This just in: Stupid and gullible people to dumb things.

I'm Rick Romero, reporting.

Honestly. They just never stop.

Ya know, I'd really, really like to be able to get behind PETA. It's only a good thing to insist that we treat other living creatures with respect and dignity and, while I don't have moral qualms about eating meat per se, I'm absolutely a believer in humane and non-wasteful killing of animals.

But when they pull shit like this it really, really tempts me to just go out and buy a whole barrel of commercially-farmed eggs.

Honestly. They just never stop.

This is exactly why I don't support PETA.

I'm all for activism, but isn't it incredibly ironic that these women are willing to use their sexuality to fight for animals, when they could be out fighting against - oh, I don't know - the use of hypersexualized images of women to "accomplish" things? Or they could just find another way to protest. Silly, silly.

That press release made me vomit. Just in case the actual caging of the women was not degrading enough, the constant references the "beauties" got and sexy chicks got the job done.

Oh SUPER. It's just like www.milkgonewild.com. Boobs sell stuff better than brains and reasoning I guess, huh?

You know, with a good argument and by horrifying me with the conditions the chickens are in they probably could convince me to stop eating eggs.
As it is, bring on the scrambled.

Maybe there'd be fewer demonstrations in this vein if people talked about PETA and animal rights outside of complaining about PETA's ridiculous ad campaigns.

The fact that they don't only justifies PETA's actions.

"Nothing hotter than caging women up like chickens."

But that's THE POINT of the protest. The point is to show that caging hens up is wrong, so to demonstrate it they're putting humans in cages. They're trying to say it is just as wrong to cage chickens as it is to cage humans. The reason they only used women is because the animals caged are hens- female chickens.

I'm not saying it is a good protest. Personally, I don't see why they couldn't just do a traditional picketing (with men and women involved). However, I do think there is alot of misunderstanding about what PETA is trying to do in protest.

Also- PETA and many animal rights people do not believe it is a denigration to be compared to an animal.

Robos A Go Go: so you're saying we're really bringing it on ourselves because we're not responding to PETA the way they would like us to?

Sounds a lot like: "She wouldn't have gotten punched in the face if she would have just done what I told her the first time."

God. PETA makes me want to eat meat SO BAD.

(I'm a vegetarian, BTW).

I'm Vegan, I hate PETA. This crap embarrasses me.
I'm saddened by the fact that some people would support animal suffering just because they disagree with ONE organization.
Check out http://www.veganoutreach.org/ if you want to read some rational information on the subject of factory farming.

"You know, with a good argument and by horrifying me with the conditions the chickens are in they probably could convince me to stop eating eggs.
As it is, bring on the scrambled."

I love how you've more or less decided that the efficacy of an ad campaign rather than facts that are readily available to anyone and your own concept of good and evil ought to decide where you fall on animal rights issues.

Honestly, anyone who thinks that it's okay to even joke about intentionally causing suffering to animals as a way of getting back at a well-intentioned group sickens me. If you're going to hurt anyone, hurt PETA by supporting a rival animal rights group and helping to take away their status as the foremost animal rights group in this country.

Otherwise, you're just being hateful and ignorant.

I have to agree with Zed here, and disagree with Robo. PETA looks ridiculous not only because of their sexist protests, but because there ARE groups, like the Humane society of the United States and ASPCA, who DO address animal rights and crulety-free living without resorting to the tactics PETA does.

PETA, I think, sold out the cause they fight for for media attention. Seriously, if you want to support animal welfare without PETA, HSUS and ASPCA are good ways to go (I donate to them!)

I could probably get behind this if it weren't for the bikinis and the "chick" references. Had it been fully-clothes individuals in cages holding signs that were pretty to-the-point(forgive me, the creative slogan-writing part of my brain is asleep), I would understand it. I think that putting people in the situations in which we put animals is a pretty good way to demonstrate cruelty. If only it didn't always have to be about the T and A with PETA. I just really don't see what bikinis have to do with chickens.

I hope that made any sense, I just got back from work and am le tired. :)

"Robos A Go Go: so you're saying we're really bringing it on ourselves because we're not responding to PETA the way they would like us to?

Sounds a lot like: "She wouldn't have gotten punched in the face if she would have just done what I told her the first time.""

No, it's more like saying that crime happens because people ignore the issue of poverty. PETA and (some) criminals are pushed into a situation where acting in a socially unacceptable way seems like the only possible means to an end.

The way to get the two to stop isn't by stating that the behavior is a problem, but rather by attacking the problem at the root.

I love it when organizations that I don't support do my work of discrediting themselves for me.

>>"Nothing hotter than caging women up like chickens."


But that's THE POINT of the protest. The point is to show that caging hens up is wrong, so to demonstrate it they're putting humans in cages. They're trying to say it is just as wrong to cage chickens as it is to cage humans. The reason they only used women is because the animals caged are hens- female chickens.



