I am a committed vegetarian and yet I will not join Peta for this very reason. I don't believe in treating women like a piece of meat in order to get others to stop eating meat. I've elaborated on this in more detail here in response to other initiatives of Peta involving near-naked women.

The rear ends justifies the means. In all seriousness, Peta needs and overhaul.

good post. I 100% agree with the quote

Well, as far as their target audience being men...

Isn't it statistically more likely for women to be vegetarians/vegans than men?

Nakedness gets attention from everybody; not necessarily just men.

Aren't all these women volunteers? How can this organization get them to do this? And is there brainwashing involved?

This is bad, but what about PETA's stunt in Memphis where they packed two bikini-clad ladies like cuts of meat (in saran wrap, in Memphis heat)? You should read the article that's on the Egotistical Whining blog. The PETA lady ignored one of the protestor's complaints about being nauseous and had her stay in the saran wrap another thirty minutes. Booo PETA!
(link: http://animeg.blogspot.com/2008/06/peta-protesters-apparently-left-other.html)

Do we really need to post about this every time PETA does this? (which is like every week it seems). We know PETA does this, shame shaaaame on PETA. But seriously, what next? We've already had the same debate about this a dozen times and PETA hasn't changed anything in its tactics. Why not frame this in a more contructive manner and ask how the animal rights movement can better get it's message across instead of just, excuse my nonvegan metaphor, keep beating the same dead horse.

You know, I'm a pro-feminist male, but also a moral vegetarian. I think outrage over PETA is somewhat misguided and disingenuous. I mean, it may be that women are being objectified in this case, we all get it. But I do not believe that the moral and ethical implications of this kind of objectification can be weighed against the suffering and slaughter of millions of animals.

To bring Peter Singer into the conversation, if we give equal consideration to the objectification of women in this case and to the animals brought to slaughter, I think the suffering placed on animals far outweighs the consequences of objectification. Granted, there are other implications, but pick your battles, yes?

I'm not all that offended with the idea of painting a person up. I actually think it looks cool. On the other hand, I'm not for the shrink wrapping. The concept is a great one- for painting/drawing, photography, etc. but not really the smartest thing to do to yourself.
Unlike some, I don't see it as representative of violence towards women. I see it as trying to make a connection to the "product" you consume and animals (yes, even human).
I also think Peta is a bunch of asshats.

Black Thirteen's right. Women have always been more likely to be vegetarian than men:

http://www.vegsoc.org/info/statveg90.html

It's also obvious, as Feministing often points out, that meat is far more heavily marketed towards men than women.

You could argue it either way: if more women are veg than men, then gearing your protests towards men makes sense (why preach to the choir?). However, if you go at it from the angle that women are more LIKELY to go veg than men, you'd think they'd be aiming for women.

Bottom line is you can't speculate who their target audience is. Nobody here works for PETA and can confirm it. And last time I checked, looking at scantily clad (or naked) women isn't something only men participate in. It's pretty easy to come up with multiple examples of instances where the use of nude women attracts both men and women, and nude women are used to market to both genders (albeit in different ways). I'm not saying it's right or that it's not a construct of patriarchy. My point is that we can't look at their use of nude women and say "PETA isn't trying to appeal to women - their target audience is obviously men."

qwerty, if it's just a case of 'nakedness gets attention' why doesn't PETA use naked men more often?

I feel you're missing the point a bit.

(Vegetarian here for well over 20 years and I f-ing hate PETA.)

The fact that they continually use young, naked women to get attention for their cause shows who their target audience is: men.

You can tell no one behind the PETA ads has any grounding in Psychology.

If you attract men's attention via titillating displays of the female form, what makes you think they will be inclined to suddenly shift gears and evaluate (positively) your pro-animal rights message?
Do you generally find men to be thoughtful and cognizant when there are naked women around? Further, have you considered how naked, posed , vulnerable looking women evoke a very stereotypically masculine mindset from men? This is a mindset that wants an 8 pound charred turkey leg, not a salad. This is a mindset evoked to sell crappy beer, and unnecessary automobiles. This is a mindset that denigrates "wimpy" stuff like vegitarianism, not embraces it. You are setting men up to denigrate your message, and that can sabotage their future considerations of vegetarianism.

