Bleh... another female celebrity trying to jump-start her career by appearing nude. Sigh. What a shame.

I absolutely hate PETA, and this is yet another example of their complete lack of propriety when it comes to human life. Save the chickens, but women are STILL A PEICE OF MEAT. Oh, don't even get me started.

I'm going to an OXfam meeting tonight, which I love, but a great deal of the people involved are your typical vegan/PETA folks who are all about human rights, but treat me like shit because I'm overweight. They probably imagine me sitting on my couch, completely naked, eating raw cows and looking nothing like Alicia Silverstone.

I....don't...get..it...?

This surprises me a lot, actually. You would think much more "women-friendly" people would be working for PETA. Do they think this gets a lot of people on their side? If so, I wonder if those are the types of people you WANT in your organization.

I was particularly annoyed when I saw on the Milk Gone Wild site that they were saying that Milk is so bad for you that beer is better. Now, I've been drinking milk my whole life (which my Dad absolutely hates, btw - I can't go to the fridge and pull out the jug without hearing "WHY do you drink that stuff?"). I might consider switching to Soy Milk, but I'm not quite there yet.
But about the beer is better for you than milk thing - in all the years that I have been drinking milk, I have never once blacked out, or not remembered what I have done the night before, or become inebriated to the point that I was a good target for a sexual assault. (I'm not trying to criticize people who drink, but there is such a thing as drinking responsibly, although that's not an excuse for a guy to take advantage, etc etc) And look at the photos all around this statement! It's a take-off on the Girls Gone Wild franchise, in which girls who have had too much BEER (or other alcohol, you get my drift here) are exploited, and some have even been raped. (Did anyone else read that article? If anyone's interested I'll try to find it and send a link.)
I think I'm a little overly sensitive with alcohol because my grandfather is an alcoholic, and I've seen the total ugliness that surrounds it. So to me, hearing that Beer is better than cow's milk? Fking bite me, PETA.

oh, and there is absolutely no reason Alicia Silverstone had to be naked for that ad. gratuitous!

Nathan, sadly, PETA has a long and storied history of hating on women, African-American and Jewish people. It really shocked me when I found out, too -- I've been a vegetarian for 13 years, and I refuse to have anything to do with them. It's my opinion that they've done more harm than good for animal rights, or at least not nearly as much good as they could be doing. Argh. Why can't everybody just support everybody's rights, without sacrificing one to accomplish another? Even a child can see that won't work.

(I hope that made sense...I'd look up references for PETA's Holocaust on Your Plate and Slavery campaigns, but I got two hours of sleep last night and am off for a nap!)

Apparently it's only important to get men (and women ashamed of not being famous with personal trainers) to go vegetarian.

ikkin, I'm sad that you get that kind of treatment from vegans. It seems logical that those who respect animal life would carry that over to human life, but unfortunately the part of people that is passionate about animal rights often supersedes the part of them that governs human decency. I think a big part of that is disillusionment, because it is a tough battle for animal rights advocates/activists. A large majority of people, even some of the most open-minded, laugh at what we're trying to do and the defenses come up a lot earlier than they should sometimes--thus the militant vegan stereotype.

I think PETA plays no small role in that stereotype because they continually make vegetarianism distasteful and ridiculous.

Trust me, vegans and PETA are not synonymous; in fact, many of us wholeheartedly agree that PETA's ad campaigns are f'ed up for many reasons. Asking one to respect chickens but not women is awful. Please don't think that all vegetarians/vegans are behind PETA, because in fact I'd say more are opposed to their ad campaigns than in agreement with them.

Wow, when there are people out there who care more about respecting animals than respecting people, there's something wrong.

I was veggie for three years but somehow I missed all this nonsense.

Lets hope that PETA at least paid Silverstone good money for her image and that she didn't do it for free. It is depressing to see so much goodwill donated to an organization whose moral core is as rotten as PETA's. As for the ad in question, it is completely unsurprising, which is is sad in and of itself.

On the milk vs beer thing, if you drink 72 ounces of milk (same amount as a six pack), you are probably equally likely to wind up vomiting over a toilet as if your were drinking equivalent portions of Natty Ice. I doubt drinking one or two glasses of beer is worse for you, or leads to worse health or situational outcomes, than drinking one or two glasses of milk.

Yeah, ponies and rainbows, I hated that holocaust on your plate ad. I went to a summer philosophy program at Stanford the summer after I was in tenth grade, and somehow that ad came up in one of my classes. Everyone agreed that it was horrible, and then the professor asked if there were any vegetarians in the room. I've been vegetarian since I was born, so I raised my hand, and then the professor asked me to defend the ad. Sorry, but just because I think animals that are raised for meat are treated horribly doesn't mean I think it's the same thing as genocide.

>

I agree, but milk doesn't have the potential for abuse that beer does. Like, I know people who have consumed an entire 6 pack - or two - in one night. I've never known that to happen with milk. And I'm sure they mean it the way that you do, but it's just a really poor choice of a comparison.

"Where is the kid who's a Milk-fk-Junkie?"
-Lewis Black

Well, they got you to talk about it. Which is why they use nude women in their stunts. I have no idea if it results in people going vegetarian, but I am sure the attention is seen as "effective" and draws donations from people who already support this gimmicky approach.

Sadly, there's a lot of misanthropes involved in animal rights (note: I support limited animal rights in general with very strong animal rights for the hominids) so it's not really a surprise that the most strident among them (and I include PETA in that category) would have limited motivation to support human rights.

They are almost always leftists, though, so I think it's not the case that they don't care about women's rights, or minority rights, but that animal rights so much greatly overwhelms those concerns that they end up with a big moral blind spot as a result.

I am a vegetarian and that is why I am parading around naked?