Perhaps if they put men in cages instead, it might actually *upset* people, but as it is, we're already "used to" images of restrained, repressed women, sooo... This scam is kinda useless. Lol, put men in business suits in cages, that might make people equate chickens with worth, because those are the valued members of society. These PETA women are only further illustrating how okay it is to use women to "sell" your idea........

Ugh. PETA once again makes me embarrassed to be vegan.

I agree very much with thegirlriots. I was thinking as I looked at the picture, couldn't they do this just as well without the bikinis? (That is, with the girls dressed normally. And maybe some normally-dressed guys as well.)

Robos A Go Go--your logic is flawless.

What have others heard about PETA killing many of the animals it saves?

Okay, Robos, you've gotten your righteous indignation out. Feel better yet? Hopefully your tantrum has relieved you enough to PAY ATTENTION and see the point here.

The point is not "you guys are bad people for reacting this way." You know what? Who cares. Okay, we're all the devil. Fine. We're horrible, depraved human beings who wish evil on all the innocent animals. Where does that get PETA? If PETA's tactics are going to drive horrible evil animal-hating people like us to do even more horrible evil animal-hating things, then, um, doesn't that mean that -- if they are ACTUALLY proponents of animal rights as they claim -- they should re-evaluate their tactics???

You're really missing the pragmatic point here, Robos.

Also, you're being a royal ass. Everyone here more or less agrees with the message PETA purports to be putting forth. The fact that we're talking about their tactics -- with disgust -- hardly means those tactics are effective. It means they're attention-getting. Well, any effective campaigner or advertiser understands that getting attention is ONLY the FIRST step. If you don't suck at what you're trying to do, you realize that, after getting people's attention, you have to KEEP their attention and INSPIRE them to do whatever it is you're trying to get them to do. Women in bikinis in bird cages definitely grab people's attention. But they don't keep it for very long, and they don't inspire anyone to do anything PETA supposedly supports. The neanderthals won't get the message, because they'll be too busy staring at the booooooobies and making stupid jokes with their frat brothers. The progressives won't get the message because they'll be too busy being pissed at PETA for exploiting women. The people in the middle won't get the message because they'll recognize this tactic for the cheap shocker that it is and quickly move along. So, um, HOW, exactly, has the campaign been effective?

As the devoted mother (yes, "mother") of an animal, I am offended that PETA is wasting its resources on crappy sideshow attractions when it could instead be using its money and celebrity to actually do good for creatures like my adopted furry child.

Most shelters kill animals, manifest. Some don't, but that's generally because they have the luxury of being able to deal with a more manageable number than most.

Robos A Go Go: Your response does not address my criticism of your initial phrasing. I get causal relationships, but you're making excuses for them, in essence you're stating that because while PETA may be using shit tactics it's somehow excused by the fact that they are doing so for a reason.

Livestock have shit lives for the most part, but this does not excuse or validate the tactics PETA uses to draw attention to it any more than pointing out the obvious poverty and suffering of most Palestinians would justify someone getting on a bus strapped down with C4.

@ Law Fairy - With you all the way.

"Nothing hotter than caging women up like chickens."

But that's THE POINT of the protest. The point is to show that caging hens up is wrong, so to demonstrate it they're putting humans in cages. They're trying to say it is just as wrong to cage chickens as it is to cage humans. The reason they only used women is because the animals caged are hens- female chickens.

OK I'll bite. If the point is to show women in cages is wrong, why do they have to be wearing STRING BIKINIS? Why do they have to be universially young and thin? and, hello, WHITE? (And if you even TRY to tell me only young, thin women protest for/support PETA I'll know you're a troll...I'm pretty sure PETA has the opportunity to draw from all sorts of people).

Because they're using women's sexuality, not making a point about being in cages. If that's ALL they were trying to do, there would be women of all shapes and ages, AND they wouldn't be wearing string bikinis. Furthermore, they're drawing on (and exploiting) racist beauty standards by using only white women.

Puh-lease.

You know what would be just as effecive? Create a cage with as much bird shit-caked straw as they can fit in, then put a person in there all day to protest. Now THAT would be a metaphor.

Law Fairy:

1). I don't think PETA actually encourages people to harm animals even more than they otherwise would. As such, I don't think your first point stands, but if you send me a picture of you eating a ton of eggs or punching a dog I'll stand corrected.

2). You're acting as if the post I directed at you was meant for everyone here. It wasn't.

I personally found what you said to be offensive, not because it was a legitimate threat to do something (regardless of whether it is right or wrong), but rather because I thought it was a tasteless and juvenile thing to say akin to the taunts an ignorant person may direct at a feminist, or any other proponent of an unpopular cause.

3). Like you said, getting noticed is the first step, and I don't think PETA could make it that far any other way.

If someone can prove me wrong, then go ahead, and I'll admit to having flawed ideas about how animal rights groups can get their cause noticed.

Also, I thought I was the one making the pragmatic point.