PETA strikes me as a regressive "sex sells!" advertising mentality mixed with a lot of self-centered posturing, not an actual attempt to have a positive impact.

rtred, I certainly can't speak for anyone but myself, but I don't see these volunteers as being "brainwashed" by Peta.

I'd say that these women (and many others) have been "brainwashed" by a patriarchal culture that tells women from birth that their best and most useful qualities are tits and ass.

True, no one is forcing these women to get semi-nude for Peta. However, one could also argue that no one is forcing young women to appear on Girls Gone Wild. But the fact remains that we are all products of the culture in which we live. When raunch culture rules and women are told that their only significance is sexual in nature, it is no surprise to me that young women believe that baring it all is the most effective way to be independent or rebellious or outspoken.

I've been reluctant to condemn PETA before, but I get it now. The way to bring people's attention to animal cruelty is to show gross, unattractive, disturbing, bloody, vomity, poopy images of animals living in horrible conditions. Pretty women in makeup/bikinis aren't gross.

Re: brainwashing
"a sweat-soaked Herbold replied that she was in pain and feeling nauseated from the heat after being wrapped in cellophane for 30 minutes, and also asked how much longer she needed to stay there."

I saw a similar PETA action in Seattle this winter - a PETA volunteer (male, fully-clothed) "street-cornered" during the lunch hour in a downtown park, while two women wearing bikinis stood on boxes with signs (I think "fur is murder" or something). It was about 40 degrees out, with a light Seattle mist going. I was so flummoxed, I couldn't even think of what to say to them.

"Brainwashing?" Seriously?

If I roll my eyes any harder they may fall out of my head.

On a side note, Feministing, get your comment situation figured out ASAP. As much as I love spending hours composing comments that get eaten in the approval process, It'd be nice if at least the majority made them through.

"Aren't all these women volunteers? How can this organization get them to do this? And is there brainwashing involved?"

Why would there need to be brainwashing involved? Millions of women and men choose to display their bodies in a wide variety of ways everyday. Some do it for money, some for attention, some as an expression of personal freedom and agency, etc.

I'm not saying that we never have a right to critique those choices, but I think the claim that brainwashing would be involved sounds either naive or disingenuous.

I just looked at the update link about the plastic wrapped interns in hot weather and it occurs to me that the brainwashing comment was probably in response to that rather more ridiculous and dangerous behavior.

That'll teach me to post without all the facts. Open mouth, insert foot.

And on that update: "Wow" is the only word for it. Oh, and cruel. And disgusting.

I think the comments on the linked site provide pretty compelling evidence that these displays are ineffective. Sure, men are talking about PETA,great. But when the most common comment is along the lines of "that protest made me hungry for beef and naked shrink-wrapped women," your protest has gone awry.

PETA is a great example of a group that makes points in ways that seem effective to those who already agree with them, but do nothing to convince those that don't.

Also, I think it's worth noting that in the beef protest, that woman was an intern, and it seems like she was uncomftorable with the protest. I wouldn't call being asked by your boss to take off your clothes and objectify yourself a totally free choice, those of us who have been interns know how difficult it is to refuse requests from your superiors.

Nakedness gets attention from everybody; not necessarily just men.

Then they should be using half naked men as much as they seem to use women. The other meat wrapped intern was a guy but as GottaBeMe pointed out, almost 90% of their ads feature naked women. And much like that one vegan strip joint we discussed a while ago it seems they feel using T&A will entice those reluctant men over to their side.

PETA is a horrible organization in general. They think that owning pets is animal abuse; they think that animal shelters are abusive places... and yet they kill 85% of the animals they take in. Details here.

Even if PETA were a worthy cause, their constant use of naked women is idiotic because while these tactics get public attention, they don't draw attention to the actual issues, so people don't stay interested.