Become a vegetarian and you too can become anemic and so malnourished you don't have the energy to dress yourself!

...At least that's what I'M getting from this ad.

I'd seen the print ads for this earlier and my thinking was; seriously WTF? It's totally using women's bodies to sell something, as if blue collar men are going to see Alicia Silverstone naked and drop their hot wings and ribs right then and there.

Perhaps the message is that being vegeratian is "sexy" but that won't work, what they need to do is come up with an ad campaign that says unless you're vegetarian then you're not "truly" American and the terrorists win. Hey, it works for everything else;) [/sarcasm]

If one were conspiracy theory-minded, one might suppose that PETA is funded by the meat industry to make the animal rights movement look like wackos.

If were on the fence about becoming vegan, this campaign would send me straight back to a yummy, organically-raised bison burger.

I'm vegan and I'm waaaay beyond the point of being disgusted with the name PETA is giving to the vegan community. Most vegans I know don't support PETA... In fact, of all the vegan groups I've been in and all the hundreds of vegans I've met, I don't think I've met anyone who supports them. And yet, they're who most people think of when they hear "vegan".

I can't count the number of times that people have reacted aggressively when I've told them I was vegan, by saying things like, "Oh my God, you people are fucking nuts!" or "Why the Hell do you think you have the right to tell me what to eat?" or "Don't you know that PETA did (fill in the blank)???". I didn't say I'm a maniac who forces veganism on everyone, or that I support organizations like PETA, but sadly, they're the most vocal group out there. It's shit like this that makes me too embarrassed to admit my beliefs to people... I'm fucking sick of it.

Venting... Sorry.

When I first heard about this ad, I just assumed it would be an "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" thing. When I actually saw it, I was pretty horrified. It's so hard to believe (or, rather, I wish it was hard to believe) that women would allow themselves to be exploited that way. It's very sad that it's so ingrained in our culture that people don't even realize it's going on.

When I first heard about this ad, I just assumed it would be an "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" thing. When I actually saw it, I was pretty horrified. It's so hard to believe (or, rather, I wish it was hard to believe) that women would allow themselves to be exploited that way. It's very sad that it's so ingrained in our culture that people don't even realize it's going on.

On the other hand, isn't it kind of awesome that they are hiring a woman whose career tanked in part because she was deemed "fat" by all the gossip rags? She is still the same size, it seems, and just as healthy and beautiful as when she stared in "Clueless".

Okay, I am again very confused. Why can't Alicia Silverstone be naked in an ad but Jessica can use a naked section of a woman's headless body to sell her book? I can't stand reading all these comments while at the same time seeing an ad for Jessica's book on the right. I don't get it.

God that ad was ridiculous! PETA sucks arse, and undermines what they're supposedly fighting for

What I love is all the animal lovers donating money for an organisation that wants to end pet ownership (I can understand WHY, but ultimately it's unrealistic and stupid)

Because swimming naked has anything to do with not eating meat? Anyone with an ounce of sense can see that its nothing more than a demeaning sell tactic and it lessens the quality of whatever message is being conveyed.

Okay, I am again very confused. Why can't Alicia Silverstone be naked in an ad but Jessica can use a naked section of a woman's headless body to sell her book? I can't stand reading all these comments while at the same time seeing an ad for Jessica's book on the right. I don't get it.

Personally, I'm not always that offended by gratuitous use of boobies - I just thought this ad was unbelievably stupid.

The main difference I see between this ad and Jessica's book is that naked ladies are actually relevant to feminism - how are naked ladies relevant to vegetarianism?

Ok, do you think we could not beat the dead, boney, dusty horse of Jessica's book cover? She has a NEW book coming out. Maybe you can complain about them using stripes. I mean, why not dots? How do you think the dots feel? And there's a sillhoute of a shapely woman on the cover. Why not an overweight woman? Or a man? Or a martian?

I have been a vegetarian for 13 years now and am not a supporter of PETA. I used to be, when I was idealistic and fully of angst. I was in a PETA sponsored protest and found them to be too militant for my taste. They seemed to be more into the shock value than really helping animals. I stopped supporting them and started to be an animal foster parent, that way, I felt that I was really making a difference.

I'm a vegan, but this ad just tries too hard to sell sex for their cause. Swimming naked has nothing to do with animal rights. Why can't they show something relevant to the message?

So... is going veg supposed to make people look like Alicia Silverstone? Or just be able to climb out of a swimming pool with dry hair (did anyone else notice that)? 'Cuz I went veg a while ago and that didn't happen.

"Become a vegetarian and you too can become anemic and so malnourished you don't have the energy to dress yourself!"

I resent that. I've been a vegetarian for 12 years (that's more than half my life) and a vegan for 3, and I have never been anemic and malnourished. You sound like my grandparents.

Anyway, that ad is ridiculous. It's like softcore porn. They could have shown her giving the same speech, but with clothes on, and the sexiness could have been subtly implied and I wouldn't have been offended.

"What I love is all the animal lovers donating money for an organization that wants to end pet ownership (I can understand WHY, but ultimately it's unrealistic and stupid)"

Okay, like I said, I despise PETA, but I'll defend them on this. PETA is not against pets, but they ARE against breeding of domesticated animals. That's not something I fully agree with them on, but I can understand why some people are opposed to breeding cats and dogs when there are so many millions who are unwanted.

What you've probably gotten confused about is that PETA states that in an ideal world, pets simply wouldn't exist... I can see the point there--it was a pretty big fuck-up on our part as a species to breed millions of creatures to be dependent on us even though we can't care for even the majority of them.

I am opposed to PETA because of their advertising tactics, their condescending attitude toward the public, and the radicalized image they present, but PETA doesn't want everyone to surrender their pets to the wild or anything like that. They just (understandably) don't like that we've bred so many dependent animals without having the capacity to care for them.