Robos, gee, I didn't know it was a sin to be TEMPTED, which was the extent of my earlier comment. I'll have to scrawl that one into the margins of my Bible. To say that my being pissed at PETA such that it tempts me to do things I myself don't think are good is offensive? Good Lord but you must have a high blood pressure. I can only imagine how daily life on the planet earth must offend you. And to compare my comments to anti-feminist taunting is just plain ignorant. If feminists employed horrible tactics to get their message across and someone said "gee, this almost makes me wish I weren't feminist," THAT would be comparable. Run-of-the-mill anti-feminism is simply that: anti-feminism. Bad analogy.

As for your buck-passing remark at the end, no one can "prove" you wrong because you can't "prove" an argument that necessarily involves hypothetical facts. You come storming in here making excuses for PETA and then make some bizarre argument to the effect that, hey, we're talking about something, therefore it is effective. Then you go on about how we're bad people -- oh, sorry, I'M a bad person (even though you never bothered addressing me by name until now) -- because PETA's anti-woman tactics ideologically pit me against them such that a part of me almost wants to speak out against a message I've already said I agree with. Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face might be inadvisable and a bit rash, but it's hardly "tasteless." It's actually a pretty normal off-the-cuff human reaction.

As for whether PETA could get attention any other way, oh come on. Are you really that uncreative? Other people have already suggested things that, if anything, would garner MORE attention than PETA's caged women act. Which strikes you as more unusual: a woman in a bikini behind a cage or a man in a business suit behind a cage?

"Nothing hotter than caging women up like chickens."

in the right context, putting people in cages can be very hot.
...

This isn't it.

"Nothing hotter than caging women up like chickens."

That's the point. They're making a comparison between women and chickens, and it's supposed to make people think about how they treat chickens.

They're female because "chicks" just makes a cute pun.

And they're scantily clad for attention. Which is actually fine by me, particularly since women who get naked for PETA are getting naked for a cause they believe in. They know they're being objectified, and they're willing to take advantage of that and draw attention to issues that are important to them.

At this point, everyone's gotten used to PETA's standard naked girl protests, and they should probably start using naked men more often. If would get them even more attention AND be more equal.

Nattles:

I'd get naked to protest against PETA.

If they were looking for shock value and to engender pity, they should have used children. Plus children are wayyy cuter, with those big eyes and all.

I just can't get behind PETA's consistent, deliberate use of sexist imagery and language. Sorry.

Boring. Couldn't they get them to fully strip?

"Robos, gee, I didn't know it was a sin to be TEMPTED, which was the extent of my earlier comment. I'll have to scrawl that one into the margins of my Bible. To say that my being pissed at PETA such that it tempts me to do things I myself don't think are good is offensive? Good Lord but you must have a high blood pressure. I can only imagine how daily life on the planet earth must offend you. And to compare my comments to anti-feminist taunting is just plain ignorant. If feminists employed horrible tactics to get their message across and someone said "gee, this almost makes me wish I weren't feminist," THAT would be comparable. Run-of-the-mill anti-feminism is simply that: anti-feminism. Bad analogy."

The same claim you made about potentially being driven away from the cause of animal rights by PETA is regularly made on college campuses in regards to radical feminism and feminism.

And yes, I'm sure there are more than a few men out there who make offensive statements in response to the words of women like Andrea Dworkin to illustrate just how offended they are by those sentiments.

"As for your buck-passing remark at the end, no one can "prove" you wrong because you can't "prove" an argument that necessarily involves hypothetical facts. You come storming in here making excuses for PETA and then make some bizarre argument to the effect that, hey, we're talking about something, therefore it is effective. Then you go on about how we're bad people -- oh, sorry, I'M a bad person (even though you never bothered addressing me by name until now) -- because PETA's anti-woman tactics ideologically pit me against them such that a part of me almost wants to speak out against a message I've already said I agree with. Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face might be inadvisable and a bit rash, but it's hardly "tasteless." It's actually a pretty normal off-the-cuff human reaction."

I hardly think my initial two-line response about people in general, and not feministing's list of members, constitutes "storming in".

Also, I think the fact that I quoted you in my second response was a clear enough indication that that was a response to you.

Finally, I don't think the frequency of something makes it excusable. That's just my opinion, though it's certainly been echoed here and is certainly shown in your objection to the very common tactic of using women in bikinis to sell something, in this case a noble idea.

"As for whether PETA could get attention any other way, oh come on. Are you really that uncreative? Other people have already suggested things that, if anything, would garner MORE attention than PETA's caged women act. Which strikes you as more unusual: a woman in a bikini behind a cage or a man in a business suit behind a cage?"

Men in business suits end up in cages all the time. It's called corporate fraud, and prison.

In fact, the only time anyone cares about someone ending up in a cage is when it's a celebrity or a beautiful women, the idea being that it's somehow inappropriate for beautiful people to end up in that kind of situation.

And PETA is using that to their advantage.

Anyway, Law Fairy, we're clearly a little disgruntled with each other, and that means we're past the point of debating the issue at hand and well into just arguing.

If we can both agree that arguing on the internet is an incredible waste of time, then we can just end things now.

I'm all for PETAs "shock" tactics.

I'm for most activist groups "shock" tactics.