Nakedness does not imply objectivity.
Nakedness is a beautiful and powerful way of getting people's attention.
The message is that we are all animals--that we are all pieces of meat, we just happen to be at the top of the food chain. What the demonstration communicates to me is the similarity among animals--that humans are very much a part of the same earth, are made of the same chemistry, and are descendent from one universal organism. How sexual discrimination works its way into that is a stretch. Men and women both participate, and are called to do the same things.

It is exploitative and obnoxious...but as a snake geek I have to say, I loooooove that snakeskin paint job. If I were to ever get a full body tattoo, I'd just copy that.

Anyway, carry on with serious conversation.

And that 90% stat is (possibly) and exaggeration, I don't know the real percentages.

I, too, am a vegetarian, but I also value human dignity, and the things PETA does to prove a point sometimes strike me as counterproductive.

dude, that sfgate article is an industry hit piece, the writer is a right wing commentator and lobbyist, her husband works for a right wing think tank and she quotes the center for consumer freedom, a lobbying group for the restaurant meat and liquor industry as a source. the center for consumer freedom are the same group behind the petakillsanimals website. its all this insular little circle of people with a vested interest in americans eating meat.

peta is sexist as fuck and yeah ingrid newkick is pretty batty in her own right, but using obviously biased dishonest sources isnt any way to prove a point.

also, to ann, you should kno that the link in the update refers to feministing in the comments as feminazis. just so you kno who yr directing traffic to.

"Well, as far as their target audience being men...

Isn't it statistically more likely for women to be vegetarians/vegans than men?"

yes, so it makes sense for their advertising targets a male audience. why target an audience who, if not already vegetarian/vegan, are more likely to become vegetarian?

God, I'm a vegan and PETA disgusts me! They don't even draw attention to actual problems with the meat/dairy/fur/etc industries. I mean, obviously they do SOMETIMES, but most of the stunts like this bullshit make people think anyone who's vegan/veg are all crazies like the peta assholes.

It's awful to tell interns to do this. Most interns want job experience, and what looks worse than being fired from an internship? That "Meat is Murder" thing is so unbelievably horrifying. Meat is cruel, meat in dirty, meat is full of antibiotics and hormones, meat is not sexy interns wrapped in plastic to be objectified.

Painting her as a snake is possibly the least offensive thing PETA has ever done. I hate PETA.

The comments on the linked blog were charming.

I've always thought that one of the best anti-fur bits I've ever seen is in Ace Ventura 2, where Jim Carrey punches out an old man and "wears" him around the room. Not only was it hilarious (mostly because it was Jim Carrey), it made the point without being sexual.

http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlands-news/2008/05/30/topless-vegetarian-protester-in-birmingham-told-to-cover-up-65233-20997509/

Sorry I can't condense the link. It's not as nasty as the interns but the anti-woman sentiment is strong, especially with the presence of the "chef".

brownfemipower recently blogged about Oprah's veganism, other feminist issues with the animal rights movement, and less oppressive ways of going for vegetarianism. a pleasant antidote to PETA ads and tactics--
http://brownfemipower.com/archives/2639

They have become so focused on animal rights, they've lost sight of the fact humans need to be treated well, also.

The updated link is just disgusting, and the comments there are horrible.

As a male and pro-feminist, in this case, I must say that the suffering caused to animals on a massive, industrial level far outweighs the objectification of the woman. Granted, objectification has other implications. However, given equal consideration, the death and slaughter that results from the industry PETA is trying to counter trumps concerns we may have over the treatment of these women. I think we must pick our battles. PETA is not the enemy.

WTF? The packaged-meat ad is most disgusting PETA advertisement I've seen. In 80+ weather, too? Wowowow. I agree with AP about the choice issue. I could see how it could be hard to say no to your boss, especially if you are interning for a cause you believe in. Talk about pressure. "But don't you want to raise awareness to the suffering of animals!? It'll only be for an hour or so..."

Ugh, and the comments on the linked blog are a good example of why I pretty much just read feminist blogs now.

Yes, Emily, you're absolutely correct. I have seen tons of men nearly naked in public places, some in tiny cages, some wrapped in saran wrap to look like cuts of meat, some pretending to be butchered while a female chef stands over them brandishing a knife - oh whoops. That's not what happened...

Nakedness does not imply objectivity.
Nakedness is a beautiful and powerful way of getting people's attention.
The message is that we are all animals--that we are all pieces of meat, we just happen to be at the top of the food chain. What the demonstration communicates to me is the similarity among animals--that humans are very much a part of the same earth, are made of the same chemistry, and are descendent from one universal organism. How sexual discrimination works its way into that is a stretch. Men and women both participate, and are called to do the same things.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it doesn't take into account that society currently leans away from seeing the animals we eat as having anything resembling humanity, and toward seeing women and their bodies as objects for public consumption. When the average Joe sees one of these disgusting displays, it's a lot shorter of a walk to, "Sweet, a half-naked bitch on all fours in a cage" than it is to, "Gee, that really puts into perspective the way hens are treated on large farms. And her skimpy yellow bikini attracted my attention in such a beautiful and powerful way." Just read the comments on the bloody-shrinkwrapped-interns blog if you don't think that's the case.

Even if PETA's intentions are entirely innocent and artistic when they do this sort of thing, which you'll never be able to convince me that they are, they fail because they don't consider the climate of the society they're supposedly trying to undermine and how it might read their message. Right now, these demonstrations are doing a lot more to reinforce societal oppression of women than to undermine societal oppression of animals.

And as other posters have said, scantily clad men may be involved once in a while, but it's almost always women. It was naked women in the "I'd rather be naked than wear fur" ad campaign and a female blow-up doll on the "KFC Blows!" billboard.

The meat one is disgusting! and just plain sick and twisted. I am not a vegetarian, and I do eat meat, but I would never have imagined it to be portrayed that way by a really fucked up organization.

I just want to say one more time that everyone's rage regarding this protest is completely misguided. Put this into perspective. Animals, for instance, are stunned by untrained laborers and oftentimes skinned alive all within an industry that goes to such disgusting limits I cannot comprehend.

Shock tactics must be used and if painting a naked woman does it, so be it. This is not objectification of women in contrast to non-objectification. This is a painted body in contrast to absolutely disgusting, inhumane, savage cruelty bestowed on animals.

I know quite a bit about feminism and gender, more so than many of the people in here who link to their silly blogs. To me, these situations are incomparable. Compassion for women and social justice go hand in hand, as well as compassion for living things. I would oppress 100 people if it would end the suffering to millions.

having a naked women is not a shock tactic. There are half naked women everywhere, it doesn't appall people. Actually showing what happens to the animals...that would be shocking and appalling

"I know quite a bit about feminism and gender, more so than many of the people in here who link to their silly blogs"

Wow, condescending much? So far you haven't said anything to make me believe you know jack shit about feminism.

Books were what got me to go vegan (and I assume you're vegan as well Shaun), not PETA. It seems that PETA actually turns a lot of people off from veganism or at least gives them an excuse not to change, which is a shame. It's too bad none of the many non-offensive animal rights organizations out there don't get the spotlight that PETA does.

As far as nakedness being a beautiful way to express an opinion... why are most of the naked people women and why are they always thin, toned and pretty?

I can't stand PETA.

When the average Joe sees one of these disgusting displays, it's a lot shorter of a walk to, "Sweet, a half-naked bitch on all fours in a cage" than it is to, "Gee, that really puts into perspective the way hens are treated on large farms. And her skimpy yellow bikini attracted my attention in such a beautiful and powerful way."

Misspelled, you are spot on. Even if you can get on board with their message, their medium overshadows it every time.

Alternatively, the ASPCA and Humane Society protest a lot of the same things PETA does. Although they don't take a hard line against eating animals (thereby depriving their activists of the opportunity to shame the rest of us), all their interns do get to keep their clothes on.

