Which PETA campaign do you hate the most?

I refuse to post the image of the newest horrific stunt that PETA managed to pull off in London yesterday. Instead, I’ll go vintage sexism and give you the oldest ad that we have – Save the wild pussy!
Sometimes it seems that PETA’s sexist bullshit will never cease to haunt us, so I thought it was about time we do something about it. I wanted to take the opportunity after this most recent heinous stunt to make a poll out of five of their most offensive ads/actions that we have and ask you which is your personal favorite (to hate, that is). So will it be:

“Fur Trim” Ad?
“Milk Gone Wild”?
Naked Alicia Silverstone’s ad?
“KFC Blows” Sex dolls?
London’s “Unhappy Mother’s Day for Pigs”?

And while we’re collecting your responses, give PETA a new campaign idea like these that Ann suggested, “Vegetarianism is not sexism” or “Don’t make women your meat substitute.”

Join the Conversation

  • hellotampon

    We should send letters to them from “People for the Ethical Treatment of Women.”

  • mimo92

    I have long been annoyed with PETA. (My father runs a horse and carriage business. We are apparently horrible, evil people for daring to own animals and have them pull something where the weight is on the wheels and not the horse, but that’s a different story.)
    I hate PETA. I’ll admit it. This is just another thing that ads to their vileness. I have a friend who supports PETA (not a crazy, though), while I find very ironic.

  • JakobFabian01

    Has anyone besides me noticed that the extreme animal-rights agenda and the extreme embryo-rights agenda are very similar?
    What they have in common is a strong, but narrowly focused moral impulse — protect this life form, here, now — combined with a failure to place this moral impulse in any context, above all in any ecological context.
    For the record, I am usually a practicing vegetarian, but for environmental reasons, not animal-rights reasons. I consider it environmentally unfeasible to protect animal lives on a planet where quite a few animals themselves live by predation. Eating lower on the food chain is a moral habit that humans can practice to a large degree without sacrificing their health. However, wolves cannot follow suit, and we would do irreparable harm to ecosystems if we required all wolves to live on tofu products.
    I admire women who refuse, for moral reasons, to have abortions as much as I admire women and men who are committed vegans. However, when activists in either group try to compel everybody else to live according to their own strict moral code, I believe they have not thought through what would likely be the ecological consequences if everybody complied: on the one hand, a population explosion of deer (and other large herbivores) killing the planet’s remaining forests; on the other, a population explosion of 12-20 billion human beings struggling to stave off mass starvation by converting all of the Earth’s surface into cropland.

  • http://hugoschwyzer.net Hugo Schwyzer

    I’m an animal rights guy who gives to a lot of groups running the spectrum from the borderline militant (Last Chance for Animals) to the dignified mainstream (Humane Society). I do a lot of stuff with PCRM, PETA’s much more restrained and thoughtful anti-vivisection arm. But I don’t give to PETA, largely because of their advertising.
    The founder of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, is an amazing woman and a strong feminist. Somehow, the PR campaigns for PETA don’t reflect her vision.
    And Jakob, for heaven’s sake, no vegan I’ve ever met with a brain has ever wanted to train wolves to eat tofu. A global vegan diet for humans is doable without straining the environment.
    Cattle, as any vegan will tell you, contribute more greenhouse gas emissions than all the jets in the air combined. You do more for the environment by going vegan than by refusing to fly.
    **gets off soapbox**
    Anyhow, I’ve gotten into some heated arguments with my friends in the AR world who do support the “by any means necessary” campaigns of PETA.

  • commiegirl

    I don’t think its at all fair to label PETA ‘sexist.’
    These women are political activists, free adults advancing their chosen political agenda with any legal means at their disposal.
    They have made the observation that:
    1. a protest involving 2 naked people draws more media attention to their cause then a protest involving 200 clothed people. its intended to be attention grabbing because they want attention for their cause.
    2. people pay attention to racy ads in a way they don’t pay attention to purely guilt provoking ads.
    3. given that their issue (veganism) is something that involves targeting popular opinion and changing people’s lifestyles (rather than lobbying congress or parliaments or whatever) by trying to be sexy and playful (as opposed to so much of the anti-sex, shaming, guilting, public service ads you tend to see) they can make their lifestyle choice seem appealing to broad groups of young people. whether this works or not, its an attempt at having a bit more media savvy than most leftwing activist groups.
    I do not think that any use of female sexuality in the media or female nudity or even appeals to traditional beauty standards is automatically ‘sexist.’ A naked woman in media isn’t automatically being oppressed or exploited or promoting sexism, it depends entirely on the context and motivation. I don’t get why PETA evokes this type of response when it (keeping in mind that its an overwhelmingly female organization) uses female sexuality for a political cause but feminist artists can use female sexuality for art or feminist political aims without being labeled sexist.
    To automatically label peta activists who use their bodies to advance their political agenda as sexist or somehow participating in sexism is patronizing I think to the women who choose to promote something they believe in that way. Its not appropriate to project personal feelings about how it would feel to be in their position onto them, because its not about women in general, its about their particular politics. I personally wouldn’t get naked or try to be sexually suggestive for a political cause but I don’t think i’m in any position to tell other women they shouldn’t be allowed to.

  • stephanieanne

    The naked PETA ads don’t make me think about animal rights (and I’m vegan and spend a lot of time thinking about how awesome animals are and getting upset at their treatment). Especially compared to ads featuring images of what actually happens to animals before they become food or “fashion”. Of course, if people want to use their bodies to make a statement, then that’s fine. I just think that sometimes there are more effective ways of educating people.
    I agree with Carol J. Adams (author of The Sexual Politics of Meat) who said, “there is no need to exploit women to save animals”.