How were we (the anti-war types) going to stop the invasion of Iraq - by writing polite letters to the Prime Minister, our MPs, Congress?

Janet Street Porter is on Gordon Ramseys show "The F word" this week, promoting veal. She, no doubt, hates PETA. But loves veal. She will do everything she can to encourage the masses to eat more veal. And horse meat - she's also determined to promote horse meat. She may be under the illusion that animals don't suffer enough in Britain as it is so is determined to bump up the numbers.

Most people really don't care about animal suffering, beyond their pets. By most people, I mean most people.

It doesn't matter how many horses die in one Grand National, the masses will turn out to bet on the next Grand National.

This is the world we live in.

Sure, I could spend hours designing and distributing leaflets about the horse trade, or greyhound breeding/racing
- and the sports will become more popular than ever after I've spent ten years working hard to stop it.

My Mums experiences battling against the fur trade in London taught her one thing: The public hated her no matter what tactics she adopted.

But they (women, mostly) just wet themselves when they saw a gorgeous "sooooo soft" fur coat.

(But don't show these women how the coats were produced unless you fancied verbal abuse and threats of physical violence, possible hysteria and/or the police breathing down your neck)

15 years of trying to educate the public? Wiped out by the rising popularity of fur amongst the young - thanks to promotions by z list celebs and St Martins fashion designers promoting a "new image" of fur.

Nothing - absolutely nothing - is ever going to stop or change because the masses don't care.

So *shrugs* you end up with PETAs tiny Yin to the huge, unstoppable Yang of animal abuse.

That's why I have some sympathy for, say, feminists fighting the system -even though others may dismiss those feminists as "radicals" or "man haters" or "Lunatics" or whatever.

I'm not interested in a man who tells me why feminists suck - I'm more interested in feminists telling me why the status quo sucks.( Yes, I read all your complaints about GTA4 and took note of the valid ones) :)

As far as I'm aware the women in PETAs campaigns have all chosen to be there, either as volunteers or paid models.

Btw, just to clarify, I'm not anti anyone here (posting on the internet can often sound like a rant or argument). I get your point - as feminists you're not keen on this kind of stunt. And I think you have some valid points/criticisms here.

Hopefully, it's just a phase PETA are going through - in years to come it may make them wince!

A polite email to PETA will get them to notice - they are meant to be part of a progressive agenda, after all.

(I say "progressive" because - for me personally - all these types of "radical" animal/human rights groups that the Right/consevatives despise are what I've grown up with so I tend to see them as the good guys.)

Robos, you're confused. You never quoted me. Go back and read the comments from the beginning.

PETA is made up largely of the "good guys", deano99; as a vegan, I tend to support other organizations (like Farm Sanctuary, In Defense of Animals, and Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine) which fight for the same issues but manage to do so without these wince-inducing, sexist tactics. I've written to PETA many times to tell them why my dollars are going to other animal rights and vegan organizations, but at the same time, I appreciate that there is a colossal distinction between a woman exploited by the sex industry and a woman making a choice to climb into a cage to demonstrate her activist commitments. PETA is not "Girls Gone Wild".

But the point about shock tactics is, there are SO MANY ways to use shock tactics without resorting to sexism!

I can't even believe people are defending this here on Feministing. I mean, can't we expect a higher level of A)maturity, B)RESPCET and C)creativity when it comes to drawing attention to a cause.

The point isn't that they used shock value. The point is that they used SEXIST shock value when they didn't need to.

Ugh. See, this would only make any sense if the women were packed into the cages much more tightly, some of them dead, with arms mutilated and noses cut off. This clearly would be too far to go for a protest, but that's what accurate portrayal of factory farmed hens would be.

As is, they just look mildly inconvenienced, on top of the whole sexist bikini thing.

-PETA-loathing, factory-farm-loathing, food-and-feminism loving vegan

Men in business suits end up in cages all the time. It's called corporate fraud, and prison.

In what country? Here, they're at least as likely to get a fine and no jail time, if they get convicted at all.

Yup, Elise -- not to mention, in prison, they aren't wearing suits (on the rare occasion they're actually imprisoned). Women in bikinis, however, appear in cages regularly. I mean, nowadays you don't even have to go to Vegas for that.

Dear Gaia, PETA so pisses me off with their T&A. It's why I won't give them one thin dime of my hard-earned money, although I have taken part in protests with them and handed out literature from other organizations.

As Robo and others have pointed out, there are many excellent groups that advocate vegetarianism and better treatment of animals without turning women into pieces of meat (no pun intended). Compassion Over Killing (www.cok.net) is another such organization, and their focus is on the 10 billion animals who are slaughtered every year to become food, primarily the hens who suffer in battery cages.

Dear Gaia, PETA so pisses me off with their T&A. It's why I won't give them one thin dime of my hard-earned money, although I have taken part in protests with them and handed out literature from other organizations.

As Robo and others have pointed out, there are many excellent groups that advocate vegetarianism and better treatment of animals without turning women into pieces of meat (no pun intended). Compassion Over Killing (www.cok.net) is another such organization, and their focus is on the 10 billion animals who are slaughtered every year to become food, primarily the hens who suffer in battery cages.