For me, being a feminist means undergoing a consciousness change, with respect to our society, about women. Women are full individuals who exist for their own sake and not for anyone else. This is a big duh for most anyone on this site, but it's not the prevailing attitude in a society where women's bodies are treated as public property.

This attitude evolved into veganism for me. In our society animals are "for" us to eat. There is no moral qualms about the complete violation of them because that's their purpose.

When one sees animals as existing in their own right (however simple or humble compared to that of human animals) one must question the liberties we take with them. How was this tyranny of humans over animals established? what is taken from them is everything so that we may indulge in trivial gastronomical pleasures?

It comes down to an abuse of the weak by the powerful simply because the powerful can. This attitude is fundamentally oppose to feminism. It's in opposition to any human civil rights movement.

I understand the contrast PETA is trying to make. But they are enforcing an oppressive mindset by objectifying women. And so long as that mindset prevails vegansim will not click for people. As long as its OK to consume women's bodies, it'll be OK to consume animals'.

Colour me shocked that all of the Peta-supporters are coming out of the woodwork. If a group that you didn't like was using (and I mean USING) women that way, you'd rightfully be up in arms. But when precious PETA does it, it's cool? Sorry, but objectification is objectification, whether the mostly-nude is beer and cars or veganism and cute little animals.

Factory farming and the fur industry is absolutely revolting. But instead of giving your money to Peta, which supports groups like the ALF, treats women like shit and kills most of the animals it "saves", maybe give to a legitimate animal rights group?

This disgusts me as much from a feminist standpoint as a vegetarian one.

Shaun I understand your logic but also think it could have troubelling implications. Who gets to decide whose opression is "worse" or more urgent?

It is really appalling to me that they would ask their interns to do this. In my experience working for liberal non-profits, I have been asked by a number of supervisors to accept date requests from donors, respond to flirtations, etc. The logic always is, "well don't you want to help..." and "its not that big of a deal compared to what we are trying to fix..."

It is that big of a deal. And if I accept the date request, am I morally obligated to oblige the sex request, since hey, my opression as a woman isn't that big a deal compared to some issues?

It's a slippery slope. That intern likely came to PETA hoping to use her brain, not her objectified body to help animals.

I actually e-mailed Peta about the bad taste in their ads and told them that their ads disgust me so much they made me wanna eat a steak (I am a vegetarian not by Peta persuasion by the way).
They responded saying that they are all about women's rights and yadayada and their excuse for using women's bodies was liberating in the sense that the use of bodies was to show appreciation of bodies and all this bullshit about how their cause is worthy enough to do that and blah blah blah.

Sounded like crap to me, but they are not stopping that any time soon :(

Hmm... but do we not consume the female animals almost exclusively? I mean, to an extent, PETA may be technically correct in using women because we by and large slaughter and subsequently eat the females.

I am not a member of PETA, but again I would argue that feminism must ultimately lead to the eradication of "speciesism" as well. Equal consideration of women and other sub-altern groups will not ultimately succeed unless we move beyond the oppression of humans and include the oppression of all living things and the environment.

Shaun,
Animals are not self-aware, women are. "Speciesism" is not my ultimate goal as a feminist, and you imply that ultimately, an animal's rights are as important as my own, as a woman. You cannot compare the oppression of women and animals because they are completely different in a thousand ways. One could argue that an animal, as a being that is not self-conscious, does not even have rights (but we're not going to get into that here, on a feminist website). Who cares if most animals we east are female? Are you suggesting we take up the cause of animal sexism? I'm sorry, but we've got enough problems fighting for ourselves.

Who the hell is PETA to tell us anything about animal welfare? After all their "animal shelters" have a higher kill rate than any other animal shelter in the country. The only three videos of theirs that I have seen featured PETA employees abusing animals (stepping on them, throwing them, choking them, etc) in order to get "more of an effect on the audience." Close friends of mine have had to move because friends of PETA (aka ALF) followed them home and did tens of thousands of dollars in damage to their houses. Other friends had to euthanize their horses after PETA supporters laid down tacks and other things (I don't know the name of them, but they look like the metal thingies in the game jacks) that damage their hooves beyond repair. Hundred of minks lost their lives to starvation and predation a couple years ago when PETA released them without researching the notion that perhaps the animals could not live in the wild. Not to mention the millions of dollars and years of research lost in various research labs. Research that currently is helping a certain vice president of PETA, who happens to be an insulin-dependent diabetic, stay alive.