They want all pets to be desexed... This will kill off pets. While if I were a less selfish creature I would agree with this, I wouldn't want to be alive without pets - I mean that entirely literally.

They also support breed specific legislation, which is enough in and of itself for me to write them off

(There's more but I'll leave it at that :))

She says, "I have so much more energy"... why the hell is she moving so slowly then?

"I doubt drinking one or two glasses of beer is worse for you, or leads to worse health or situational outcomes, than drinking one or two glasses of milk."

Beer may not be awful for you, but it's certainly not GOOD for you in the way milk is. Milk has calcium, protein, vitamin A, vitamin B-12, vitamin D, potassium, phosphorus, niacin, and riboflavin. Beer has...carbs and alcohol. You do the math.

"'Become a vegetarian and you too can become anemic and so malnourished you don't have the energy to dress yourself!'

I resent that. I've been a vegetarian for 12 years (that's more than half my life) and a vegan for 3, and I have never been anemic and malnourished. You sound like my grandparents."

I got the impression the statement was implying that Alicia Silverstone looks anemic and malnourished, not implying that you do...

But does she look anemic or malnourished? Again, she's downright large for Hollywood (which probably makes her a size 6) and I am not really seeing anemic, other than that she is being shot moving slowly and wearing too much eye liner. And vegetarians, as a general rule, tend towards healthier diets (though blah blah blah some vegs eat unhealthy etc) and in fact, most Americans eat too much protein.

Did anyone click on the link to "Milk gone wild" and watch the video? Not the actual milk gone wild video (which is very ridiculous, by the way) but the video that immediately follows it that addresses the treatment of cows in the dairy industry. If you weren't vegan before watching that video, you will certainly become one after!

I drink about a half gallon of milk a day. I've done that since I was little and like to give that as a reason for my being 5'11". I buy Organic milk. It is much more expensive, but my moral compass would have me go vegan otherwise. If I stop drinking so much milk for a while, such as when I'm on vacation, etc, I do tend to lose a little weight. But I really don't think that replacing milk with beer in my daily diet would improve my health. I'd be drinking more than a six pack in volume daily. Yech........budweiser breath.

I drink about a half gallon of milk a day. I've done that since I was little and like to give that as a reason for my being 5'11". I buy Organic milk. It is much more expensive, but my moral compass would have me go vegan otherwise. If I stop drinking so much milk for a while, such as when I'm on vacation, etc, I do tend to lose a little weight. But I really don't think that replacing milk with beer in my daily diet would improve my health. I'd be drinking more than a six pack in volume daily. Yech........budweiser breath.

Beer's actually a good source of Vitamin C. Of course, it's just like the red wine & heart disease connection - no binge drinking of the stuff. 1-2 glasses a day, regularly. That means no more than 24oz of beer per day. Captain Cook used it to prevent scurvy amongst his crew on his voyages to the South Pacific. Mmm beer. Sorry, it's Friday afternoon, I've just been to the university pub before my shift at work. Monteiths Radler is a wonderful brew.

Word, Fenriswolf. To all your comments on this thread.

I'm surprised no one on this thread has mentioned Carol J. Adams. Like Adams, I personally feel that vegetarian/vegan and feminist causes are fundamentally related. Both are trying to end oppression and exploitation, but I think oftentimes it's easy to get caught up with one battle (like PETA with this ad) and lose sight of the idea that to end one oppression, we should strive to end all oppressions. Take note, I'm not comparing women with animals (as anti-feminists do.. Google Adams and check out her slide show pictures, they're terribly derogatory), but I do see a correlation between the two causes.

That said, this ad is repulsive.

This is my take on PETA: If you're a vegetarian or a vegan, PETA's website and information can make it a lot easier for you to reach your dietary goals. And that's about it. If you're not veg, all they're going to do is insult you, which, needless to say, is NOT the way to bring people to any cause. A much better way is to respect people's choices and answer their questions without pointing a finger. Just saying.

Oh yeah, URL:

http://www.triroc.com/caroladams/slideshow.html

I know the point is to get people to talk about the ad--but then all I am doing is talking about my disgust of PETA--not about how animal cruelty is a prevailing and persistent problem in the world. Controversy works for tv shows and celebrities, not in the promotion of rights' groups (unless that controversy is to highlight the practices the group is against. It's stupid marketing. They shouldve taken that money they used to make the ad and done something constructive with it, something that actually helps animals.

Maybe it's been blogged already, but I'm still not over this stupid PETA ad:

http://www.adrants.com/images/petapig.jpg

Which was designed to liken meat-eaters to a British Columbia serial killer who hacked up poor women from Vancouver's Downtown Eastside and mixed the remains in with pig meat raised on his farm. I mean, this ad ran in the same communities where these women went missing. How lovely for their families.

PETA makes me want to eat steak every night, just out of spite. Honestly.

Dorianne – that is appalling!

PETA is a disgusting group. They claim to be pro-animal rights, but they would rather see dogs euthanized than domesticated and they want to see all pit bulls killed. They also vandalized the home of a person who rehabilitates dogs and has them work. They are sick, twisted extremists and I am ashamed that the public view of animal rights is PETA.

There are a few things I hate about PETA - and I attend Old Dominion University, almost right next to PETA headquarters, so I see this a lot ...

My problem with them is that often times, they'd go beyond what is appropriate to promote their cause, often times not caring about the human impact of it all.

I am sure you've all heard about PETA members making out on street corners to demonstrate that vegetarians and vegans "make better lovers."

With the Mike Vick situation, they've also taken advantage of the publicity, rather doing anything worthy in terms of animal rights.

