Emily
MikeDid Southwest Airlines ban this PETA ad because of its racy nature, or because of its pro-vegan message?
Southwest reports that the ad was rejected from publication in their magazine, Spirit, because it is “too provocative to run.” PETA, however, claims that this advertisement is no sexier than other ads Southwest accepts– and that Southwest’s motivations lie in the fact that their base is in Dallas, “the heart of the beef belt.”
I’m not sure why Southwest decided to reject the ad, but I’m glad they did. Once again, PETA tries to capitalize on the male gaze and anonymous, sexualized bodies of women to sell their point. Not only that, its specifically addressing the airport body scan controversy, an issue that many people, particularly women, have felt is an attack on privacy, because it gives others permission to images of their nearly nude bodies.
I don’t personally have a problem with TSA body scans, but I do have a problem with PETA’s message. That is: the motivation for a woman to go vegan or vegetarian should be to look more attractive to men. It’s similar to a weight loss ad Mike posted about a few weeks ago. Men can go vegan because they want to be healthy and oppose animal cruelty; women should go vegan so that they no longer have to be ashamed of their fat, ugly bodies.
In fact, I think that’s the way PETA normally frames the argument. It’s why they select mainstream attractive, frequently petite, white women for all their ads. You want to look sexy like the women in the ads? Go vegan. Want to get men to like you? Go vegetarian! It’s no different from the way any corporation runs their fashion or cosmetic advertising, but it’s even more sexualized and offensive, particularly because PETA thinks of itself as a social justice organization. Pro-animal, but not pro-woman.
I’m not a vegetarian, but a lot of feminists are. Yet it’s no wonder that most feminists hate PETA. PETA is an extreme organization that relies on sexism and racism to try to get people to stop eating animals. What could have been an allied relationship between two groups supposedly concerned about rights, just feels like a constant battle. Furthermore, PETA is overly concerned with this idea of “Speciesism“– the notion that humans are superior to animals. I’m not even going to bother comment on the merit of that concern in general, but it’s obvious to me that PETA is a speciesist, too. Animals, they think, are deserving of autonomy and rights. But women exist for the purpose of beauty and marketing.
Filed under: Advertising, Feminism, Pop Culture, Sex Tagged: | Advertising, PETA, Sex
[...] supporting. Other organizations, like PETA, have a history of questionable ethics, enlisting the objectification of women as a means to support their [...]
[...] http://feministlookingglass.com/2010/05/22/peta-strikes-again/ [...]
Great article thank you, as a longterm feminist vegan I depise these types of ads. Especially as a not-skinny vegan I know the troubles of having to “live up” to that stereotype daily. I am really glad Southwest rejected this ad.
However I was bothered with the fact that you aren’t a vegetarian. Any feminist should be a vegan, as the majority of animals exploited for food, dairy, and eggs are female animals. You can’t call yourself a feminist while eating eggs and ice cream. We do need to recognize speciesm and bring feminism + animal rights together. It is the same fight.
My co-editor Emily, who wrote the post, is definitely not a vegetarian. However, I am. (Octo-lavo vegetarian to be precise.) While I am not a vegan, I agree with you that the consistent position for any feminist (or any person espousing equal rights for any group) would be to be at least a vegetarian, if not a vegan.
You realise that some people cannot live on a vegetarian/vegan diet? I’d really like to know how I’m supposed to be vegan, considering that I can’t digest eggs or milk, and I can’t digest any of the grains like quinoa that give complete proteins, and I’m old and chronically ill anyway, with persistent GI problems. All of which means I need dense protein sources, ie. animal protein.
I also don’t agree that it’s “consistent.” I care about *people*, not female animals. When animals start asking for their rights, then I’ll change my stance. Until then, they’re food.
In response to Interrobang:
Yes, I do realize there are some people who cannot have a completely vegetarian diet. As far as my “consistent” statement, would you agree that people who support “rights” of “others” should at least be “considerate” of things like animals and the environment? In other words, wouldn’t it be inconsistent for such a person to go around kicking cats or dogs, pulling out flowers in public places, polluting a stream, etc.? If so, then you appear to have drawn the line as being okay to harm animals sometimes but not others.
And let me ask a question from a different perspective. Would you think it is inconsistent for an environmentalist or an animal “rights” activist to not be a feminist?
You should know that PETA’s use of sexist imagery is widely condemned within the animal rights movement by activists and organizations who in many other respects appreciate PETA’s work. Recommended reading: The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory by Carol Adams and The Pornography of Meat, also by Adams.
It’s unfortunate, really, because PETA does a great deal of important work that is overshadowed by these offensive advertisements. PETA makes a real contribution, for example, with investigations like the one that produced this video:
http://www.peta.org/tv/videos/investigations/819980476001.aspx
“And considering how much criticism they have received on their sexism, it’s not like they can claim to unaware of it. Yet they fail to address or reform their sexism, repeatedly.”
But m Andrea, don’t you know PETA’s president is a WOMAN?!? That automatically and for all time excuses any sexism or misogyny they might ever commit. It’s sort of like how the Republican party is now totally into diversity because Michael Steele is their chairman. And how there’s no more racism in the United States because Obama is president.
Sadly, though, if you mention PETA’s misogyny on any of their boards, that’s the reply their little culties give. They honestly have deluded themselves into thinking that PETA couldn’t possibly be misogynist because of Ingrid Newkirk, who has got to be one of the biggest misogynists out there of ANY gender.
Isn’t that always a great argument? I can’t be racist, I have a black friend! I’m not homophobic, I know a couple of gay people! My organization isn’t sexist, because there’s a woman who heads it!
Unfortunately, its a way of shutting down debating the real problem. PETA has this method mastered.
It isn’t possible for someone to care so much about one civil rights issue while totally ignoring the HARM they themselves cause to another. Which is why I don’t even consider PETA genuinely concerned about the plight of animals. It’s just a big ole whopping smoke screen to cover their real goal, which is to dehumanize women.
And considering how much criticism they have received on their sexism, it’s not like they can claim to unaware of it. Yet they fail to address or reform their sexism, repeatedly.
PETA is not concerned about the welfare of animals! Stop giving them that much credit!