PETA: Cause objectifying women never gets old
It's nice to see PETA changing up their marketing strategy. Oh, wait...
Thanks to miss.meshuganer for the link!
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: PETA: Cause objectifying women never gets old.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10960
No matter how worthy their cause it does not give them the right to routinely objectify women the way that they do. It makes me ill. Of course the minute you object to their heinous tactics they tell you that it is about your support of eating meat. They don't want to own that what they are doing is wrong. They have used racism, sexism, and homophobia to push their agenda and I find their tactics foul.
I think it's more about their value judgment that their message is more important than a feminist message. Sex continues to sell. So they've concluded that using the most efficient tactics is more valuable than the harm caused by those tactics.
I think it basically comes down to the fact that many special interest groups are run by people for whom that interest is the most important. Which is why they're that involved to begin with. I'm not trying to make any normative judgments, just saying why I think certain things play out like they do.
Can we please have a moratorium on the simplistic, shallow phrase "sex sells" and its variations? Because, first of all, "sex" almost always refers to depictions of women's sexualized bodies. Second of all, there is absolutely no proof that images of naked women have convinced anyone to monetarily support PETA, become vegetarian/vegan, give up fur or leather, etc.
Also, THAT'S KHLOE KARDASHIAN? Wow, they really photoshopped the hell out of her.
First of all, I am not trying to defend this objectification of women. However, images such as these, while they may not actually move anyone into action on the cause, definitely grab people's attentions and are likely to stay with them, which is one of the first steps.
My wife has been more like you have described about women. why are they lilke this.. It just amazes me.. thanks for your comment..
Dentists in Brighton
My wife has been more like you have described about women. why are they lilke this.. It just amazes me.. thanks for your comment..
Dentists in Brighton
Think it'd be a bit more interesting, adequate and possibly less sexist if she could be in a naked yet 'non-sexy' pose. Then it'd actually be "I'd rather go naked' instead of 'I'd rather be your illusion of a teasingly naked coy mistress'
Yeah, like, what if they had people walking around in the winter, with just a hat and/or scarf and no coat? Not sexualized, just walking like other people. That would at least be INTERESTING.
... Which is why the only ad from the "I'd rather go naked" campaign that I think is even a little clever and cheeky is the one featuring David Cross' hairy butt. It's pretty awesome, and definitely NSFW.
But I guess hairy, awkward, male comedians don't get as much attention as, say, a Kardashian. Sigh.
Still waiting for a fat girl posing for them. Because when PETA stops supporting impossible standard of beauty, I'll start finding something other than leather to keep the wind away.
And I'm kind of sick of seeing these posts because the comments are always filled with "It's okay because they agreed!" It happens every time, and none of them seem to question that naked women is the only way that PETA sells its politics. Even beer got horses and stupid catch-phrases eventually.
Hell, didn't mean for that reply to go to you.
Anyway, what I meant to say was:
"Only men get to be nonsexual."
i hate peta period
Guys, is this really an exploitive ad? Why are we so quick to jump the gun to call this sexist and objectifying simply because she is naked? Why do we immediately associate the female form with being taken advantage of?
Yeah, the ad is sexy, but that's because wild hair and good skin and smokey eyes are sexy; the woman herself is sexy. The sex appeal belongs to the woman. How is owning and loving your own beauty objectifying?
This ad is about choosing nakedness over fur, emphasis on the choosing aspect. I don't see the exploitation in that.
You really don't see the appeal for the male gaze in this ad? Does her ass have to be so highlighted? Not only the angle of the picture highlights her ass, the place the text was put also drives the eye to that direction. She didn't have to look sexually inviting if the message "I'd rather be naked than wear fur".
If I couldn't read, there would be absolutely nothing in this ad relating to Peta.
I understand when Peta says then want to shock people in order to drive attention to their cause. I do not think that's the best strategy, but I understand that way of thinking. However, this ad is not shocking AT ALL, since sexualizing women is pretty much standard. They're just doing what everybody else does: repeating the stupid "sex sells" sentence, when actually it's not about sex itself. It's about women's bodies.
When Peta (and other advertisers) starts using pictures of naked men as much it uses pics of naked women, I might cut them some slack. Until them, I think that's just bullshit.
You really don't see the appeal for the male gaze in this ad? Does her ass have to be so highlighted? Not only the angle of the picture highlights her ass, the place the text was put also drives the eye to that direction. She didn't have to look sexually inviting if the message is "I'd rather be naked than wear fur".
If I couldn't read, there would be absolutely nothing in this ad relating to Peta.
I understand when Peta says then want to shock people in order to drive attention to their cause. I do not think that's the best strategy, but I understand that way of thinking. However, this ad is not shocking AT ALL, since sexualizing women is pretty much standard. They're just doing what everybody else does: repeating the stupid "sex sells" sentence, when actually it's not about sex itself. It's about women's bodies.
When Peta (and other advertisers) starts using pictures of naked men as much it uses pics of naked women, I might cut them some slack. Until them, I think that's just bullshit.
oops! sorry for the double posting and the spelling errors, people.
It is not always as simple as the female objectified by the male gaze. Lacan's conception of the gaze is tri-partite. You should go look it up.
Oh jeez. I highly doubt whatever person designed this even knows who Lacan was, let alone had his theories in mind. (The idea, as the previous poster was talking about, owes more to Laura Mulvey, anyway.)
Anyone who brings Mulvey into a non-classroom based discussion gets points from me. :)
do we really need another ad telling us good skin and smokey eyes are sexy? i guess so, because all my life i've though my acne scarred skin and hairy arms are the sexiest things ever. since i don't look like the playboy models, maybe i should cover myself up - with a mink coat!
Of topic, but still important: Why address people on a majority female, FEMINIST forum as 'guys'? Do you not see the irony? I really don't mean to be rude, but it's so irritating and obtuse. The term 'guys', when used generically for males and females, is the epitome of how 'maleness' is seen as the norm and 'femaleness' is seen as somehow deviant or 'other'.Language is so important, and yet so perpetually misused. Can you imagine anyone on a predominantly male forum addressing other posters as 'girls'? Of course not. There's a plethora of other terms you could use...please consider using one!
Lucy
Of topic, but still important: Why address people on a majority female, FEMINIST forum as 'guys'? Do you not see the irony? I really don't mean to be rude, but it's so irritating and obtuse. The term 'guys', when used generically for males and females, is the epitome of how 'maleness' is seen as the norm and 'femaleness' is seen as somehow deviant or 'other'.Language is so important, and yet so perpetually misused. Can you imagine anyone on a predominantly male forum addressing other posters as 'girls'? Of course not. There's a plethora of other terms you could use...please consider using one!
Lucy
Outrage over PETA is so second-wave.
Sorry, I'm not afraid of the big-bad-wave-Wolf.
Dangling Waves of feminism in front of me as a taunt doesn't work.
I stand in solidarity with all feminists, men and women, young and old, 1st Wave or 3rd Wave or no Wave alike. We all have the same underlying goal: gender equality.
'Bye, divider.
Well put.
Don't you think that since objectification of the female body is still so prevelent it makes it very much a third wave issue?! As a young 20 year old woman who has been swayed by the media, I certainly considerate a major problem in our society today. Second wave femininsts did seem to find a way to stop the problem, therefore us third wavers need to consider it a topic of concern.
Here is an interview with Ingrid Newkirk, the founder and president of PETA. The clip is from a pretty amazing Canadian activist TV program called The Hour (some may have heard of it). Anyway, she talks about PETA's controversial ad campaigns in the interview, so it may be worth a view.
http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/videos.html?id=946681339
Thank you, SarahMC!
O guess this is brilliant ad, because it shows us that women dont have to wear fur to be sexy.
Mike from warm winter coats guide. If you know about great coat, dont hesitate, send me a link and I will post it there.
Is this really so controversial? Yes she's naked, but so what? Isn't it better that she do it for a cause she believes in than for Playboy? Regarding the comments about her butt being highlighted...c'mon people, she's a Kardashian. Of course they were going to highlight her butt!
I think she looks great. I don't think the picture is too 'out there'. I'm hesitant to use the word classy; this IS Peta we're talking about. Let's just say I don't think it's news-worthy.
Oh yeah, thanks for pointing out that they highlighted her butt. Also a controlling image of women of color, see PHC's "Black Sexual Politics" comparing J-Lo to the Venus Hottentot. Yes, this is controversial.
But she did do it to promote her career. Her cause and PETA's cause in this ad is their own celebrity. If she took off her clothes for Playboy, the self promotion of her sex appeal wouldn't be hidden behind the cause. One of the aggravating thing about PETA's is using activism as something to excuse their sexism. Playboy and PETA's campaign use a photoshopped version of a woman to promote themselves and excite their audience.
Little rabbits and minks have nothing to do with this ad at all.
Women don`t get old.Its pretty awkward phrase, they are the one which get old and there importance sometime get really in hindrance. Regards term life insurance quotes
I'd like to add that the "wild" hair on a woman of color is in poor taste, as well as the nudity- we didn't really need another image of women of color as animals or animalistic humans. See also:
http://contexts.org/socimages/2007/09/20/black-women-as-wild-animals/
http://contexts.org/socimages/2008/06/18/whites-blacks-apes-in-the-great-chain-of-being/
http://contexts.org/socimages/2008/06/14/more-ethnic-fashion/
http://contexts.org/socimages/2008/06/09/ethnic-fashion/
http://contexts.org/socimages/2008/04/05/romanticizing-colonialism/
And pretty much anything by Patricia Hill Collins
Oh yea..You're so much right! Those "wild" hairs is really in poor taste, as well as the nudity that she shows.. But it can be called "sexy" for some persons..make crystal meth
who is PETA trying to reach out to with these ads? it sure as hell isn't me. i think the way we treat animals in factory farming and fur factories is wrong and i don't need any playboy bunny's butt to inform me. if this ad is trying to speak to rich and ignorant women (because a lot of people cant afford fur), then is this the most convincing thing they can do?
i think all that PETA's ads achieve is perhaps...nothing. can anyone tell me any anecdote of someone being converted by these ads?
and is so fucking annoying when people question if we just think an ad is sexist because it has naked women. this isn't a blog of christian conservatives, you know. we've had posts about artistic displays of naked bodies as well as discussions on what is objectifying about many of these ads that have naked women. for the last time, it's not because of the nakedness. i saw a PETA ad in playgirl that had this naked, hairy, middle-aged, bald male comedian - totally un-touched. when's the last time you saw a PETA ad display a woman un-airbrushed, much less a hairy, middle aged women? what is the intent of these PETA ads? whose money are they trying to get? I'm sure as hell never donating to PETA, SPCA or Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and local co-ops are much more deserving of money.
PCRM is the evil offspring of PETA.
We're mammals. We are, by definition, sexual. That ad is a picture of a person both men and women might find attractive. It's attention-getting, and that's the point. Calling it sexist or saying it's "about" the naked woman is really missing the point. It's a downright fearful kneejerk reaction.
We need to start being comfortable with imagery depicting our own bodies. A PICTURE OF A HUMAN BEING IS NOT SEXIST OR OBSCENE!! It's just a picture. The viewer is the person who gives it meaning. If you give it sexist meaning, it's sexist, if you don't, it's not.
SO tired of Feministing calling ads featuring unclothed females sexist when they run Snorg Tee ad banners that also employ the "sexy girl" strategy.
While I agree with your point about Snorg tees, please go read SarahMC's comment to understand why PETA's (and most) pictures of naked women are problematic.
When you're done with SarahMC, read clarityandchaos
Well, I read clarityandchaos too:
• Think it'd be a bit more interesting, adequate and possibly less sexist if she could be in a naked yet 'non-sexy' pose. Then it'd actually be "I'd rather go naked' instead of 'I'd rather be your illusion of a teasingly naked coy mistress'
I agree they could have been more imaginative! They don't score points on originality. Naked woman = eyes seems to be the message. I don't contest that this has been done before and is tired as hell, I do contest that it's offensive.
I have to wonder though where the term "coy mistress" came from? I don't see that anywhere on the ad. Read MY comment again FrumiousB... meaning comes from YOU, not the image. If you see a coy mistress, there you have a coy mistress. I see the coy, but not the mistress, and I have a hard time understanding what's offensive about "coy naked lady"
Well sexs have its own values and internet has its own. Some people use internet to get themselves aroused by watching mature content on the internet.
Best Wishes
Cosmetic dentists Palm beach
SarahMC said:
Can we please have a moratorium on the simplistic, shallow phrase "sex sells" and its variations? Because, first of all, "sex" almost always refers to depictions of women's sexualized bodies. Second of all, there is absolutely no proof that images of naked women have convinced anyone to monetarily support PETA, become vegetarian/vegan, give up fur or leather, etc.
Also, THAT'S KHLOE KARDASHIAN? Wow, they really photoshopped the hell out of her.
---
Well FrumiousB, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to learn from this comment. I'll respond to it sentence by sentence.
• "Can we please have a moratorium on the simplistic, shallow phrase "sex sells" and its variations?"
I'd call it a "truism". Like I said, we're mammals. We respond to sexual imagery. The reason advertisers do this is because it works. Also, sure, let's silence all talk and not discuss the issue!
• "Because, first of all, "sex" almost always refers to depictions of women's sexualized bodies."
Wow. Let's take the meaning of the word "sex" and twist it to mean "female bodies". Also, let's generalize and basically
call the entire advertising industry sexist.
• Second of all, there is absolutely no proof that images of naked women have convinced anyone to monetarily support PETA, become vegetarian/vegan, give up fur or leather, etc.
Um, okay, there is no proof on the books that eye-catching ads don't help sell products, promote ideologies, get messages out etc... am I learning yet?
• Also, THAT'S KHLOE KARDASHIAN? Wow, they really photoshopped the hell out of her.
I just did a Google image search on her name and the ad looks like her. Before they take your photo they use flattering lighting and put makeup on, you know.
Wow. Could you be anymore rude and willingly ignorant? None of your statements would hold up in any academic school of thought, like, oh, Feminism. SarahMC's on the other hand are very insightful and have score's of academic papers to back them up. (Kudos to you SarahMC. I always enjoy what you have to say.)
Furthermore, your argument in unsound because one of you premises is false in saying that all mammals are sexual beings. This is a fallacy of over generalization. While it is true, that humans, most primates, and even dolphins are sexual creatures, it is not because they are all mammals. It is specific to the species. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and infer that what you meant is that *humans* are sexual creatures. Yes, this is true. But human sexuality is more than a response to stimulus, unlike your claim. If it was, the study on human sexuality would be null and void. Human sexuality is based on several factors such as attraction, attachment, love, etc. It is a very complex matter, so once again you commit the fallacy of hasty generalization.
Learned anything yet?
Have you learned anything yet?
The "humans are mammals!" rationalization also takes for granted that sexuality is represented as one-directional in the vast majority of ads like this: man > woman. Women have sexuality too, and no, our sexuality does not consist of being visual stimuli.
PETA could feature depictions of naked men and women of varying body types and ethnicities. Hell, maybe even a person with a disability! They could be shown doing any number of non-sexual things (holding hands, swinging on swings, building a snowman...) that would more effectively communicate the anti-fur message. Instead, PETA consistently puts out girly pics of conventionally attractive naked white women. In PETA's eyes, the world consists of heterosexual men (oh, and lesbians, though you'd have a hard time convincing me PETA actually has lesbians in mind), and they always direct their campaigns at them exclusively.
Oh, sure, women like looking at other pretty women too. Ever wonder why? It's because we've been conditioned to view ourselves (women) through the male gaze!
Didn't you get the memo? We're no longer critiquing media, corporations, non-profits, or... well, anything here at Feministing. According to our new commenters ignorance is bliss and the unexamined life is the only one worth living.
I think you missed my point SarahMC (sorry for picking your comment apart btw! I know it was well-meaning!)
I'm not suggesting the critiquing end. I'm suggesting that everyone's energy may be put to better use by focusing on advertising that is legitimately exploitative. Or at least posting something like "Do you think this is offensive?" instead of "There goes the sexist ad industry again, those jerks!"
Discussion is good! Questions are good! Announcing on the front page of Feministing that "This image = BAD OBJECTIFICATION" is just plain stupid. It leaves no room for argument or dissenting opinions.
I don't find that ad offensive. According to you I'm a wrong/bad person?
You hardly picked my post apart. You merely stated the equivalent of "nuh uh" in response to my critiques and analysis.
Nobody claimed that this ad is exploitative of the model (Khloe) so I'm not sure why you're using that word, specifically.
The comments re: the conflation of "sex" and "women's sexualized bodies" seem to have gone over your head.
A picture of a naked person CAN, in fact, be sexist. It's called context.
Everything you've presented as fact in your posts is unsubstantiated (links to legit scientific studies or it's not true!) and I'm merely saying "I think you're off-base here"
Context is highly variable. Your context and mine as viewers are obviously entirely different. Your opinion is "this is wrong!" mine is "nobody got hurt" Who's right?
You asked that a /moratorium/ (dangerous request when it comes to words, btw!) be put on the colloquial expression "sex sells" - you claimed that sex mostly means "women's sexualized bodies". That's your claim, and I don't see why I should take it at face value as true. What about sexy fireman calendars? There are plenty of depictions of sexualized men for sale. Plus, "sex sells" as an expression is not intended to mean "women's sexualized bodies sell" and for you to claim it does is not only a misunderstanding of the language employed, but simply an attempt on your part to cast the advertising industry and/or PETA as sexist. I'm sure many would agree with you on that score, but I don't! Culture is a product of the people. Naked ladies sell things because that IS what people want to see. And the reasons for that are a lot deeper and more pervasive than cultural indoctrination via advertising! Again, we're hardwired to respond to sexual imagery. I will actually cite a study, and you can do some fact-checking, if you want: Anokhin AP, Golosheykin S, Sirevaag E, Kristjansson S, Rohrbaugh JW, Heath AC. Rapid discrimination of visual scene content in the human brain.
You ask that advertisers not take advantage of this known fact about humans. You submit that doing so is sexist. I might agree with you if at any point you actually explained /why/. She's naked. So? What is it about nudity that renders the image sexist? It's a not-that-clever ad. I really don't see the problem!
Also, I used the term exploitation above not in the sense that Kardashian was being exploited but in reference to the many people here claiming that her image was being /used for evil/.
Also, hey, let's start over here, obviously I was kind of a jerk in my comments. I believe strongly in my convictions so I sometimes come off as impolite. I assure you I'm a human being with a day job just like you. Maybe you could step into my shoes for a moment and try to see things from my perspective instead of dismissing me. I have tried to see it your way. I could certainly imagine being offended by that image! I just think that judging the moral weight of a picture is a tricky business, and your squarely placing it on the "sexist" side of the scale may be a bit nearsighted. There are more things on heaven and earth...
Everything you've presented as fact in your posts is unsubstantiated (links to legit scientific studies or it's not true!) and I'm merely saying "I think you're off-base here"
Context is highly variable. Your context and mine as viewers are obviously entirely different. Your opinion is "this is wrong!" mine is "nobody got hurt" Who's right?
You asked that a /moratorium/ (dangerous request when it comes to words, btw!) be put on the colloquial expression "sex sells" - you claimed that sex mostly means "women's sexualized bodies". That's your claim, and I don't see why I should take it at face value as true. What about sexy fireman calendars? There are plenty of depictions of sexualized men for sale. Plus, "sex sells" as an expression is not intended to mean "women's sexualized bodies sell" and for you to claim it does is not only a misunderstanding of the language employed, but simply an attempt on your part to cast the advertising industry and/or PETA as sexist. I'm sure many would agree with you on that score, but I don't! Culture is a product of the people. Naked ladies sell things because that IS what people want to see. And the reasons for that are a lot deeper and more pervasive than cultural indoctrination via advertising! Again, we're hardwired to respond to sexual imagery. I will actually cite a study, and you can do some fact-checking, if you want: Anokhin AP, Golosheykin S, Sirevaag E, Kristjansson S, Rohrbaugh JW, Heath AC. Rapid discrimination of visual scene content in the human brain.
You ask that advertisers not take advantage of this known fact about humans. You submit that doing so is sexist. I might agree with you if at any point you actually explained /why/. She's naked. So? What is it about nudity that renders the image sexist? It's a not-that-clever ad. I really don't see the problem!
Also, I used the term exploitation above not in the sense that Kardashian was being exploited but in reference to the many people here claiming that her image was being /used for evil/.
Also, hey, let's start over here, obviously I was kind of a jerk in my comments. I believe strongly in my convictions so I sometimes come off as impolite. I assure you I'm a human being with a day job just like you. Maybe you could step into my shoes for a moment and try to see things from my perspective instead of dismissing me. I have tried to see it your way. I could certainly imagine being offended by that image! I just think that judging the moral weight of a picture is a tricky business, and your squarely placing it on the "sexist" side of the scale may be a bit nearsighted. There are more things in heaven and earth...
I guess that's what happens when you live in the fridge.
I read feministing every day and have done so for years but I still don't always understand what is objectifying and what isn't and what's ok, etc.
I agree with you. I honestly don't care about pictures of naked people unless they show violence against them, etc. Sometimes I feel like we're trying to shame women to cover up, which I don't agree with.
This will sound harsh so I apologize in advance, but the reason that most of their female models (not all) are attractive and not overweight, etc. is because that's what people want to see. Sure they could put a 60 year old overweight women, but no one wants to look at that. People want to look at this.
I think they should include more men, but until women start demanding higher standards for male models and start objectifying men more I don't see any of these companies having an incentive to do this. Advertising research is pretty clear that a sexy woman attracts lots of men AND women while a sexy man has a much lower appeal, in large part because not too many men are interested in it.
I always kinda wondered why companies, products, etc. run by females and made for females don't objectify men more. To me that is the only way we'll ever have equality with this sort of thing. Because men will never stop liking to look at women, so these types of images and ad campaigns will never ever go away. So if we want it equal, our only option is to do the same to men. And interestingly enough I think most men want this too, if for no other reason that then women can't complain about objectifying women so much.
Also I must say that equal objectification does not equal equality. Objectification for women has different consequences such as sexual and physical violence.
You need to get your shit straight. We are not shaming women to cover up, but, rather, the industry to find other ways of getting attention than paying a woman to take her clothes off. Constant objectification of women simplifies women as a whole, and for PETA to take part in the act is extremely heinous because PETA aims at taking a stand against the simplification of animals (animals as more than fur, meat, eggs -- things used for human pleasure rather than living creatures.)
You say men will always want to see women naked and that women need to start demanding more, but when we demand more you get all put-off because you've already been put in a place by the advertising industry to think that sexual objectification is that simple and easy. Women will always be objects of pleasure. Oh well. I like PETA.
And so your solution is for men to start objectifying themselves too? Why does equality have to mean degradation of both sexes?
"You need to get your shit straight."
Is there any need for this kind of language between individuals who are all equally attracted to a site devoted to intelligent discussion about common values? It's fine to disagree with someone, but I don't think this kind of hostility is useful or productive. We're a community that's dedicated to fostering discussion about these very real issues, but that doesn't mean that there's any right answer. Please tone down the aggression.
Honeybee, re-read your whole post.
You'll notice you have put the entire burden and onus on women...for everything.
The reason so many women are portrayed naked? Men and women like it.
The reason they're aren't more sexualized nude ads with men?
Women don't demand it.
The way to "get equality" in this arena?
Women business owners have to start objectifying men, pronto (gotta love that "equality of the ills" mentality).
Also, you're remarkably accomodating to "what people want." People also "don't wanna see" multi-dimensional minority characters on TV, gay equal rights universally passed, or stay-at-home men in TV adverts.
Shall we accomodate them, too? No?
the reason that most of their female models (not all) are attractive and not overweight, etc. is because that's what people want to see. Sure they could put a 60 year old overweight women, but no one wants to look at that. People want to look at this.
Did you ever happen to ask where that preference comes from? I have a little problem with your argument because it sounds like those preferences comes out of nowhere. Like "this is what people like to see. Period". Beauty standards are a social construction -- they vary from time to time and from society to society. Why do people prefer young and skinny women instead of overweight women? No, it's not just a biological thing, like another person said above. Nobody is purely biological as well as nobody's entirely social. I hate it when people say "oh, we're mammals, so we like beauty" (as if only mammals responded to beauty and insects or reptiles did not...) or "that's evolution!". Saying we're just reacting as mammals (as if society didn't have any role in it) just sounds plain stupid to me. Human beings developed language -- therefore, they have symbols. Those symbols are shared by a community. Nobody is born with those concepts in their heads so of course it's a social construction.
Also, based on what exactly can you say "that's what people want to see"? It sounds a little condescending. Do you have any research proving that? Even if you had, almost no research gets a 100% result, so there would always be a group that does not want to see that. I work as a journalist and I hear that all the time at work: "we're doing it this way because that's how people want to see it". Like "people want sensationalism". But when I browse blogs or digg.com, I see that most of the times people DON'T like that. They complain. So the editors are basically pulling that out of their asses. Their claims are based on a stereotyped reader.
And I think that's what happens with advertisers too. They create a "target audience" on their minds -- and there's a lot of prejudice there. When they have to make an ad aimed at women, they think: "hmmm... how are women?" and basically think of all the symbols that represent women in a patriarchal society. They think of how women are supposed to be, according to the gender roles the society defends.
I always kinda wondered why companies, products, etc. run by females and made for females don't objectify men more.
I personally don't think objectifying men is the answer. Instead, why don't we attack the root of the problem and stop objectfying women? I don't know about you, but I want to live in a world where people are treated as FULL human beings, instead of being judged by their appeareance first.
I think the advertisers should be smarter and more creative instead of treating men like zombies that would go "duuuuuh.... a buuuut! I'm gonna buy that!!!" everytime they look at a naked woman. And vice-versa, of course. Nowadays, advertisers usually don't assume women will go "duuuh, butt!" when looking at a guy, simply because women are taught that they should contain themselves and not express their sexuality openly. That's why most magazines for women have women on their covers, instead of men.
I think we all should be encouraged to express our sexuality freely, but we'd be taking a huge step back if advertisers simply objectifyed men too. Simply because the way to go is treating people as humans, not objects. Call me naïve, but that's what I think.
I understand what you are saying but the problem is that I don't see how it will ever happen. Men will never ever stop objectifying women or enjoying looking at images like this. So unless you want to just accept the current situation, which I don't really, then I don't see any other option but to objectify men in return. Maybe if we did this more it would help our cause because more people could relate and understand.
Also for the record there are some beauty standards which are quite universal. For example, I have read studies that show that even thousands of years ago being thin was still the most common basis for attractiveness. But I agree there is some influence by society/culture as to what is attractive, but it only goes so far. At the end of the day people cannot explain why they are attracted to what they are. They just are.
How old are you?
What studies prove thinness was attractive 1000 years ago? In ancient Rome and Greece, statues of Venus/Aphrodite depicted a pout-bellied woman as the symbol of love and fertility. Crack just about any history book or National Geographic to discover this. Chaucer writes about gap toothed women, which was attractive at the time.
All sorts of things come in and out of style with beauty, and weight is absolutely one of these things- it's more often tied in to what a woman's worth is/was- in medieval Northern Europe fair skin indicated wealth because she didn't have to work in the fields. Now, women are supposed to be tan, because it's a luxury that costs money- as is having a personal trainer to make you impossibly skinny, or to afford to go to Whole Foods all the time. Even Wikipedia will tell you these things (though it's never a solid reference).
Being skinny is not a historically normative beauty standard. And it irks me that you’ve read “articles” saying that it is.
There are articles saying just about everything, it's not hard to find a few that re-affirm one's existing beliefs.
Well I`m kinda late with this reply, but I`ll post it anyway.
I`d like to ask if you call yourself a feminist. If so, why do you believe in feminism?
I`m asking this because I found curious that you`re visiting this site, yet you don`t believe that women can stop being objectified. I mean, that`s one of the things feminists stand for... If we stand for that, it`s because we believe it can happen. The thought that women someday can be treated more fairly (instead of just objects -- the objectification of women is where all the other problems start, in my opinion
) is what moves and inspires me.
If I didn`t believe things could be different, I wouldn`t even be here in the first place...
http://veggietestimonial.peta.org/psa.aspx?CID=8ce2420c-021c-49bc-91c5-b02a8775e2a2
apparently, nakedness helps drive home the message of vegetarianism.
I know every time I explain to people why I have been a vegetarian for 12 years, I prefer to take my clothes off first. That way they will REALLY listen to what I am saying.
There is a difference between using nakedness to make a political statement (which can be done without being sexist) and using only the nakedness of society's ideal body (which is then airbrushed).
Because Khloe Kardashian (a star of a show about her wealthy/better-than-yours family) is so empathetic about the plight of lesser beings.
I'm offended that they made her look absolutely nothing like herself! I think she's pretty naturally, they didn't need to make her unrecognizable.
Continuing to advertise using mostly nude women while avoiding nude men or even nude couples is what perpetuates the cultural "preferences" for female nudity in advertising and certain consumer segments. It's a vicious circle with sexism at the core.
And it is very much analogous to countries whose ads feature disproportionate numbers of white folks despite the population being majority brown and black. I'm sure advertisers here will say that consumers respond more favorably to white faces, but this fact only confirms that the society at large is racist.
Precisely.
Some brown-skinned Africans, Spanish-speaking people from the Americas, Asians, Arabs, etc. have stated to me "well, people just like seeing the fair-sinned, straight-haired, non-epicanthic eyed models and soap stars our countries's media put on a pedestal. That's just what we consider beautiful, and they're giving us what we want."
Reflection, people. Progress. Movement. Analysis.
That desire for fair skinned, Good HairTM stars to the complete exlusion of brown-skinned and/or curly-haired ones didn't just fall down from the heavens or spring fully-formed from our "mammalian" (whatever that's supposed to mean) animal instincts (cue It's Biology TM inaccurate, un-anthropological cat caca argument).
And even, in the virtually impossible event that those desires did so spring...are we to accept them wholesale?
Or, are we plugging away at improving life for our people? Are we making efforts to ensure that the millions of our populations who are brown or kinky-haired or short and round are also represented in their own countries' media?
Good on you for calling out intellectual cop-outs, Spike the Cat.
I think the discussion should be more focused on how they posed her etc. Because, I'm sorry, but a naked woman does not automatically mean shameful, exploited, or objectified.
As someone who is a vegetarian (and happens to like PETA), if PETA called me today and said it would really help if you could do and ad against fur by going naked for a picture, I would do it. It would be my -choice-.
I also take offense to the people who have posted that the picture is for male viewers. Guess what? Lesbians are probably checking her out too.
Lastly, I hope all of you are this outspoken about porn. Because those women by your definition are way more exploited, objectified, and shameful then women for any PETA ad.
Lastly, I hope all of you are this outspoken about porn. Because those women by your definition are way more exploited, objectified, and shameful then women for any PETA ad.
Do you read this blog? While opinions about pr0n ran the gamut, I'd say the writers and readers are unified in their opposition to the exploitation in the sex work industry. I do believe you are the first to call them shameful here. Anyway, I hope you are this outspoken about the women in the Sudan b/c they are way more exploited than pr0n actresses. (Nobody wins in the Oppression Olympics.)
LindseyNoelle - I'm a lesbian (and a vegetarian) and I have no desire to 'check her out'; instead, I'm mostly just pissed off that the folks at PETA have once again shown themselves to be sexist asshats. And you're kidding yourself if you don't believe that PETA are aiming these ads at straight (probably mostly, but not exclusively white) men. Indeed, I could be 'offended' by your assumption that lesbians and straight dudes must like the same things 'cause, you know, it's all just about hot, naked chicks, right?
Plus, a(nother) shout out to SarahMC - you rock.
In response to an earlier post, I don't think it even matters if PETA ever sees a dime in increased donations as a result of this ad campaign. What matters is that they are selling a message using an over-sexualized, objectified image of a woman. I am getting sick of their entire schtick as a result of the seemingly ubiquitous marketing strategy even though I'm vegan and agree with most of what they say!
On the unrelated topic of the use of the term "guys," in my University's employee anti-bias training, we were warned that calling a mixed-gender group "guys" is form of bias. I have been trying to come up with a substitute ever since. Then someone politely tried to tell me that I sounded stupid saying "folks" all the time.
I actual love "folks" and "you-all" because they are both useful, accurate words and because I think objection to them largely comes from classicism and the whole "my (privileged) accent is best, yours is uneducated".
I actual love "folks" and "you-all" because they are both useful, accurate words and because I think objection to them largely comes from classicism and the whole "my (privileged) accent is best, yours is uneducated".
I actual love "folks" and "you-all" because they are both useful, accurate words and because I think objection to them largely comes from classicism and the whole "my (privileged) accent is best, yours is uneducated".
oops. sorry for the triple post. Could someone remove the extras?
Wow, Feministing- getting better! Usually the- *yawn*- oh, excuse me. Anyway, usually the "lol let's eat meat/wear fur!" comments start right away on the Peta-related posts. This time it made it all the way to #17! That counts double posts, though, too.
Getting mad about female objectification, abuse or exploitation while making jokes about animal objectification, abuse, or exploitation= FAIL.
I agree! The fact that some people refuse to acknowledge the parallels is beyond me. It's ok to "other" veg*ns? Maybe we're just still not popular enough...
Did you know that you can be against PETA and still pro-animal rights? They're not the only game in town, people.
I, too, am waiting for a fat-girl PETA ad. While this ad is anti-fur, they have a number of similar 'naked' ads for vegetarianism/veganism, where there is an implied (and sometimes overt) link made between the impossibly thin (photoshopped) bodies of the models and a veggie diet. What is even worse is PETA's continued use of anti-fat rhetoric in its media releases; they went so far as to write a letter in response to the Canadian ruling that airlines had to provide extra seating to accomodate fat passengers at no additional cost (a ruling which will hopefully allow me to travel by air!) suggesting that the airlines should serve only vegan food to eliminate the 'problem' of accomodating fat people. As a fat vegan, I have no love for PETA.
A lot of you are assuming that PETA has not used a diverse group of models in their ad campaigns. Check out their ads here:
http://www.peta.org/MC/printAds_clothing.asp
Sure, a lot of women are naked, but a lot of them aren't. There are also nonideal bodies here--look at Bea Arthur and Kathy Najimi. Additionally, not all the women photographed are passive and sexual--some look powerful, or funny, or dangerous. And about 1/4 of the pictures feature men, and about 1/6 of the photos feature PoC.
(A post I wrote for the community on PETA: http://community.feministing.com/2008/11/peta-not-so-bad-after-all.html#more)
p h o t o s h o p
Yeah, like someone said: why not sexy naked GUYS in the ads???? WTF??????????????? I WANT SEXY NAKED GUYS
I've read through quite a few of these comments claiming that PETA could have shown images of varying body types.
Khole Kardashian does not fit the "prototypical" body type, in my opinion. She's not super thin, she's not blond or white, she's curvy. This image doesn't show her bent over or with spread legs. The pose is cliche and obviously she's been photoshop-ed. But photoshop and lightening techniques are always going to be used in photography, on men and women.
No, I don't find this image offensive. I don't find it super empowering. If anything it's pretty neutral.
woops
I cannot even begin to believe all some people can say is "photoshop"... How incredibly petty. Way to go if you can only criticize what her body looks like. Would it make you happier if she was thinner? Now that's what I find offensive, not this ad.
I don't think the comments are to make fun of her natural body type. I think it's more to point out that even when dealing with a completely beautiful woman, advertisers feel the need to airbrush the hell of them until they don't resemble themselves.
I don't think the comments are to make fun of her natural body type. I think it's more to point out that even when dealing with a completely beautiful woman, advertisers feel the need to airbrush the hell of them until they don't resemble themselves.
I don't think the comments are to make fun of her natural body type. I think it's more to point out that even when dealing with a completely beautiful woman, advertisers feel the need to airbrush the hell of them until they don't resemble themselves.
Reading that post by living in the fridge made me want to ask feministing to bring back the "dislike" this comment feature.
Although, livinginthefridge, you don't sound like you've been educated at all on this topic: feminism.
You've brought up some cognitive neuroscience studies, no doubt. Brain scans, fmris, eeg. All very interesting. But they are no replacement for studying media content and context, and when appropriate, judging imagery to be part of a larger climate of sexism.
That picture of Khloe, or any naked woman, in a vacuum, is not degrading or sexist in and of itself. In a vacuum.
But, attached to a culture that is brimming with similar imagery, it is sexist because it perpetuates the idea that Sex = Pretty Woman (object, beauty ideal, make-up, hair, breasts, thighs, ass.) gets something done to her (verb, usually looked, fucked, loomed behind by, etc) by Man (subject, quite frequently the 'camera' or viewer)
Before you continue your uneducated butchery of feminism, you should watch John Berger's Ways of Seeing and Killing Us Softly at the very least. The latter is available on google video.
This is not a classroom, it is a forum. We are not your teachers, and do not expect to be taught. You're mature, you can post on a forum so you can watch a video. And if that's easy, then you can read a book or two. Seriously, there is more to feminism than can be 'debunked' by a couple of studies that show that cultural programming shows up on brain scans.
These 'strongly held views' of yours, are you willing to change them?
Why you think it is photoshoped? I think she is natural beauty.
Mike from caravan awning sale guide.
This has all got me wondering. I understand about the post on the air line company with the attractive stewardesses. I don’t think an air line should discriminate against unattractive people and I cerianly don’t think that a woman’s only attribute is her beauty the idea is assinine. However I read another post about an I phone feature that allowed a man to make a woman’s breasts “wobble”. Personally I wouldn’t spend the money, but by sister has a picture of Liam Neeson on her phone wearing nothing but an open shirt with his hands covering his privet parts. I know why it’s on her phone. It’s not about insulting Mr Neeson it’s because she enjoys looking at him and for obvious reasons. She is wired to be sexually attracted to men, and so enjoys the picture. I don’t see anything inherently wrong with that. Or feel insulted somehow as a man because women have pictures like this on their cell phones.
We are living in a socially constructed world in which the dominant culture is the one that has meaning-making privilege. Since men are the dominant beings in our society every image has to be taken with a carnopallogocentric context in mind. Which means, that because we live in a world in which beings are ranked in value by their perceived capabilities or value, it is not only us that 'make' their meaning. You are definitely wrong about this. In this case one could make an argument that this image perpetuates the idea that woman's value can be calculated by the attractiveness of her body. What should be remembered is that humans have/possess an animal body, which are not excluded from embodied vulnerabilities.
I have read somewhere that "The competition seeks to discover a woman with a genuine passion for animals and their welfare. The winner of Miss AVA 2009 will spend time helping out at K9 Friends and Feline Friends" Is this true... dual diagnosis treatment
I think PETA is a great organization, that perhaps has lost its way in the last couple of years. HOWEVER, I also think those Kardashians will do anything to take their clothes off. Does that constitute an objectification of women, I do not know, but I think PETA needs to get some better role models.
PETA is out of control right now, good point muffin, did you hear that they want Obama to step down for killing a fly, what is with that. Great post, some really great ideas here.
Looks very interesting. Thanks for sharing..
Point of SaleContactless POS.
PETA is ridiculous...it's one thing to go after jerks like Michael Vick who abuse helpless dogs, it's another thing to bust Obama for swatting a fly. Cheap iPhones
Peta is like most of the woman NGO organizations which has failed to do for which they have been organized.
A great source of how to manuals and Chemistry Manuals can be found at Lindsay Books. At the turn of the century through the early 1920's, garage science was at it's peak. During this time all manner of manuals and books were written for back yard scientists. You can learn how to hand buld a complete fabrication lab to a home welder. It is amazing what can be found. Most certainly worth the look...
I have read somewhere that "The competition seeks to discover a woman with a genuine passion for animals and their welfare. The winner of Miss AVA 2009 will spend time helping out at K9 Friends and Feline Friends" Is this true... dual diagnosis treatment
Zyban Sr without prescription is a medicine that is used to help you
stop smoking. You should not use it for any other purpose. You should start taking
Zyban Sr without prescription while you are still smoking (it is not dangerous to smoke
and use Zyban Sr without prescription at the same time) and set a "target stop date" for stopping
smoking in the second week of treatment (e.g. Day 11). This is because Zyban Sr needs time to start working.
Zyban Sr without prescription is a medicine that is used to help you
stop smoking. You should not use it for any other purpose. You should start taking
Zyban Sr without prescription while you are still smoking (it is not dangerous to smoke
and use Zyban Sr without prescription at the same time) and set a "target stop date" for stopping
smoking in the second week of treatment (e.g. Day 11). This is because Zyban Sr needs time to start working.