They have a peta2.com program now, which aims at high school and college students. It works, too.

And one last thing - PETA likes to use the woman body to sell their crap, but they need to rethink it. Their whole "vegetarians and vegans" make better lovers slogan isn't true! I've been with both vegetarians and non-vegetarians, and I can't tell the difference.

As for gratuitous use of boobies to sell a product - I don't know, it depends on what the intention is in it all. I know this much: I won't buy a product just because it uses boobies to advertise. I am not 16-and-horny-all-the-time anymore.

I need to go to go back to bed.

My opinion about objectification remains the same: I'd rather see equality brought around by having an equivalent ad with a male than no ad at all. The world needs more naked people, not less.

hmn, guess I'm the only one here who actually likes PETA, and I'm not even vegan. I think that shock tactics hold a valuable place within any movement.

In regards to using women, why are we holding them to a higher standard than other groups that advertise? Sex sells, and I'd rather see if be used for a good cause than for seeling soap.

This is one of the many reasons I hate PETA, they trade one piece of meat for another. They're against the exploitation of animals, but it's alright to exploit women?

here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rhZQQWAjtc

Ingrid NewKirk explains
"people who will not look at the gore, cannot help but like at the gorgeous"
They know what they are doing. Can anyone deny that the media eats that stuff up?

Lucretia, that video would be ridiculous even if they were selling beer or cars. What does a woman's body have to do with any of it? However, yeah, I hold my advocacy groups to a higher standard than the people trying to sell me crap. The advocacy groups are trying to demonstrate that they have a conscience, while the people selling me crap are pretty clearly only after my money. Part of having a conscious is knowing beforehand how your actions could make people feel.

With the number of feminists who consider animal rights an integral part of their feminism, PETA is being mindnumbingly, infuriatingly stupid. They're selling out their female natural allies to what? Attract some drooling 16 year olds who probably aren't going to give up burgers anyway? It's so boneheaded and idiotic and, yes, sexist, it makes me want to scream.

Lucretia, that video would be ridiculous even if they were selling beer or cars. What does a woman's body have to do with any of it? However, yeah, I hold my advocacy groups to a higher standard than the people trying to sell me crap. The advocacy groups are trying to demonstrate that they have a conscience, while the people selling me crap are pretty clearly only after my money. Part of having a conscious is knowing beforehand how your actions could make people feel.

With the number of feminists who consider animal rights an integral part of their feminism, PETA is being mindnumbingly, infuriatingly stupid. They're selling out their female natural allies to what? Attract some drooling 16 year olds who probably aren't going to give up burgers anyway? It's so boneheaded and idiotic and, yes, sexist, it makes me want to scream.

"Apparently it's only important to get men (and women ashamed of not being famous with personal trainers) to go vegetarian." - Cola

I don't think this ad targets men.

I've never been a big fan of using feminism as a segway into animal rights. To be completely honest, I've never seen the connection between the two (as I fail to see ecofeminism having anything to do with women's rights, either). Could someone kindly explain their position?

At the NOW conference a few months ago, there was an old woman who walked around meowing like a cat ...to promote women's rights and feminism. Didn't go over too well.

I'm not too clear on it, myself, but I think it's because, by using animal products, you're using another's body for your own gain. They see a connection between that and the way women's bodies are used by men and by the mass media. Personally, I like meat and don't see a problem with that, but the corporate animal industries and cosmetic animal testing sicken me and I do my best not to buy that stuff.

By the way, sorry for the double post. I think that was my first post here, and I was confused.

I wonder how many animal byproducts are in that makeup slathered all over her face?

None, actually. I hate PETA, and I wish Silverstone didn't associate with them, b/c I really like her. She is completely vigilant about animal rights. She wears only vegan clothing, and makeup. Her wedding invitations were made on recycled paper and printed with vegetable ink. Every inch of her wedding was environmentally responsible.

The best part about Silverstone is that she doesn't condemn people for not going to the lengths that she does. She commends anyone who tries to do anything good for animals or the environment, and I think she's pretty awesome.

I just really wish she hadn't made that commercial.

"This is one of the many reasons I hate PETA, they trade one piece of meat for another. They're against the exploitation of animals, but it's alright to exploit women?"

Beth, you used the phrase "piece of meat" to refer to women. This ad did not. I fail to see any exploitation of women in this ad: a healthy, confidant woman lounges around while we hear her talk about her veganism. I'm not sure how effective it is, but I don't see how it portrays her as a piece of meat. It's not like the voiceover is a man saying "My girlfriend is a BABE now that she's vegan." Besides, in response to the comments that animal rights have nothing to do with the naked female body: animal rights are not the only reason to go vegan or vegetarian. Health reasons play a big part too, and since not once in this ad does Silverstone mention animal rights, I think we can assume that they're playing up the angle of "go veg, be healthier and feel better." What's wrong with that?

for those of you who don't see the link between women's rights and animal rights:

ANIMAL ADVOCACY IS A FEMINIST ISSUE
In patriarchal society women and animals are….
raped, beaten, hated, enslaved as pets
exploited as wives, sold for money, used
for entertainment, cheap labor, sex experiments...

In patriarchal society women and animals are
considered…
inferior, "cute," childish, uncontrollable,
emotional, impulsive, instinctive, irrational,
evil, property, objects...

In patriarchal society women and animals are
referred to as…
chicks, bitches, pussies, foxes, dogs,
cows, beavers, birds, bunnies, kittens
sows, lambs, shrews, geese, fillies,
bats, crows, heifers, vixens...

Every year in the United States alone…
Billions of animals are enslaved, tortured and murdered in
"animal agriculture," vivisection laboratories, the
entertainment industry, by hunters and fishers,
in traps and on fur farms, and by other modes of
human exploitation

*Our use of the term "animals" is a concession to common usage and is not intended to suggest the idea that humans are not also animals.

