. No reputable breeder will sell to a pet shop, so the animals found in the shops have dubious heritage and the new owner will have no idea about potential illnesses etc. It undoes all the good work done by private breeders who breed for the love of the animal, to improve the health and temperament of the species as a whole, rather than seeing them as an easy way to make money.
    • ^
    • v
    I agree with PETA on some stuff such as not wearing fur or buying animals from pet shops but they take things too far. The have done many things that I could never agree with and their add campaigns tend to be distasteful.
    • ^
    • v
    As someone who's never cared for PETA and therefore ignores them, I had no idea they were putting out ads like that. Wow. Talk about sending mixed messages! This only aids in reaffirming my feelings about PETA being a hokey, nutty organization. Especially the video of Alicia Silverstone. She's pretty I suppose, but I could have gone without a nudey clip promoting vegetarian eating. How weird.

    My only thing is I would caution people about going so far as to label PETA as a "terrorist" group. The word "terrorist" is tossed around too dang much, IMO. And if history has taught us anything, it's that our rights and civil protections are precious even (or perhaps especially) in times of dissent. If PETA and ELF are labeled as terrorist organizations, anyone who contributes money to them may be viewed as contributing to and supporting terrorist activities. Now that might not matter much to those of us who don't plan on giving PETA any money, but the labeling won't stop with PETA, ELF and ALF. It never does. And eventually we might find ourselves in the precarious situation of supporting an organization that has been branded with this label.

    There's a place for political dissent. Granted, PETA behaves stupidly more often than not. But calling them terrorists and lumping them in the same category as people who fly planes into buildings waters down the very definition of "terrorism." Does all organizational violence qualify as terrorism? If not, where do we draw the line? And what if select members of a given organization engage in violence on their own free will? Is the organization responsible for part of the blame just because their name was dragged into it? A more pressing question: are antiwar protesters who engage in civil disobedience terrorists? I'd say not, but that line is being seriously blurred.

    The Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 is so vague in its definition of "homegrown terrorism" that many groups may be assigned the label in due time. It's really uncomfortable to hear us using this sort of language casually considering the potential ramifications.

    I may not like PETA and believe their minions ought to have their asses severely whooped for throwing paint on people's possessions (real fur or not), but I wouldn't go so far as to call them terrorists.
    • ^
    • v
    I wish another organisation would step up and take over from PETA. Their philosophy's good, but the way they carry it out is awful.
    • ^
    • v
    the worst thing about PETA, beyond their blatant exploitation and twisted body-image messages, is that they could be doing something constructive and good with all the money they apparently have (those ads ain't cheap!), rather than act like terrorist hypocrites. they could do actual good for animals. they could support rescue organizations and low-cost spay/neuter clinics and use that ginormous PR budget to educate people on being rational, caring, responsible pet owners. as to the fur/skin issue, they could easily hire a good agency that is skilled in influencing public opinion and convince people that it is uncool to wear fur without sinking to the oldest trick in the book -- "hey, let's use a naked chick". it's been done people, it's been done and done and done some more, it's the ad agency version of the no-brain campaign. they have enough money to be more creative.

    but instead, they are using their money, power, and influence to perpetuate stereotypes, insult women, and contribute to the already overwhelming pressure young girls feel to attain an unrealistic body image. for shame, PETA, for shame.

    as for myself, i don't wear fur but i do wear leather, because i also eat cows. i'm an omnivore by birth, and i'm ok with that. i have a lot of pets, all but one lizard and the toads are rescues, i believe in rescuing, and i do what i can to support local rescue agencies.

    and the pig image pisses me off beyond all belief. omg. omg. those assholes.
    • ^
    • v
    That ad for Amanda Beard came up in talk in the Olympics. That really makes a statement since its so eye grabbing.
    • ^
    • v
    I do agry with Peta. I wish another organisation would step up and take over from PETA. Their philosophy's good, but the way they carry it out is awful.Thanks for sharing.
    • ^
    • v
    Just now getting to this post. I love your arguments and couldn't agree more. I also have not been a fan of PETA and never knew about their advertising but I'm appalled by these. PETA is the reason that I have the rule against organizations who use violence or acts of terrorism to further their cause cannot appear on www.givecheerfully.com (my site for charities and nonprofits). I just can't get behind an organization that puts animals over human beings. Don't get me wrong, I love animals, my pets are all from humane societies and I have worked with Husky rescue for years... but I still would choose a human life over my pet.

    Thanks so much for the article, I digg it :)
 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus