Search AnyBody:

  
AnyBody Articles:
« Australian Fashion Week dumps 14-year-old model | Main | 'Manorexia' Is on the Rise »
Tuesday
Apr012008

PETA - for the etihcal treatment of animals - but what about women?

PETA.jpg

It has come to our attention of late that  while we are all for the work of animal rights activists PETA, their use of the naked female form is becoming almost  mind numbing.  It is one thing when the pun was anti-fur, but it seems now it is also necessary to go naked when protesting bullfighting, cage-farming, in fact any aminal issue.  Is it really the only way media attention can be brought to these issues?  We would like to know if you think their use of nudity is justified and seves its purpose....

One of our favourite websites, About-face, have their own opinion of the PETA adverts: 'Compassion for animals, but not for women who don't conform to the narrow definition of beauty?? '...

'No humans were physically harmed in the making of this advertisement, but many were insulted, demeaned and generally pissed off.'

And a comment from  Diane Bliss, Founder & Chair, Plus-Size Task Force:

' I was particularly appalled by the negative and demeaning words and images of women used in PETA's recent ad campaign. While I respect PETA's objectives, they can't be allowed to hide behind their non-profit, humanitarian status to absolve themselves of responsibility for these negative portrayals of women. After I sent the attached letter, I received a very dismissive phone call and a short note that conveyed the organization's view that it's a joke and you're overreacting -- get over it. As a professional stand-up comic, I know the difference between playful, harmless humor and sexist, sizist messages that demean people. The PETA campaign is mean-spirited, offensive and is the worst sort of "joke" that perpetuates negative, stereotypes about women and people of size. How can an organization campaign for the ethical treatment of animals while demeaning and insulting humans? Does this mean that the ends justify the means? Or that people are somehow less important than the animals PETA intends to help? PETA must be held accountable for this insulting ad campaign while we encourage them to broaden their mission to include the ethical treatment of all living beings, including women.'

 

....And then a few days later Anbody came accross this excellent article by Julie Bindel in the Guardian.....we love the quote from Feministe.us, that Peta promotes "animal rights at the expense of women's rights - and that's not only simplistic, but it's bad for everyone involved. If you want to draw attention to the plight of animals by humanising them, go for it. But you don't have to dehumanise women in the process."


Charities are using increasingly offensive images of women to promote their causes, such as Peta highlighting pig welfare. It's revolting, says Julie Bindel

Friday April 4, 2008
The Guardian


Want to support a good cause, ladies? Well, never mind that sponsored bike ride across the Alps, just get your kit off. Everyone's doing it. Kate Moss recently posed naked in the French newspaper, Libération, as part of a global campaign against inequality between the sexes. Sarah Ferguson, former Duchess of York, has stripped for Elton John's HIV/Aids charity, and Victoria Beckham did the same for skin-cancer awareness.

Earlier this year, Glamour magazine featured another former Spice Girl, Mel B, posing naked in support of the Helen Bamber Foundation, which works with victims of sex trafficking and torture. One leading anti-trafficking campaigner, who asked not to be named, refers to Mel B's campaign as "get your tits out for trafficking". Using naked women to highlight the atrocity of those sold into sexual slavery seems a little inappropriate; after all, isn't there an innate contradiction in using an image that promotes women's sexual availability to combat prostitution? Michael Korzinski, a director of the Helen Bamber Foundation, simply says that he is pleased that such a high-profile celebrity is supporting anti-trafficking initiatives. Mel B "is exercising her freedom of choice in going naked," says Korzinski, "unlike the enslaved, brutalised, trafficked women we work with".

Using women's bodies to promote a good cause was popularised by the annual Miss World competition back in the 60s, and that event still revolves around bikini-clad women talking about their ambitions for world peace and their hopes of spending their winning year supporting charitable causes. Feminist campaigners once staged huge protests against Miss World - famously flour-bombing the event in 1970 - and they continue to speak up regularly against the worst examples of misogynist imagery used in charity campaigns. Nonetheless, this exploitation of women's bodies seems to have become widely accepted. Images that would provoke a serious backlash if they were used to promote a commercial interest are seemingly legitimised through their association with charity, defended with the simple argument that women have chosen to pose for them. As a result, they have proliferated.

The worst offender is the organisation People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta). Over the years, its "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" campaign has featured many famous women - Claudia Schiffer, Cindy Crawford, Naomi Campbell - and it has often strayed into seriously questionable territory. When Dominique Swain, the then 21-year-old star of the 1997 film version of Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita, got involved, for instance, Peta boasted that she was "the youngest star to pose naked for Peta's anti-fur campaign".

In Peta's world, it seems that it is perfectly acceptable to reduce women to the status of animals, or meat: one Peta image shows a woman being clubbed "to death" by a man; another shows a woman wrapped in cling film to resemble cuts of meat in a supermarket. Perhaps the most egregious example of Peta's work occurred in London on Mother's Day this year, when it staged an event that was ostensibly to raise awareness about farrowing-crate confinement, a technique used in factory farming, in which sows are squeezed into narrow metal stalls barely larger than their own bodies. A heavily pregnant member of Peta's staff lent her body to the cause - naked except for a pair of pink underpants - by kneeling on all fours in a metal cage. Another pregnant Peta worker gave out leaflets to passersby, with the words, "Unhappy Mother's Day for Pigs. Go Vegetarian". The image was disturbingly reminiscent of some of the nastier pornography I have seen. As Jill Filipovic, of the website Feministe.us, noted, this stunt showed that Peta promotes "animal rights at the expense of women's rights - and that's not only simplistic, but it's bad for everyone involved. If you want to draw attention to the plight of animals by humanising them, go for it. But you don't have to dehumanise women in the process."

Pornographic imagery is also used to support other noble causes. Nudeforpeace.org, a group of anti-war activists in Australia, recently asked supporters to send in photographs of themselves in "sexy" poses, to add to its website. Some of the pictures that were downloaded were of very young women. One was photographed, staring blankly ahead, holding a razor to her pubic bone and pointing with her other hand to the words, "No Bush", scrawled in lipstick across her abdomen. And it seems that many people even feel comfortable with the idea of women prostituting themselves for charity. Last November, a woman working in a brothel in Chile became an instant "celebrity" when the national news picked up the story that she had auctioned 27 hours of sex and raised $4,000 for a disabled children's charity. No one at the charity seemed concerned that vulnerable children were being supported by the proceeds of prostitution.

Looking for some answers as to why charity sexism has become so popular, I visited the Peta offices in London and met special campaigns manager, Anita Singh. I asked whether the organisation was concerned about the many accusations of sexism they have faced - including those from fellow animal rights activists (in the past, the group has countered criticism with the comment that it is staffed "largely by feminist women"). "With all of these ads that you are referring to, it is Peta's aim to alleviate animal suffering," Singh says. "We never set out to insult or alienate any groups; in fact, we are trying to reach out to the masses." I am told once again, by way of justification, that the women involved in the campaigns take part voluntarily. "We have voices," says Singh. "Animals don't have voices. People can't hear them ... In this tabloid era, everything revolves around beautiful women, sex, and gimmicks - things that reach out and grab people's attention." She assures me that the results have been "phenomenal" for the animals.

Flicking through the images of women that are used for charity campaigns is both disturbing and depressing. "Charities inevitably need bold statements to promote their work," says Sandrine Levêque, of the feminist lobby group Object, but the "only statement these charities are making is that in 2008 it's still OK to use sexist images. Are we surprised then that gender inequality is alive and kicking?" Cheryl Stonebridge, of feminist campaigning group Justice for Women, believes that it is hypocritical to allow charities to get away with misogynistic stunts, simply because they are contributing to good causes. "Why is it seen as a good idea to use naked women's flesh in order to draw attention to suffering and inequality," she says, "when objectifying women causes real harm?" The Charities Commission, she adds, should draw up ethical guidelines.

If so, it would be great if they could do it quickly. Because what is really worrying is that, year on year, these instances of charity sexism have been escalating, with more conservative organisations following the envelope-pushing lead of groups such as Peta. In a recent event staged by Cancer Research UK, for instance, 30 women ran naked (apart from their G-strings) through London's Regent's Park, on a freezing cold day, apparently to highlight the dangers and prevalence of breast cancer. In what is becoming a very familiar argument, Carolan Davidge, Cancer Research UK's brand and PR director, emphasises that all the women chose to take part. "Some of the women involved in the shoot had had mastectomies," says Davidge, "and said that for them being nearly naked was a way to inspire other women and show that there is life after cancer." I doubt many men who had recovered from testicular cancer would take part in a similar awareness-raising event - or that they would ever be asked to in the first place. Campaigning on the issue of breast cancer is obviously hugely important - the disease affects 41,700 women in Britain each year, and kills 12,400. But why does it have to be done in such an exploitative way?

Some of the most incongruous causes seem to benefit most from the baring of breasts - charities for disabled children, for instance. These haven't just been the beneficiaries of prostitution in recent years, but of sexist calendars too. For instance, budget airline Ryanair produced a calendar featuring semi-naked female air stewards, with all proceeds going to Irish children's charity Angels Quest, and as I leafed through the calendar, I was filled with a sense of growing disbelief. Miss October is posing in what is described as her "cleaning uniform". All I can say is that I can't recall wearing nothing but a skimpy bikini with a pair of high heels the last time I scrubbed the kitchen.

Ryanair rolled out the usual mantra in their own defence when I spoke to them, saying that it was for a "good cause" and that the "hostesses volunteered to pose for the pictures". It's about time that we started challenging this argument more roundly though, speaking out against instances of sexism that are often as nasty as anything seen in the bad old days of the 70s. It is understandable to be wary of criticising campaigns that are being waged for a good cause, but if we hold back, such sexism only seems set to burgeon - and with naked women on all fours posing publicly in cages it has already reached a quite astounding low point. If feminists were to hit charities where it hurts - by organising against them, and refusing to donate to those using sexism as a marketing tool - we just might see the end of this revolting use of women's bodies.

 

Reader Comments (22)

I think PETA is a very selfish group. I don't think they care about animals at all. I think that to them the animal represents their own wounded inner child. That is why they go to such extremes to both "protect" animals and emotionally abuse their fellow human. The animal represents their own violated innocence and the wounds they inflict is really about unconscious revenge for those who hurt them. That is also why they go to such outrageous attempts for attention, even though their bad taste turns so many off their cause. They are just screaming look at me, look at me no matter what the consequences. Don't get me wrong. I am an animal lover. But I repeat that PETA is really all about themselves!!!
April 10, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterSherie Sanders, MA
What about women? You have many many organisations such as NOW making the world a matriarchy as well as the law.
April 27, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterMr.Lomax
I think that at one point, the nudity was just a point to protest against selling animal fur. But now all it is naked girls, celebrities just going nude. I mean the NO FUR point was good, but isnt PETA so much more than that? Are naked woman, with no trace of an animal in the picture really going to change the mind of the public? Or do passer byers of the PETA ads just stop to look because there is a thin naked blonde in the ad?

I do love animals, but isnt it time to make the ads about the animals?
June 5, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterAshley Robin
Not only is PETA extremely sizeist they also demean women in other ways in the top left picture women are being told that body hair is wrong while they have alternate things they could say about the same picture without insulting women who don't want to have the body image of a pre-pubescent child
December 2, 2008 | Unregistered Commentertrickie
The woman's movement has always been about choice, and unfortunately the society we live in is not only agist and sexist, it is also repressed. The human body is beautiful (both male and female), there is nothing shameless or dirty about it. If a woman (or man) decides to take their clothes off, especially for a compassionate cause then that is their choice; and they are in control... So do I find the fact that someone (male or female) is in control of what they do with their own body degrading? Absolutely NOT, in fact I find it empowering and liberating. As for small children seeing nudity, there is nothing wrong with that; Everyone has a body, so what is the tabu? Stop living in a self-centered shelter, get over imposed meanness hang ups, and take charge of the world around you. As long as you are in control of your own actions, no one is degrading you.
February 8, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterV. Mickelsen
fuck peta you stupid ass retards
February 11, 2009 | Unregistered Commenterjonjon
I suppose initially it was all about getting publicity to a good cause with shock value and it was quite clever, but why never any Viggo Mortesan's etc after all these years -only naked women, as if men were the target audience (don't they care if straight women treat animals well or not) - now it just looks a bit obvious and repetative so I think they need to rethink their awareness campaign strategy - because let's face it, it's not the animals' fault and it is a very worthy cause.
March 13, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterLaurie
The issue here is not nudity per se. It's PETA and others using demeaning images of a very narrow range of beauty-industry approved women. Comparing this to a variety of women - many who have had mastectomies - running across a field to highlight breast cancer issues is missing the point. As a sex-positive feminist in her 40s with cellulite and vast tracts of body hair, I enjoy nude activism. It generates publicity for the cause, and gets people accustomed to seeing people being comfortable with their own bodies. I will enjoy it even more when I am in my 80s. The world needs to see comfortable naked large, elderly, hirsute, skinny, birthmarked, etc etc women and men confident with their bodies. I can't think of a better weapon to use against the porn industry. PETA and the likes should feature real people rather than airbrushed ones. It'd have even more shock value, plus help the 99.5% of us who are unlikely to appear in fashion magazines appreciate our own bodies.
May 12, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterKT
I would be fine with the eye-catching nudity if men were appearing in the buff in the same numbers. The argument "they were willing" doesn't bother me as much as the unspoken assumption "half the world, we wouldn't ask."
October 2, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterJennifer
I think they are committing the mistake of reproducing what was once successful, without caring for any ethical or moral damage. I agree with you. The same thing happens with the <a href="http://www.xlpharmacy.com/">generic viagra</a> advertisements, always with the super hot male!
September 1, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterSussan
It's worth a read. Anytime we need to think twice about our decision. Please update the post!
http://www.astrabeds.com/stratusbed
September 5, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterSusan
I will be glad to buy this. But I am still saving to replace my current notebook with a newer one.http://www.jihoy.com/
September 19, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterWhiteMelon
Boy o boy Sherie Sanders, have you missed the point. The only comment on here more ignorant that yours is from the charming Jon Jon who I can only assume is an unfortunate, mentally-challenged person who managed to get at the keyboard while his(or her) caregiver was in the bathroom.
September 22, 2010 | Unregistered Commenterhezsilla
You can download icons that you like in this site. You can use that icon to replace old icon in your computer desktop. You will never get bored with this icon. http://www.esleepmasters.com/Bathroom_Vanities_s/2305.htm
November 23, 2010 | Unregistered Commentermikecunzha
Hug is universal language. We can hug people to say that we care. In my country, we always hug each other to say that we are really care to everything that happen to them.
http://www.fitnessoptions.com.au/
November 26, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterBuy Exercise Equipment
Politicians is always help each other. They need to work together to make a better country and better government. Hard thing to do but easy thing to learn if you want and serious to learn this thing.http://www.bluebarngraphics.com/website_redesign.html
January 23, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterLisaHayne
Yeah that was interesting and photos are really cool I'll share to my friends.
<a href="http://www.shingleroofingocala.com/"> Metal Roofing Ocala </a>
February 19, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterMetal Roofing Ocala
I believe this article is about the political mafia that happen in that country. Am I right? Sorry if I'm wrong. I don't understand the language at all. Because I don't study that language. http://www.mapleleafpromotions.com/CeramicCofferMug.html
March 23, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterWholesale Ceramic Mugs
When I read the title of your blog I became very much surprised but after reading whole blog, I understand this properly. Really very interesting content.http://ellipticaltrainersblog.com
When I read the title of your blog I became very much surprised but after reading whole blog, I understand this properly. Really very interesting content.http://ellipticaltrainersblog.com

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.