Feminists for Animal Rights is an ecofeminst organization that is dedicated to ending all forms of abuse against women and nonhuman animals. As ecofeminists we recognize that the abuse of women and nature is intimately connected in patriarchal society. As ecofeminist animal advocates we view the exploitation of women and animals* as an expression of a common patriarchal worldview, which manifests itself in both sexism and speciesism. We recognize that violence against women and animals, whether actual or threatened, is a product of this worldview and we work in nonviolent ways to eliminate that reality.

http://www.farinc.org/about.html

Lucretia, I see all of that - and of course, have read all of that in feminist theory classes, but I still don't see a concrete connection between the two - simply because I see them as a stretch of intellectual bridges.

I guess the problem I have with it is that we feminists are often lost in our own language and semantics, and it's hard to reach people that way.

For promoting feminism, I think it'd be hard to sit down with Farmer John from Tuscaloosa, Alamaba and talk about the connections between animal rights and eco-feminism and women's rights. Somehow, I have a hard time believing that we'll make the issue relevant enough for him to care.

Maybe it's just my male-privilege coming through and clouding my judgement. I don't know.

Want a "concrete connection" between the abuse of women and animals, ProFeministMale?

How about when my best friend's father, who beat her, her siblings and their mother killed all their cats? Do you see the connection in that case? Sheesh.

There's a concrete connection between the abuse of animals and the abuse of _anyone_, definitely. Psychopaths often engage in animal torture. I personally think, though, that it's a bit more tenuous to make a connection between using animals for food and companionship (the pet kind, not the bestiality kind) and the subjugation of women. Plenty of egalitarian societies also eat meat and have pets.

I think, though, that this ad is really sexual, not really hanging out in my healthy vegan body, particularly with the music in the background. Not that I'm against sex or naked bodies, but wouldn't her riding a bike or something show her healthiness more clearly than splashing around a pool naked?

I'm really disappointed to see all the assumptions being made here about what vegans are/think. As outspoken feminists, I know we're all tired of the stereotypes that get thrown around about us. I'm not a man hater and I'm not a pushy dietary nazi either. I've been a vegetarian for 2 years and a vegan for 9 months. It's one of the best decisions I've ever made. And much like every other vegan that's responded to this, I'm really bothered by a lot of PETA's tactics. PETA does not speak for me, and I think most vegs feel the same way. A lot of my friends are veg and none of them are PETA supporters.
I do believe that the oppression of animals and the oppression of women are connected in that the acceptance of using one living creature for our benefit leads to thinking that other living creatures are expendable as well.
The meat and dairy industry is fucked up. Way fucked up. I was starting to write a rant on this topic, but my favorite band, Propagandhi, says it better:
Some of my otherwise brilliant and productive friends (like scoundrels and their flags) take final refuge in character assainations; they ignore the issue and deny the relation between our consumption and brutality. So you can go ahead and roll your eyes and marginalize me/socially penalize me: play on my insecurities. And you can feign ignorance, but you’re not stupid, you’re just selfish. And you’re a slave to your impulse. And I kinda thought we all shared common threads in that we gravitated here to challenge the conventions we’ve been fed by a culture that treats (living, breathing, feeling) creatures like (biological) machines. And if you buy that shit then how long ’till it’s me who serves as your commodity? Through (for example), institutionalized violence and opression of workers and women raped by sexism (and how about native americans?). Do you still insist on feigning indignance (aka: indignation) to reason? To collective self-interest? Tell you what- I’ll call you on your shit, PLEASE CALL ME ON MINE. Then we can grow together and make this shit-hole planet better in time. So why not consider someone else: STOP CONSUMING ANIMALS.

Of course going vegetarian changed Silverstone's life. She was pretty much blacklisted from Hollywood after daring to stay curvy (remember 'Fatgirl'?), then suddenly started getting series/starring roles again thanks to her new, emaciated figure. No doubt helped along by cutting out most animal products.

****"In regards to using women, why are we holding them to a higher standard than other groups that advertise?"****

because other groups who advertise this way are not doing it for moral reasons. peta's whole stance is that we should not exploit animals and yet they exploit womens bodies "to get their message across".
hypocrites.

Lyra_silvertongue: I mostly saw people defending vegans/vegetarians and talking about how they don't associate with PETA. The only slightly offensive comment that I saw was suggesting that vegetarians/vegans are malnourished, and I think it was slightly taken out of context. I'm not sure if I missed something, but I don't know where you're getting that.

Heather: She's hardly emaciated.

maybe it's just me, but alicia silverstone clearly wants to do this, so who is being exploited? I'm hoping not get into a lenghthy debate about agency, and women not knowing what they really want cause they've been blinded my patriarchy. She knows what she's doing, and I'd gladly do the same if it means garnering attention for a good cause.

i wrote to them, and they responded in a very timely manner. I'd kind of like to direct them to this thread, since many commentors are clearly more articulate than i:

Me:
"As someone who has been vegetarian for nearly half of my life (I'm almost 30), I'd love to be able to stand behind your efforts and tell people I'm proud to be associated with PETA. But why on earth do you have such sexist ads? It can be argued that animal rights are a feminist issue. Quit making me hate you. (most recent annoyance - your new Alicia Silverstone ad)"

PETA:
Dear Ms. XXX,

Thank you for your letter sharing your thoughts about our ads and campaigns. We appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns.

First, please know that, as an organization staffed largely by feminists, we would not do something that we felt contributed to the serious problems that women face. However, we feel that there is nothing shameful or “wrong� about being naked, and we believe that women—and men—should have the choice to use their own bodies as political 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 “naked� 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

Our purpose is to stop animal suffering like this, and we use all available opportunities to reach millions of people with powerful messages. The current situation is critical for billions of animals, and our goal is to make the public think about the issues. Sometimes this requires tactics—like naked marches and colorful ad campaigns—that some people find outrageous or even “rude,� but part of our job is to shake people up and even shock them in order to initiate discussion, debate, questioning of the status quo, and of course, action. After PETA publicized our “State of the Union Undress,� for example, we were rated the number one “mover� on Yahoo’s search engine, meaning that PETA received the greatest percentage increase of terms searched that day. We have found that people do pay more attention to our racier actions, and we consider the public’s attention to be extremely important.

Although we understand that some consider our projects that include nudity to be controversial, many express support for these tactics. However, PETA does make a point of having something for all tastes, from the most conservative to the most radical and from the most tasteless to the most refined, and this approach has proved amazingly successful—in the more than two decades since PETA was first founded, it has grown into the largest animal rights group in the world, with over 1.8 million members and supporters worldwide. For more information about PETA’s vital work for animals, please visit http://www.PETA.org/about.

We respect your right to disagree with our strategy but hope that you will continue to work for the animals in whatever way you feel comfortable (http://www.PETA.org/actioncenter); they are counting on all of us.

Thank you for providing us with this opportunity to explain our position on this important topic and for all that you do to help animals.

Sincerely,

The PETA Staff

Lucretia, I think she is falling victim to a sad (new?) pattern in Hollywood that no young(ish) actress's career is bona fide until she's appeared naked. It's the only thing guaranteed to get her written about, talked about, and ultimately, offered a good script to further her career. Think Scarlett Johanssen and Keira Knightley on that magazine cover a few months ago, with a fully-clothed man (I don't even know who) standing between them. All that cover did for me was bring the double standard to my full attention, and now whenever I see a female celebrity take it all off "for a cause" (vegetarianism? art? whatever) I can't help but think the biggest cause being promoted is their sexual objectification.

It makes me particularly sad to see Alicia Silverstone falling into this "I have to get naked" trap, if that's what she's doing. I saw her as being principled and self-respecting compared to the other young pantyless Hollywood women, as if I have to name names. Maybe she's not, but that's sure what it looks like to me.

Nera – if that's the case why is she lolling around naked like a soft porn star and not bench-pressing her own body weight?

ANIMAL ADVOCACY IS A FEMINIST ISSUE
In patriarchal society women and animals are….
raped, beaten, hated, enslaved as pets
exploited as wives, sold for money, used
for entertainment, cheap labor, sex experiments...

Crap like that does not help my dislike of PETA.

I fully support vegetarianism and veganism - I was a vegetarian for 7 years, and now I'm not but am phasing out abattoir-slaughtered, intensively-farmed meat.

All of my animals are from the SPCA, where I used to work. I am not anti-breeding, but if I were dictator for life it'd be bloody hard to be allowed to breed pets.

But all this emotive, bullying rubbish? They can fuck off

In patriarchal society women and animals are
considered…
inferior, "cute," childish, uncontrollable,
emotional, impulsive, instinctive, irrational,
evil, property, objects...

This doesn't even make sense. Unfortunately, animals are inferior. Not innately, but if we wish to live comfortably and safely, we must treat them as such (to a degree).

Pets not being property opens a whole can of worms that can actually make the animal less safe. It's not like we don't have anti-cruelty laws - they're just not used enough.

Animals are not analytical. They're not irrational, but their logic is not ours, and we can't expect them to act like us.

And anyone who thinks any breed/type of animal is "evil" is an idiot.

In patriarchal society women and animals are
referred to as…
chicks, bitches, pussies, foxes, dogs,
cows, beavers, birds, bunnies, kittens
sows, lambs, shrews, geese, fillies,
bats, crows, heifers, vixens...

Ok, what is the point here? Animal names are often made into insults towards women. Animals don't care. What point does this prove?

Every year in the United States alone…
Billions of animals are enslaved, tortured and murdered in
"animal agriculture," vivisection laboratories, the
entertainment industry, by hunters and fishers,
in traps and on fur farms, and by other modes of
human exploitation

And do these people use any drugs, or eat any food they haven't grown themselves? Because if they do, they are supporting animal testing.

We CANNOT find cures for cancer/AIDs/etc without testing on animals. I don't like it, but I'm honest with myself and live with it.

Arrogant patronising idiots.

I don't think everyone hates PETA because they use scare tactics and shocking imagery. I'm in fact a fan of shocking imagery. But I hate PETA because they are anti-intellectual hypocrites. They don't fully examine the implications of their positions or bother to research anything very deeply. I also hate how they refer to obviously happy pets as slaves and all farming as torture. I am a big advocate for animal rights and I absolutely believe in treating animals humanely. The industrial farm complex is a terrible offense and after doing a good bit of research I decided to only buy local organic produce and grass-fed beef. But PETA thinks the answer is not to reform the way we farm and the amount of respect we have for the animals that provide for us, but to do away with these animals altogether in a bizarre twist of utilitarianism. And yes, the atrocious comparison of chicken suffering to the holocaust.

By the way "organic" milk, eggs, meat, etc. is usually a crock of manure. It just means that the animals are still kept in poor conditions, but that they are fed organic feed (which in the case of cows is usually corn, which makes them very sick) and no antibiotics. Their living conditions are still miserable and overcrowded. "Free range" chickens are chickens packed into a shed instead of individual cages and "access to the outdoors" means that for the last 2 weeks of their lives they have access to a tiny run which they hardly ever visit because it wasn't there for most of their lives. If you're going to eat milk and meat with a conscience, you have to actually do research into specific farms and their farming practices. Eatwild.org is a great site.

I can see how there could be a philosophical link between feminism and vegetarianism, but only in the broad sense that they both entail an awareness of how your actions affect the well-being of others. I think it is less that the two have much in common and more that they tend to go hand in hand with, for lack of a better word, a progressive worldview.

i'm sorry, that's eatwild.com. my bad.

I knew several vegetarians/vegans in high school. With one exception, everyone else felt PETA's advertising tactics gave the vegetarian/vegan community the image of being overly arrogant sanctimonious crass jerks. The one exception who ran our high school's PETA chapter was a walking stereotype of all that is wrong with that movement. Found more of the same holier than thou BS among those in my college's PETA chapter. In many ways, they are no different from religious zealots, authoritarians, or anyone else who cannot tolerate any questioning, dissent, and/or deviation from the "true way".

I think an important question to ask is: how is oppression ever justified?
In the case of women, philosophers (see William Godwin’s “The Archbishop and the Chambermaid,� for a perfect example) argued that women, as a group, were less “rational� than men and closer to the state of “animal� than men, which necessitated placing less moral value on them and justified their oppression.
It was the same sort of reasoning that justified the oppression of men of color and lower class people.
Humans are a form of animal, so the whole idea of women or people of different races being closer to the state of “animal� is absurd.
Instead of seeing the similarities that women and other races had with them (like the ability to feel pain, fear and love) and having concern for their welfare, these men chose to focus on the differences they thought they perceived – and use “rationality� as a way to exclude women and people of color from having any rights or moral standing.
The moral community that has been recognized in this culture is super-small. Think of the fact that in the original US constitution only propertied white men had any rights at all.
All other beings were denied moral standing because they weren’t “rational,� aka propertied white men.
The oppression of other animals has aided, if not caused the oppression of women, children, men of color and the poor. It is only through the process of objectification that a person can see an animal as something that exists “for them� or “for their use.� When people feel this way about any living creature it makes it easier to feel this way about other living creatures.
It is through the exact same logic (“that being is inferior, it exists for my use�) that allowed men to oppress women or whites to oppress people of color.
Concern about harm to another being shouldn’t stop at the species line (only humans matter) any more then it should have stopped at the sex line (only men matter) or the race line (only whites matter).

I don’t think that “rationality,� or whatever it is that divides most humans from other animals should be what makes us concerned for the welfare of a being. I know people who are mentally handicapped and by no means “rational,� and I don’t think it would be right to turn them into solvent green anytime soon. The same is true of children and the very old. I think that the ability to feel pain and suffering matters way more than “rationality.� I think that is having a basic moral sensitivity: not wanting to cause suffering to harm to other beings (even if only because you would not want suffering inflicted on you by someone who thought you were inferior).

That being said I don’t support or like PETA, but I do like Carol Adams. Check out her Pornography of Meat and other books. Props to julie for mentioning her first.

“Animal names are often made into insults towards women. Animals don't care. What point does this prove?�

It proves that animals are oppressed, and that a way to oppress women is to associate them with animals (see my previous post).

Animals may not care, but I as a woman, certainly care when I’m called a “bitch,� or a “chick,� to use two examples.

In this degrading, patriarchal society, “bitch� literally means a dog that is used (forced) to have litters of puppies. If animals have no moral value, than her only value lies in producing these litters for those that force her to.
“Chicks� become chickens, which in this horrible world gain their only value through producing eggs and through being consumed.

It is offensive to women to be called animal names because if animals have no moral value, than that is exactly what that person is saying: this woman is an animal and has no moral value—her only value is in her reproductive ability, which only exists to be exploited. I couldn’t think of a more insulting thing to say about women in general or woman in particular.

"I think that the ability to feel pain and suffering matters way more than 'rationality.' I think that is having a basic moral sensitivity: not wanting to cause suffering to harm to other beings (even if only because you would not want suffering inflicted on you by someone who thought you were inferior)."

I agree. Meanwhile, "rationality" seems as though it should have less to do with "should animals have any rights at all?" than "if all animals including us deserve equal rights then what should we do about the rights of carnivores and the rights of the animals they prey on?"

"In this degrading, patriarchal society, 'bitch' literally means a dog that is used (forced) to have litters of puppies. If animals have no moral value, than her only value lies in producing these litters for those that force her to.
'Chicks' become chickens, which in this horrible world gain their only value through producing eggs and through being consumed."

Really? I thought "bitch" literally meant female canine (even if she is a wolf who isn't forced to breed) and "chick" literally meant young bird (even if she or he grows up to be an emu).

Mina--

Literally can mean "actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy"

which was how I was using it.

If you notice, I said "In this degrading, patriarchal society, 'bitch' literally (meaning without inaccuary) means. . . ."

I wasn't quoting from the dictionary that bitch means "a female dog," or "a female canine generally," but instead trying to explain to another commentor why animal names are offensive.

It is the the fact that these animals are exploited as female bodies that I think makes these calling women their "names" offensive.

Do you disagree?

"if all animals including us deserve equal rights then what should we do about the rights of carnivores and the rights of the animals they prey on?"

I don’t necessarily think that all animals deserve “equal rights,� it really depends on the context. I am not concerned with carnivores preying on other animals, only with humans inflicting needless suffering on other animals.

Animals that are truly carnivores would die if they did not consume another animal, whereas humans can not claim that defense.

I think in some contexts it would be completely acceptable for a human to kill an animal to eat or in self-defense, but going to McDonald’s (and supporting institutionalized animal suffering and oppression) is certainly not that scenario.

"Animals that are truly carnivores would die if they did not consume another animal, whereas humans can not claim that defense."