I have no problem with using people in cages, even exclusively women in cages (to demonstrate the horror of laying hens, who are, of course, exclusively female), but dear God, lose the bikinis, lose the sexualization! When will PETA learn a new tactic?

PETA isn't just misogynist, they also kill animals by the thousands in their so-called 'shelter'. In their crazed minds, killing an animal is more humane than letting it live with a human being.

There is nothing redeeming about their organization, period.

They think they're being clever by using bikini-clad young women in cages to attract attention.. but thats the ONLY thing it will attract attention for. How many people do you think will walk away from this ad thinking "gee... those cages look pretty cramped. How terrible it must be for the chickens! I'll be a vegetarian now!" and how many do you think will walk away thinking "DURRRR HOT CHICKS IN BIKINIS IN CAGES JUST WHAT I'VE ALWAYS DREAMED OF!!!"

Ideally, it'd be the first, but realistically.. given the gross culture we live in..

I can't believe PETA!?!

I wonder how many emails they get from people who say that they are not supporters anymore because of these kinds of advertisements?!

What ruffles my feathers is that this does nothing. NOTHING. The only thing they've done is act out more or less common sexual fantasies.

They are not in pain. There is nothing grotesque going on. They are using their bodies in a sexualised way. They're using sex to advertise their lifestyles. It fails as a means of protest.

You know what kills my appetite? Images of chickens in cages where they can't move, with their wings and beaks clipped, getting pumped full of antibiotics. This? Looks like anything I might see if I picked up a copy of Playboy.

And yet we continue to give PETA media coverage by blogging about them?

And yet we continue to give PETA media coverage by blogging about them?

Which is better than ignoring their sexist tactics. I get what you're saying, but I think holding them accountable is important, even if negative publicity is still good for them.

Anywho, I think there's a huge connection between the way we treat animals (and the environment in general) and the way we treat women in this country. I recently learned that many women who are victims of domestic violence are afraid to leave because their partners threatened to kill their pet. And since there are only like 5 women's shelters in the country that allow pets, that doesn't leave most women with many options. I know I would rather live on the street with my cat and dog than live in a shelter without them. Since they know that intimate partner abuse and animal abuse are linked, the American Humane Society set up a program called PAWS (Pets and Women's Shelters) that helps women's shelters transition to becoming pet-friendly. Unlike PETA, the Humane Society knows that you can promote animal welfare without dehumanizing women.

http://www.americanhumane.org/site/PageServer?pagename=lk_PAWS

I'm noticing a serious problem in this post and in a lot (not all) of the comments. It starts with the title: 'PETA sends their "chicks" out to "heat things up"'. It continues with talk about caging up these women. Language like this obscures the agency of the women involved (and that they themselves are likely part of PETA rather than being possessions of PETA).

Whether you agree or disagree with this sort of action, I think it's important to acknowledge that these women made a decision to participate-- a choice, incidentally, that animals caged to serve human taste buds don't get.

"Most shelters kill animals, manifest. Some don't, but that's generally because they have the luxury of being able to deal with a more manageable number than most."

But they have enough money for sexist campaigns that fight against the very thing they themselves do. They are therefore not justified.

Why not back some other organization that knows that fighting oppression with oppression is not copacetic? I'm beginning to suspect that PETA's main objective is to use irony to illustrate the objectification of women's bodies, and that the animals in question are women.

Ah, yes. They "chose" to be there. The same argument that is made in favor of street-level prostitution by women with PTSD and no high school education who are addicted to drugs. The same argument that is made every time someone brings up the women getting hit in the face, strangled, and double-penetrated until they are obviously in pain in violent (read: mainstream) porn.

This argument only makes sense if you ignore everything about the society we live in and insist that no women internalize sexist messages/that these messages aren't all that bad, really/that nothing happens in our world which sexually traumatizes women on a massive scale.

Which lack of understanding would be sort of dumb, coming from a feminist.

I think Peta uses whatever works to get the most attention to its cause and in our society, sex sells. This kind of stunt gets them tons of free publicity with many hits to their website where people can view undercover videos of the horrors of the meat industry. I admire the women who are willing to use their sexuality for such a good cause. If I weren't past my prime, I would like to think I would be brave enough to do the same. Maybe Peta will do some campaign about old hens.

Unfortunately, I can no longer give my $$ support to Peta because of things like this.

HOWEVER-
As feminists, I really wish more people on this site would look into the animal agriculture industry. Almost all exploited animals are female. (male chicks are killed straight away, as are veal -male-calves) Milk= female, egg= female. They are abused their entire lives, and then killed. There is a definite connection between "consumption" of female humans, and the literal consumption of female animals and their reproductive products. I don't think, even if you eat these products, that if you examine it a little deeper, that exploiting the reproductive process of any living creature, especially in these conditions, has to be reconsidered if we wish to call ourselves humane. (this is, of course, if we have a choice and are not starving, etc).

Pamela V: I totally agree with you.