I have no problem with any consenting adult who wishes to live without animal products. But as soon as that person damages property and research, they no longer reserve the right to call themselves ethical.

Perhaps the "e" in PETA is lower case because they really have no respect for the word "ethics." They're functionally a terrorist organization and should have their tax exempt status revoked.

Actually, wilway, you're not going off on much of a limb here.

Since animals are not eligible for personhood, by definition, they do not have rights, and the well being of people is always going to have a higher priority over non-people.
All living things are not equal in that regard.

But they can be granted *privileges*. Which I think is definitely a cause worth supporting.

It should really be called the "Animal Privileges movement"...

Do we not exclusively eat female animals? Huh? How about: no. We primarily eat MALE animals, particularly beef.

Honestly I'm not offended by PETA's stupid displays so much as I am embarrassed by the image they bring to animal rights. But that shrink-wrapped protest? What bullshit

I HATE PETA and it's not because of their ridiculous advertising. It's because they're fucking idiots who trick people into donating to their bullshit rather than a real animal rights association and support breed-specific legislation.

Then they should be using half naked men as much as they seem to use women. The other meat wrapped intern was a guy but as GottaBeMe pointed out, almost 90% of their ads feature naked women. And much like that one vegan strip joint we discussed a while ago it seems they feel using T&A will entice those reluctant men over to their side.

naked women to get attention for their cause shows who their target audience is: men.

et al...

Well, that's a little heterosexist!

Female nudity garners attention from both women and men, straight and heterosexual alike (albeit for very different reasons). But yeah, nudity is something rarely seen, so people look. Flip through a Cosmo - looks pretty much like a Maxim.

I'm not saying it's right, and I'm definitely not saying it's feminist, but it's presumptuous to say they're specifically targeting men, especially because I don't consider the way they use the women to be particularly sexualized - crass, disturbing, and dehumanized, maybe, but not very sexy. That's totally my opinion and others obviously may interpret it differently. I think the protests are more the "shock and awe" factor, and it clearly works (right or not).

Nudity isn't always sexual.

Also, ads with nude men from PETA (including David Cross - yum!):

http://www.elainevigneault.com/the-naked-men-of-peta-ads.html

http://www.elainevigneault.com/more-naked-men-of-peta.html

Oh, and brainwashing?! Seriously? Come on, now. Plenty of people do ridiculous things for causes they believe in. Vegetarianism isn't a cult.

I am a vegan, but I REALLY HATE how PETA objectifies woman's bodies to make a point. The link to the action they did where women were shrink wrapped: here are THREE different comments that men made to that PETA action:

"I want to practice vagitarianism on the chick standing and holding the sign."

"She may look hot from a distance, Guy, but I doubt she has a Brazilian down there. More likely you're going to get a patchouli hair sandwich."

"Plus, she'll probably claim you're trying to oppress her... somehow."

It doesn't make men go veg, it reinforces men's sexist attitudes that women's bodies are for exploitation. Those comments REALLY pissed me off and I wanted to slug them in the face. ARG!

Here's a good book by Carol J Adams: "The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory"

Shock tactics must be used and if painting a naked woman does it, so be it.

Shaun, how is this statement supposed to convince a feminist like myself who likes her steak rare?

I feel like I've dated "sensitive" men like you before, who will sacrifice feminist beliefs for just about every other issue if you feel it will help the cause. It's not unlike so-called "liberal" men who will take the pro-choice debate off the table in the name of "compromise."

You might be a decent fella, but just think for a second about the assumptions you are making.

So I would not recommend reading the comments at that second link there. But then again, it does finely illustrate the point that objectifying women for their cause is not doing a whole lot more than that, objectifying women.