Yeah, I should have mentioned omnivores instead of carnivores. Aren't there other species that often eat meat but can live without it, like dogs...?

People argue over whether dogs are omnivores or carnivores. Search for it and you'll see what I mean.

According to one site they can survive without eating animal flesh, but not "thrive." Some sites label this as omnivore, some as carnivore.

What I have the biggest problem with is factory farming(institutionalized suffering of animals), which can in no way be compared to a grizzly bear (an omnivore) killing an another animal to eat when it is hungry.

As I said, I think in some contexts it is morally acceptable for humans to kill animals in self-defense or for food (just like other omnivores or carnivores do), but I think the way that this culture raises animals in horrible conditions under the assumption that they exist only to be our food is immoral. It is horrible for both the animals and the workers at slaughterhouses (who are mostly women and people of color who suffer from the highest injury rate of any job).

Do you think the factory farming industry could exist in a society free of oppression?

"Do you think the factory farming industry could exist in a society free of oppression?"

Not unless it becomes more factory than farming.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3208

"Fancy a beefburger, but want to spare the cow? Tissue engineers experimenting with ways of growing meat in a lab dish could soon provide a solution..."

If a dog would rather eat meat than veggie kibbles, who are you to impose your values on him anyway, if he's such an equal?

Caiis said: "People argue over whether dogs are omnivores or carnivores. Search for it and you'll see what I mean."

Search where exactly? I can look in animal nutrition textbooks, peer-reviewed journal articles in nutrition/animal science/ biology, etc.... and I see that based upon the structure of their nutritional needs, digestive systems, teeth, metabolism, diet of wild/ feral animals that canines are... omnivores. Whereas cats (who require nutrients only found in animal tissues) are obligate carnivores.

So I'm curious to know exactly who in the academic community is arguing over this.

But as to the idea that we could produce meat in a lab (wouldn't that be cool!!), to my knowledge the folks who seem to want organic, free-range, etc etc, also seem to want GMO free products (or at least they're lumped together with those who do). So while I might consider trying lab-grown meat(and I've been a vegetarian for the last 13 years)... I don't think there is a market for it now. That said, I've never understood why some ppl are so scared of GMOs, how are they okay in medicines but not food?

But back to the main topic thread... PETA and their extreme beliefs have always disgusted me... mainly for their propaganda and their tendency to ignore science. Oh, and bc they're way too alike those radical forced-pregnancy folks who bomb abortion clinics to protest 'murder'....

My main issue with GMO's is that I haven't seen any evidence of what the long term implications are for eating them. Our culture is so quick to embrace things concocted in a lab without really exploring what ingesting or using these things does to the human body. Also, the politics behind companies like Monsanto are abhorrent, and I can't support their products. Besides, when I can purchase food that isn't genetically modified...what is my incentive to eat food that has been?

Kissmypineapple, I haven't really either. All I've seen is a lot of discussion about what the risks are, but very few actual studies showing it one way or another. While I don't know much about Monsanto, they can't be the only company (though they are very large).

My point was that considering all the medicine we use that was produced by GMOs (insulin, human growth hormone and certain vaccines being only some of them)... it seems odd to me that GM food is singled out for ppl to get so upset about. And the drugs are injectables, whereas the food is only eaten. So you have one that has been embraced by the community even though it gets placed inside the body, and the other is seen as horrid and unsafe even though it stays outside the body.

I agree that both need more safety and enviromental studies but a lot of the ppl freaking out about GMOs seem to want them to just go away, not to get studied and improved. I cannot agree with somebody who doesn't want something to be studied bc they find it too scary.

And while you may not eat a lot of GMOs, the general public does. For one thing, in this country they're cheaper.

I completely see what you're saying. And I agree, being scared about something should be motivation to investigate it, not hide under the bed until it goes away.

It is strange that medicines are deemed good and food is deemed bad. The only reason I can come up with for that would be that maybe people assume (correctly or possibly incorrectly) that when used for medicine, the benefits outweigh the risks, whereas with food, it's more risk vs. convenience (b/c of the price).

I have very little money, and I always end up just buying less food, which is not a luxury everyone has. I have no children or anyone else to feed, so I'm definitely not saying that I'm making judgements about other people who do end up inadvertantly (sp?) supporting the GMO industry. I just happen to be able to have that choice available to me right now.

caiis, you are amazing.

See, that's what I mean by anti-intellectual vegetarianism. I only eat organic and grass-fed (free-range is more often than not an insidious misnomer), but I don't see a damn thing wrong with GE food. I have literally heard people say that they don't like it because "it's got genes in it." And there are those who say that milk is bad for you, red meat is a health risk (the evidence suggests that these risks are due to the deplorable way we raise beef and the USDA's praise of fatty "marbling" in cuts), that to enter into any kind of reciprocal relationship with an animal is to enslave them, etc. And that is why we hate PETA and their ilk.

PETA is not exploiting women, but you are exploiting PETA. The girls who have posed for PETA either naked or otherwise have CHOSEN to do it. So by casting the blame on an organization that is all for ending cruelty against animals, you are just not seeing that Alicia Silverstone made a personal decision to do this, PETA did not film her naked without her consent, and then victimized her by using it as an ad campaign. Just because you disapprove of nudity does not mean you can make sarcastic comments that imply that PETA was doing wrong.

And as for Alicia Silverstone using this ad to "jump start her career", I guess you have not seen Clueless. She is already a well known actress. She was supporting something she believes in by drawing attention to PETA.

Er, what is wrong with nakedness? She didn't seem demeaned, starved, stupid, or powerless.

She seemed empowered, confident, energetic, and and..definately not raped.

Surfers (guys and girls) show pictures of themselves without much on all the time. Within the context of athleticism or nutrition, there is a legitimate reason to show skin.