I am really upset that the discussions about the industry don't take place more often. All I've seen is PETA shaming, I haven't seen anything else.

If we are all so concerned about suffering in the world, then we should also be concerned about the slaughtering of innocent animals.

ugh, sorry about my weird phrasing. I always do that here (accidentally).

It seems easy to Peta-shame instead of looking at the actual subject of animal rights or animal welfare, and that seems to be what people want to do here. Especially with that "scrambled egg" comment above.
Peta=/= animal rights. Peta is but one of many, many groups who have animal rights/animal welfare as a goal. Like "not all fruits are apples but all apples are fruits" sort of thing.

cola: I absolutely agree. The typical model staffed protest has scantily clad women with smiling faces, etc.

If someone was rating the impact of an image of protest on a scale of 1-10, a typical PETA "hot chicks" protest would be a 1 (particularly since they have been doing the same schtick so long it no longer raises eyebrows) while a monk practicing self-immoliation still ranks at a 10.

Of course I'm not suggesting PETA people set themselves alight (perhaps the director, who has uses insulin test strips, and animal byproduct dependent item, but would deny others the right to use them), but attractive smiling women isn't doing the trick.

PETA isn't "shocking" they are just annoying.

PamelaV: Are you seriously suggesting that female animals suffering is a gender/sex issue and not a biological one?

Do you believe that if roosters laid eggs we would not consume omelets or hollandaise sauce?

You're not even considering the fact that in nearly all farmed species the male populace is kept artificially low? That while the female may be used for the bulk of the produce that the male is nearly always exterminated?

And the killing of the male animals has nothing to do with necessity (face it eggs only come from females, milks is the same story), it is done for convenience. Because one rooster or bull or stud can do the same job as a hundred of the same.

I for one am tired of the "sex sells" argument. I think it's intellectually lazy and inaccurate in many cases. Sells to whom, exactly? Basically, you mean "sells to certain men". Men are not the entire populace nor even the segment of the population who are considered the most important consumers by many manufacturers and corporations these days. Also, somehow I doubt that the men who most appreciate bikini-clad women in cages are the ones donating scads of money to PETA or other such *humanitarian* organizations. Please.

Someone upthread asked what other kinds of protests or ad campaigns could *possibly* be effective. I can speak to that, personally...the only times I've been moved to donate money or change my behavior is in response to heart-wrenching (not even graphic, necessarily) images of animals in danger or animals suffering. Period. And isn't it common sense that those types of images would be the most effective in spurring compassionate people to put their compassion into action? People who are close to donating to, or joining, organizations that protect animals (but need that extra push) are NOT the kinds of people who respond favorably to dehumanized images of women.

PETA is a single-issue advocacy group. Despite being founded by a woman, gender equality is simply not on their radar. Their only priority is putting a stop to the suffering of animals, which they equate with human suffering. In their minds, getting all tied up in knots about the deployment of the same sexist/pornographic imagery utilized every day by commerical advertising, to save the lives of animals, is equivalent to protesting the use of the word "Hun" in anti-Nazi propaganda campaigns intended to arrest the Holocaust. PETA acknowledges that we live in a sexist, racist, prurient society, and goes with it to get its message out, because it thinks its message is too important. In fact, it's just found a way to circumvent any critique of what is arguably the MOST dominant force in society today, consumerism, with its call for the invention of cloned meat grown in vats, and a cash prize to that effect, so people will stop killing chickens.

As I'm sure many of us all know, opposing consumerism is a bit like pushing against a tidal wave, or trying to hold the tectonic plates together. Racism and Sexism are a BIT less formidable, but still titanically oppressive. And while self-referentially taking on all of this at once may be very PoMo, it would sap most of PETA's energy and strength. So they go with the flow, they turn eyes, and they get lots of media attention.

I mean, sixty-four people here have already added to it.

And I salute them, as I have saluted other fanatics. There's something VERY salutary about people wise enough to work within their means, in pursuit of limited ends. One must be cognizent of what one has to work with. I think we could learn much from PETA.

My problem with PETA comes from the fact that I feel they are more about the celebrity then the actual activism.

Although I am not, I have many close friends who are vegetarian/Vegan and they all became so through personally witnessing or reading about the cruelty to animals. None of them support PETA and instead focus on the ASPCA and other such entitities.
Also, as a pet owner of a "bully breed" dog I am reluctant to put any support behind PETA which advocates terminating any type of dog like that instead of focusing on the fact that it's bad pet raising that creates dangerous animals.

Those of you interested in reading more about the issue of shelter over population should read "Redemption" by Nathan J. Winograd. He talks about how shelters can become no kill if they decide to with certain programs. However most shelters kill way more animals than they place and often needlessly.

Also, a previous poster mentioned that PETA kills animals. There have been a few instances of PETA activists euthanizing many animals at a time and dumping their bodies in dumpsters behind businesses.

as a vegan, I tend to support other organizations (like Farm Sanctuary, In Defense of Animals, and Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine) which fight for the same issues but manage to do so without these wince-inducing, sexist tactics.

