I'll agree with you on this one. PETA has gone too far. (Of course I thought they'd gone too far with their Madonna ads a few years ago.)

i was pretty disturbed when i saw the latest PETA campaign. i'm a vegan, and i find it totally incomprehensible that PETA can appeal for the rights of animals, while simultaneously degrading and objectifying women in this way.

anyway, i emailed them with my concerns, and this was the reply i got. thought i may as well share with you all:

Thank you for your email expressing concern about nude activists and models. We appreciate the time you took to share your thoughts with us.

As an organization staffed largely by feminist women, we would not do something that we felt contributed to the very serious problems that women face. "Naked" demonstrators and billboard models choose to participate in our actions because they want to do something to make people stop and pay attention. Of course we also feature men in our ads:

* http://www.PETA.org/pdfs/ADmola.pdf
* http://www.FurIsDead.com/pdfs/ad-kristoff.pdf
* http://www.FurIsDead.com/feat-cross.asp

We believe that people should have the choice to use their own bodies to make social statements. This tactic has been used since Lady Godiva rode naked on a horse to protest taxes on the poor in the 11th century. If people choose to use their bodies or sexuality to convey a message, aren't those who would censor them guilty of repression?

We feel that there is nothing shameful or "wrong" about being naked. Fortunately, we do not live under Taliban rule, and we should not feel as though our bodies are something to hide. However, we do believe it would be oppressive to imply that it is acceptable for males to participate in "naked" events but not females.

These activists are dedicated to helping foxes who are electrocuted and skinned by the millions for the fur industry, calves who are torn from their distraught mothers and slaughtered for the meat industry, elephants who are beaten bloody and forced to live in chains year after year in circuses, and the billions of animals who suffer from torture, maddening isolation, starvation, terror, and violent death at the hands of uncaring industries.

We feel that all people should be free to use their minds and bodies as political instruments to bring attention to animal suffering, and we appreciate any effort to help those who have no voice.

We respect your right to disagree with our tactics, but we hope that you will continue to support projects that you do agree with.

Thank you for providing us with this opportunity to respond to your concern and for all that you do to help animals.

Kind regards,

Jamie Anderson, Administrative Assistant

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
PO Box 36668, London, SE1 1UN
020 7357 9229 ext. 221
www.PETA.org.uk

I hate PETA. They are on the same level as Creationists, except on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

Excuse me. I need to go grill a steak.

of course, if the world is going to degrade cows, the *best* way to combat must be to degrade women... why didn't i think of that... i mean. WTF!!!

Rowan,

Throw one on the grill for me, please.

I just looked at the pdf files PETA put in the email and I must say we have to give them points for consistency. Consistent cluelessness, that is.

PETA gives the rest of us on the left a bad name. Just like Earth First. They seek to change the world, but use tactics that are inappropriate. While I sympathise with their cause, I feel they are too detached from reality to cause any effetual chenge in reality.

This is a ridiculous ad. Its degrading in every sense of the word. I love how PETA only picks the worst of the worst to show. What about all the family farms in America, which are consistently being wiped off the map by big business, who treat their animals kindly and humanely? I would support PETA if they would actually campaign to support the people who DO treat their animals ethically. Shock does nothing.

as i said over at fluffydollars.blogspot:

among the barrage of eff'd up in this campaign: ashley merriots bio on the website.

"want to look like ashley (minus the udder of course)? JUST GO VEGAN."

yes folks, that's right! you'll uphold white capitalist patriarical beauty standards if you JUST GO VEGAN!

i didn't look like that when i was veg*n. in fact, surprise!, i have hovered around the same weight for the past five years even with the change in diet (three years veg*n, the past two not).

I agree that the ad is quite tasteless. But I am surprised at the barrage of negative comments.

The reasoning behind the ad actually seems pretty solid. It's just that the actual images don't come across as the empowering "godiva" type of nudity.

Still people who believe so passionately in a noble goal should not be vilified needlessly. In a world full of conflicting values it seems like animal suffering should be ranked much higher than it is. If this ad succeeded in giving some people a glimpse at a factory farm in action, then I think a little misplaced tacky humor should be overlooked as relatively inconsequential. Cruelty trumps inequality.

If this ad succeeded in giving some people a glimpse at a factory farm in action, then I think a little misplaced tacky humor should be overlooked as relatively inconsequential.

In the words of Paula Abdul...one step forward, two steps back. Why not increase awareness of animal cruelty without objectifying women? Surely, it is possible. I would argue that showing disturbing pictures of animals is much more effective than scantilly clad women who probably ending up getting more of the attention in an ad like this than the actual point of the ad. In fact, I went straight to the link without reading the post and I had no idea what it was for.

Cruelty trumps inequality.

I am a vegetarian and a feminist. I became both because of cruelty. Inequality breeds cruelty (e.g. sexual assault and rape are acts of violence that are typically inflicted on the "lesser" sex - and ads like this certainly don't help to humanize women). Who are you to say that cruelty trumps inequality traqula? People eat animals because they consider them unequal when it comes to the food chain (that's why we eat cows and not monkeys). Make sense? Therefore, I say again - one step forward and two back when it comes to this ad.

I'm just a person with an opinion. Well, lots of opinions to be perfectly honest. Ok. Way too many opinions.

I see what you are saying about how you don't need to dehumanize women to make a point about animal rights. And I agree that these kinds of ads are a mistaken approach. I just don't think it's that big of a mistake, or done maliciously. You have to take intent into consideration.

And you would never had clicked on the post if it hadn't been posted here in the first place because of The Udders. The goal of PETA is to raise awareness of the factory farms, because for joe shmo on the street they are still a bit of a secret. And boobies are a big draw.

Now I'm sure you care a lot about animals. But if you considered animal suffering equal to human suffering then you would have to be more outraged by the second half of the video. So, in my book it's two steps forward and one back.

Apparently my progressive sensitiblities have become completely discombobulated, because I am totally confused here. First of all, I don't really get what this has to do with PETA's opposition to milk drinking and factory farming, other than getting people to say the word "PETA." And then, I don't really find this to be offensive to women - I think that it's a pretty funny spoof of the ridiculousness that is Girls Gone Wild. As female-objectifying advertising goes, I find myself much more offended by (for example) the TGIFriday's ad where they show a couple of guys ordering a dish that causes them to be descended on by cheerleaders and other stereotypical babetypes. The message seems to be, buy some hot wings, and we'll throw in a hunk of babe for free!!

Anyway, I'm asking for help here, at the risk of destroying my feminist cred. What am I missing here?

Well, it certainly is meant to be a Girls Gone Wild spoof. Of course most people aren't going to find it humorous, since most people have no sense of humor. Though some people may have a gross visceral reaction to the video, which would make it seem very unfunny.

But I think that the main objection is to the idea of comparing women to cows. And displaying them as walking talking mammary glands. Which can be offensive, even as a spoof, since sophomoric humor of this sort has traditionally been created to amuse and titillate men. (Pun intended.)

Well, what's wrong with amusing and titillating men?

One of the things that breastfeeding mothers have had to deal with at times is being compared to cows by anti-BFers. I did not find the ad amusing.