13 May 2006




For activists, women < Cows/Environment

Such is the message I perceived when viewing the glaring headline and photo on the front page of Saturday's Post. This is troublesome, not only for the umpteenth reminder that sex sells, but for the inherent contradictions that these activist organizations are displaying when using women to promote their agendas.
The PETA ad, reducing a nude woman to a piece of meat is the same tactic used by pornographers everywhere, in order to promote the idea that reducing animals to a piece of meat is evil. We're bad for doing it to cows in order to eat them and thus stay alive, but apparently PETA finds it acceptable to do it to women in order to "prove" that point. I guess that explains why Pamela Anderson is important to their organization, she's been participating in her own exploitation for so long that she's almost desensitized as to who is using her. Whether it's Kanye West in need of a new trophy to show off in his latest video or the "We Hate Canada" coalition opposed to the seal hunt, you can always count on Pam's boobs to help support the cause.
The Greenpeace stunt: notice the onlooking leering men, particularly the one escorting her along the runway (and is that Tony Blair in the background?); are they reading the sign or are they staring at her? Either way, the message is almost completely overshadowed by the fact there's a semi-nude woman along the runway, and that always gets guys to pay attention...what was the cause again? Oh right, something about pulp mills. Protecting the environment is a noble cause, exploiting female sexuality to do so is not.
What exactly is the purpose of the "Sexiest Vegetarian" ad? I don't see a plate of carrots and celery, so how is one to draw the conclusion that she even is a vegetarian? For all intents and purposes, it's just another model being used for her body. Don't eat meat, just stare at the "pieces" that are put before you; the only problem with that concept is that women are more than pieces of meat. They are people who have thoughts and feelings and ambitions; this ad doesn't demonstrate that anymore than the fact that she's a vegetarian. Although, that striped pillow she's leaning on looks an awful lot like a raccoon skin; better alert the naked PETA woman!
The causes that Greenpeace and PETA fight for are laudable, and speak to issues that go beyond human existence, recognizing that there is more to this world than ourselves. But these causes place a higher value on cows and baby seals and greenhouse gas emissions than they do on people, and in my estimation, people should come first. Using women as props, exploiting them and reducing them to objects of male fantasy in order to get men to pay attention for a fleeting moment doesn't work because they're too busy staring at the woman! To promote a cause greater than humanity by exploiting women neglects and reduces them to levels less than human. And folks, that ain't right.

4 comments:

Tarkwell Robotico said...

Here, here!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Sex sells - whether it's PETA or newspapers.

The Post is getting a lot of flack for running that item on their front page.

RGM said...

Yeah I've been reading the letters page the last couple of days, it's been pretty negative in response. They did have one in there today that admonished all us prudish-type out there for missing the point of the ads and trudging out the tired and cliched "we're all born naked" line, and adding the morally vacuous statement: "the only degrading sex is forced sex." While "forced sex" is certainly degrading, it overlooks every other form of degrading sex that's out there.

But hey, we're the "scary ones" right?

Anonymous said...

"The causes that Greenpeace and PETA fight for are laudable"

I wouldn't go that far, especially when they don't even think they have to abide by their own statement of purpose. For example, PETA's states:

"PETA believes that animals have rights and deserve to have their best interests taken into consideration, regardless of whether they are useful to humans. Like you, they are capable of suffering and have an interest in leading their own lives; therefore, they are not ours to use—for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other reason."

Yet their extremist group slaughters thousands of animals, of which, many could otherwise be placed in loving homes, if PETA would spend their resources doing that. Instead they spend their contributors' money on harassing people, and making things like stickers for kids, which read "J-Lo Fur Ho!," along with throwing lavish parties for their celebrity hate mongers.

To try to minimize the fallout from their own record of animal-slaughter, two of PETA's employees were arrested on felony animal-cruelty charges not long ago, for secretly slaughtering dozens of puppies and kittens, in the back of a traveling van, then dumping the corpses anonymously in a parking lot dumpster. PETA uses images of cute little puppies and kittens to con people out of their money and they make stickers, instead of adhering to their own mission statement, slaughtering those they say they claim they are supporting the rights of. PETA is no different than the White Aryan Resistance, or any other hate group, other than it enjoys media and celebrity support. As long as celebrities, and the media support and advertise their hate, of course, PETA will continue to be "media sluts" as Ingrid Newkook once pronounced their group.

http://www.PETAKILLSANIMALS.COM/