You do know that PMRC is linked to PETA, right?

Newsflash, bikinigirls: you don't count for much more than a steak in the eyes of a great many men.

"So they go with the flow, they turn eyes, and they get lots of media attention.

I mean, sixty-four people here have already added to it."

And? Yes, they get media attention...but PETA doesn't necessarily get anything out of that attention...no extra money, no extra support, no extra members, no reputation for educating the public, because the important and detailed information is not distributed and anyone turned off by the "protest" won't bother checking the PETA website to learn more...there really is such a thing as bad press, you know.

PETA makes me ashamed to be vegetarian. They're not only sexist as fuck, but as other people mentioned they don't exactly practice what they preach. I think they give vegetarians, vegans, and animal activists in general a bad name with their so-called shock tactics combined with the fact that they kill animals even though they claim that that is the ONE thing that they are against.
Die hard meat eaters don't respond to stuff like their protests and shocking sites, they'd be better off to promote lowering consumption, and consuming meats and dairy/eggs farmed organically/traditionally and sustainably. I think more people would respond to it and it would make a greater impact because not everyone wants to go vegan. It is a very huge, not to mention difficult lifestyle change. Those that don't want to stop eating meat, won't no matter what tactics are used; PETA's are ineffective, I know a lot of meat eaters and NOT A ONE of them takes PETA even a little seriously. If they tried to get their ideas across with logic and straightforward information and weren't so preachy about everything they'd probably get through to way more people. they stink, I don't like them at all.

LogrusZed-

I am not sure the nature of your question. What I AM saying is that suffering and cruelty to what (happens to or systematically is due to anatomy) is a largely female population is a feminist issue.
I cannot see how we can logically or ethically ignore the vast, unnecessary torture of those who can't speak for themselves. The only justification people ultimately offer is selfishness. To me, ignoring animal cruelty (of male or female animals) is like being a racist vegetarian or a misogynist "charity" worker.

I'm not here to bat for Peta. They really need to get their shit together, and have the resources to do so, and if they DID, I would support them with my dollars.

Anyway, thank you for trying to clarify. I would suggest "The Sexual Politics of Meat" as a good read. It illustrates the point more eloquently. I don't agree with all of it (it seems to have an "all porn is bad" stance) but it's more thorough than I can put here.

"If I weren't past my prime, I would like to think I would be brave enough to do the same. Maybe Peta will do some campaign about old hens."

Yeah right. If you're not young, white, thin, and conventionally attractive, you don't have a chance.

PamelaV: I guess what I'm saying is that in my conception of feminist issues and misogyny the matter of intent should always be considered.

The issue of suffering is a first order consideration, while the gender of those doing the suffering should be only a consideration if the conditions which cause the suffering are something ancillary to the paradigm.

If, for example, we were talking about classical slavery and comparing it to "white slavery" then gender is obviously the central matter to consider in the latter, but less relevant in the former.

Farmers/ranchers are not inflicting harm or suffering due to the sex of the animal, the sex of the animal dictates the nature of the suffering.

By making this a gender issue you're (in my opinion) diverting attention away from the real matter at hand, and potentially causing a rift which need not exist.

If the situation were thus: Male and female animals produced eggs or milk, etc; and the harvesting was still biased along sexual lines then I would say the argument was valid. But there is no way under the current construct you could convince me that those doing the harvesting are inflicting suffering along sexual lines.

Any confusion or ambiguity in my original post I'll ask you to excuse as my spelling and prose is horrid until I've had my coffee.

NOTE: For the sake of clarity; I'm in no way, shape, or form anti-meat. I've raised (or been a party to raising) cattle and poultry for consumption on a small scale. As a child I had a rather abrupt eduction in where my meat came from at the hand of my grandfather who explained that my favorite cow (his name was "Friend", a Holstein who would let me ride on his back) was on my plate during one dinner. I cried a lot but I got over it.

I believe you can treat an animal with compassion and even love without losing perspective on it's purpose in the grand scheme of things. My personal ethos does not dictate that I abstain from consuming meat or animal products, but that I do my best to procure same from producers who have a similar awareness. Possibly the only political/ethical thing I am aligned with Ted Nugent is the fact that he personally harvests all of the meat his family consumes (otherwise he's kind of a jingoistic loon).

LogrusZed-

I wasn't harping on any grammatical errors/phrasing (have you seen my posts?! ha).

Thanks for the background info on you. I think talking about one creature's "purpose" is a slippery slope, as that can't be defined by anyone really. There are a lot of people who truly believe a woman's "purpose" is to pop out as many kids as possible and support her husband in all things. I also do not believe you can love or respect an animal and kill it if you do not need what you are killing it for. (I believe) all that does is placate one's conscience.
Thank you for at least being respectful. I guess we just come from 2 different camps and this (our differing opinion) isn't really something that could be reconciled on a message section of a blog, or anywhere else for that matter.
To be fair though- the vast majority of meat, eggs, and milk dos not come from where you get it and people need to look into these methods of "raising" before they give one more cent to those large-scale industries. At least you don't shield yourself from what happens.