  • MLEmac

    Last night I was watching Ace Ventura 2 on tv, and there was a great bit where a woman wearing fur talks about how great it is to wear nature’s spoils. Ace responds by punching a little old man and then wearing HIM around his neck and commenting on how wonderful it feels to wear nature’s spoils. It was hilarious, and certainly proved the point without anyone getting naked.

  • Bislane

    wow…i apologize, PETA, for having pubic hair…

  • mandalanis

    obviously PETA cares more about animals than women,,, wonder if they care about female animals??

  • devan louise

    thanks peta, because i don’t get the message that my body hair is unattractive enough. fuckin disgusting.
    ps i love how the “LOL PETA IZNT SEXIST THEY TOADILY USE TEH NEKKID MENZ LIKE 2% OF THE TIME” people will ONLY COMMENT ON THE NAKEDNESS. as if this is what feminists who recognize the disgustingness of peta are against.
    their ads are so obviously sexist it’s fucking smacking you in the face. you have to have a serious lack of understanding of sexism to not see how these ads are incredibly offensive.

  • Nattles

    @ commiegirl: THANK YOU.
    @ devan louise: Um, no. Naked women alone aren’t sexist. Naked women in PETA ads are considerably less sexist than naked women in, say, beer ads. Women in PETA ads are there to draw attention to themselves and their beliefs. Whether the naked women in beer ads etc. are sexist is a topic for another day, but I’m going to come down on the side of no.
    PETA uses sex because it gets them media attention and free publicity. The mother’s day ad is trying to make people think. Would you treat a pregnant woman like this? No? Then don’t treat a pregnant animal like this.
    Whether or not you agree with the sentiment, it’s a fairly effective strategy.

  • pinkflea

    I have to say thank you to this site. I was looking for the mothers day protest and you brought that anti fur trim add to my attention.I have never seen it before! That is sooo funny, you know you laughed when you saw it! PETA is so awesome! How can you bash someone for having such a strong compassion that they would sit out there and do that to help the animals?! I have gotten naked numerous times for PETA and I would do it again in a heartbeat! Dont bash PETA when it is us choosing to get naked for the cause. If I where out there in a turtle neck do you think I would get have the attention I get standing out there with a sign and naked? NO! So I will keep doing it.

  • claudzilla

    So I went to the source (Peta) and clicked their “submit an idea” link and asked them to be a little more creative and stop objectifyng women’s bodies in their campaigns this was their long and absurd response:
    “First, please know that, as an organization staffed largely by feminist women, we would not do something that contributed to the serious problems that women face. We feel that there is nothing shameful or “wrongâ€? about being naked, and we believe that women—and men—should have the choice to use their own bodies to make social statements. This tactic has been used since at least the 11th century, when Lady Godiva rode naked on a horse to protest taxes on the poor. Far from being exploited, our “nakedâ€? demonstrators and billboard models choose to participate in our actions because they want to do something to make people stop and pay attention to animal abuse.
    Take Traci Bingham, for example, who posed for our “All Animals Have the Same Parts� ad campaign (http://www.GoVeg.com/feat/tracibee/). She is a deeply committed vegetarian who is known to millions for her television work, such as beating out a platoon of men to excel in an endurance test called Boot Camp. She chose to use her body to bring public attention to a serious animal issue. In this case, Ms. Bingham felt offended by the traditional “meat� posters that treat animals as “parts,� and she wanted to make the point that neither they nor women should be viewed as parts—we are all precious.
    Consider that it is the societies that allow women to wear revealing clothing in which women have the most rights and the most power. Likewise, it is the societies that punish women for wearing revealing clothing in which women have the fewest rights and the least power—they are considered chattel who must do as they are told. Should women only be allowed to participate in activism if they promise not to show their bodies or use them to make social statements? If a person chooses to use her physicality and sexuality to convey a message of her choosing, aren’t those who would censor her, even if their motives are well-intended, also somewhat guilty of disrespect and repression?
    Although our use of “nudity� is attention-grabbing, we don’t rely on it for the majority of our outreach, nor do we use it gratuitously; it is intended to underscore our message, whether it is “I’d rather go naked than wear fur,� to emphasize the health benefits of a vegetarian diet, or to show the vulnerability of animals in laboratories or circuses. We would also like to note that we do not feature only women in our more provocative ads; please see the following examples:
    · http://www.FurIsDead.com/feat-rodman2.asp
    · http://www.PETA.org/feat/jennaethan/
    · http://www.FurIsDead.com/feat-kristoff.asp
    Basically, if you are scantly clothed you are liberated and free. If you are wearing too many clothes such as head scarves, you are oppressed.
    Wow, how simplistic. My jeans and my oversized t-shirt OPPRESS me, so in order to be liberated I must show my tits for the Girls Gone Wild Camera. Un-freaking-believeable.
    Please join me in telling these folks that their assumptions about women’s bodies, nakedness (or lack thereof) are completely oversimplified and misinterpreted.

  • devan louise

    @nattles: wha…what? i don’t think you understood what i said AT ALL.
    i wasn’t saying that the nakedness was sexist. i was saying most of the people who refuse to admit peta is sexist only comment on the nakedness and how it isn’t sexist. [which i don't disagree with.] they completely ignore everything else which is BLATANTLY offensive [fur trim, hello?]. they’re acting as if the nakedness is what feminists have a problem with when it’s obviously not.

  • Raina Weather

    You guys don’t even have the worst one up there. Remember the picture of chained animals next to slaves. That was by far the most offensive.

  • Raina Weather

    I don’t know if my other comment posted, but the most offensive was the ad with chained animals next to chained slaves.