When Jessica Valenti used pretty white flesh to sell feminism, in the form of her book cover, Feministing commenters were largely (though not entirely) supportive. If it's ok to objectify women to sell a liberal cause, then it's ok to objectify women to sell a liberal cause.

I'm with Kapek, here. "One must be cognizent of what one has to work with."

http://feministing.com/archives/005898.html

Maybe there'd be fewer demonstrations in this vein if people talked about PETA and animal rights outside of complaining about PETA's ridiculous ad campaigns.

The fact that they don't only justifies PETA's actions.

Right. PETA's brilliance is in repeating the same types of campaigns that make people talk about what assholes PETA is rather than animal cruelty. And this makes us the dumbasses somehow.

Aside, where the hell is PETA getting this limitless supply of earnest hot chicks? They have to be hiring models or something.

When Jessica Valenti used pretty white flesh to sell feminism, in the form of her book cover, Feministing commenters were largely (though not entirely) supportive. If it's ok to objectify women to sell a liberal cause, then it's ok to objectify women to sell a liberal cause.

I hesitate to compare a torso on a book cover to women in a cage. Torsos are a fact of life. Everybody has one, and they're hardly offensive to anyone who isn't a complete prude, even when they're exposed. Women in a cage -- not so much. That should rub everyone the wrong way, and using such imagery along with sexist rhetoric to defend the tactic is, at the very least, in poor taste.

The campaign has been quite effective it seems, so many people talking about it. No publicity is bad publicity.

Is it sexist? Not how you think. It's sexist against the men who might have wanted to be in the cage.

I don't think the girls were harmed at all, if being confined in a small space is bad then sending people down mines is going to be a problem.

You might not like the word "chicks" but it's a positive word for an attractive woman. If you're not a "chick" then I can see that you're going to have issues with it. Like if you're short you might not like it that tall girls are perceived as being better. You can't just ban descriptions because you didn't get dealt a better hand. You just have to take comfort that being attractive is not the only thing in the world and that brains does count for something. Although you have to accept that less intelligent people might get upset that you're brainy.

Girls in bikinis are not really sexual. They tend to cover more than most sheer clothes these days. Propogating the myth that bare flesh is sexual and bad is not going to help.

Saying that this is as bad as abusing a woman is trivialising abuse.

"Is it sexist? Not how you think. It's sexist against the men who might have wanted to be in the cage."

WTF? I don't see any men protesting that they weren't allowed in the cages. In fact, the women in cages theme seems to be what men find erotic. This so-called protest seems to aim it's message toward only one half of the human species-the male half-while exploiting the female half. I'm all for animal rights, but not at the expense of women. As it is, this protest is sexist.

"Saying that this is as bad as abusing a woman is trivialising abuse."

Exploitation of women is abuse.

I think a more effective campaign would be to just make a few changes. I would not even be opposed if all the demonstrators were women, because all the long-term abused egg-laying hens are female.

I just think clothed, crammed together in a cage the relative size of the real cage would be more realistic. (2-4 hens per file cabinet-size cage, and make that "people-size"). I think showing humans in the same conditions, even if they are female, is not INHERENTLY sexist. With the "chicks" and the bikinis it seems to be.

You might not like the word "chicks" but it's a positive word for an attractive woman. If you're not a "chick" then I can see that you're going to have issues with it. Like if you're short you might not like it that tall girls are perceived as being better. You can't just ban descriptions because you didn't get dealt a better hand.

Do you have any brains at all? What's ironic about this stunt is that they call women "chicks," the precise animals that they believe are being abused. It's a great opportunity to highlight the connection between domestic violence and animal abuse, or early animal abuse and later antisocial behavior against people. Reducing women to an animal that is commonly abused and degraded is obviously dehumanizing, no matter what goat you're trying to reach.

And to say that the people here who are against this tactic are somehow jealous of these women's looks is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. I'd rather look like Quasimodo's left ass cheek than be confined to a cage and called demeaning names.

I don't give a shit if "taller" is "better." Says who? The same people who don't women to be educated and work outside the home. Those assholes are hardly worth anyone's time.

Honestly, I wouldn't have a problem with this demonstration if they were in something other than bikinis. It's just another example of someone exploiting female sexuality to get a point across.

PETA gets another "What the fuck?!" from a fellow vegetarian.

Uh, Phill? Being referred to as a near-brainless and near-helpless baby animal is not a positive thing, no matter what you look like.

"Girls in bikinis are not really sexual. They tend to cover more than most sheer clothes these days. Propogating the myth that bare flesh is sexual and bad is not going to help."

The only ones propagating the myth that bikinis are sexual are the folks at PETA. There was no reason to use attractive females in bikinis for this protest...other than that PETA thinks it's sexy and sex sells and sex gets attention. Just like all their other, Look! Naked models! ads. They're the ones intentionally sexualizing nude females. And animal abuse, bizarrely.

Oh, and no one said bare flesh is bad. Just that using the bare flesh of young women