Where we saw it: February 6, 2012; youtube.com

Go to our blog for more on this piece of media.

Why sign petitions?

The great thing about online petitions is that EVERY TIME you sign one, an e-mail goes to the person at the company that the petition is targeted to. We target our petitions very carefully: Usually to a Chief Marketing Officer or a person high up in the company who has the power to make change.

Petitions to our Gallery of Offenders

These petitions work on laptops and other computers that support Flash, not iPads, Android, iPhones, etc.

(These petitions work on laptops and other computers that support Flash, not iPads, Android, iPhones, etc.)

Also, visit our full Gallery of Offenders.

Gallery of Winners “love” petitions are coming soon!

Creating your own petition is also easy! Click here for our guide to writing a great complaint letter. We recommend using Change.org or Care2.com to start your petition. Please share it with us if you’d like us to post it here!

Next: 

>> More ways to take action.

>> Get your wallet card shopping guide.

The oppressor and his vulnerable and scared victim.

If it looks like violence against women and it smells like violence against women, is it violence against women? Nope. It could be the anti-animal testing campaign Fighting Animal Cruelty by cosmetics company Lush, partnered up with Human Society International. The new campaign by the two companies has become a worldwide phenomenon in a matter of weeks by having a performance artist sit in a Lush store window and undergo cosmetics testing by a male doctor.

The Lush campaign manager, Tamsin Osmond, has stated in a recent post:

I am very aware and very sad that campaigning groups have capitalized on titillating images of women…on images and storylines that encourage the abuse of women… We felt it was important, strong, well and thoroughly considered that the test subject was a woman… the oppressor was male and the abused was vulnerable and scared.

I’m going to move past the ironic first sentence there because I think it speaks for itself – perhaps Lush should look at their own campaigns before being “very sad” that campaigning groups are capitalizing on the abuse of women. The point I would like to focus on is that the woman was chosen as the victim because she is, as all women are taught to be through the media, vulnerable and scared.

The "performance" as it happened in London.

This seems to be a self-perpetuating cycle. If campaigns can capitalize on the vulnerability of women as they are portrayed through the media, then these portrayals will continue until someone says “stop.” Fortunately for anti-animal testing groups, but not so much for women, 2.5 times more money is put toward preventing animal abuse than toward preventing abuse against women because humans can be easier blamed for their circumstances. There is a belief that battered women are free to leave the situation, whereas animals are not granted the same responsibilities.

Of course, this is not to suggest that Lush and the Humane Society International should stop raising awareness about animal abuse. But perhaps the organization could try a little less human female battering and a little more puppy eyes in their campaigns.

-Emily Heer lives in Squamish, British Columbia, Canada and is pursuing an undergraduate degree in journalism. She loves dance, photography, music, and her inspiration is gender-equality guru Susan Bordo.

PETA uses women as pieces of meat in protest today in San Francisco.

Today in San Francisco, one of our workshop leaders, Ivette, was walking back to work from her lunch hour, and stumbled upon a horrific scene. Naked women (who were “attractive,” white, thin, and with large breasts, as usual for PETA) were sprawled out on the sidewalk in human-sized meat packaging trays, wrapped in cellophane, and covered in fake blood. (There were no men in similar poses.) Slogans such as “Meat Is Murder” appeared on signs, while other PETA members handed out pamphlets.

As atrocious and sexist as this scene is, this is nothing new for PETA. They continually sexualize women to promote their message, even if it sends out harmful sexist messages about women.

As a vegan, I can truly get behind PETA’s goals and messages; as a feminist, I cannot get behind their appalling tactics. I understand the importance of spreading knowledge about animal rights, but we cannot do so at the expense of human rights.

PETA truly presented women as pieces of meat in this protest today. There are countless other ways that animal rights organizations can spread their message without objectifying women.

PETA: Stop dehumanizing women in the name of animal rights!

If it were just about using humans to demonstrate the terrible ways that animals are treated, then why isn’t PETA using a variety of people for their “meat mimicking” demonstrations? Where are the men? The people of color? The women who are a size 12 or 18? I highly doubt that conventionally attractive, thin, white women are the only PETA members willing to participate in such an exhibition.

PETA claims it wants to use shocking methods to gain attention, which is understandable. PETA states in regards to this protest today, “The activists aim to demonstrate that all animals—including humans—are made of flesh, blood, and bone; that animals have the same five senses and range of emotions as humans do.” If this is the case, PETA, how about we focus on treating animals more like sentient, emotional beings, rather than treating women like unconscious, unfeeling objects?

-Stacey

Is this appropriate incentive to go vegetarian?

You’d think an organization like PETA — People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals — would be a proactive organization, readily supporting healthy, happy agendas to get people living healthier lifestyles. Right?

Wrong. PETA is one of the worst culprits of objectification and sexualization of women. Somehow, PETA tries to equate pornographic images of half-naked women with the incentive to go vegetarian or vegan.

The “ethical treatment of animals” motive gets lost in translation somewhere between women sucking on veggies in the hot tub and blatant implications of sex-based violence.

Allow me to explain.

Back in 2010, a PETA advertisement was banned from the Super Bowl broadcast because it was too offensive. The ad features stereotypically beautiful women having sexual interactions with vegetables — no, that’s not a typo. The goal of the ad? To persuade individuals to “go vegetarian” because, “Studies show, vegetarians have better sex” (never mind all the other benefits of going vegetarian, like increased nutrient intake). And suddenly, bra-and-panties clad women are the epitome of vegetarianism — in this instance, licking, caressing, and seductively crawling towards broccoli, asparagus, and pumpkins.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZHtiflQ_sg

Because, you know, that’s what vegetarian women do. Who needs human partners when inanimate fruits are vegetables are so readily available? Maybe I’m just out of the know, but is anyone else picking up on how ridiculous this is?

Where are the men in this picture? How come we don’t see images of men straddling cucumbers or playing tickle-fight with watermelons? Yes, it would be just as ridiculous, but at least then PETA wouldn’t be subscribing to the ancient, unspoken code that only women are meant to be the object of sexualized advertising.

And from here, it only gets better. In their most recent ad, PETA takes sexualization a step further and incorporates gender-based violence into its “humanitarian” agenda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0vQOnHW0Kc&feature=player_embedded

In this video, a young woman wearing a bra, panties, an overcoat, and a neck brace walks sullenly down the street. The narrator explains that she is a victim of “BWVAKTBOOM: Boyfriend Went Vegan and Knocked The Bottom Out Of Me.” Apparently, veganism leads to “better sex” — a.k.a. sex in which the female-bodied individual is treated so violently that she must wear a neck brace the following day. As she walks down the street, she winces in pain and has significant difficulty climbing the stairs to her apartment. Because, you know, sex that nearly breaks the female’s neck is better for both parties involved.

Why is this commercial an insolent, disconcerting piece of sexist trash? Let me count the ways!

1. Women should never be sexualized as a means of promoting any product, service, or lifestyle. Period.

2. This commercial gives the boyfriend a built-in excuse for his violent treatment of his girlfriend. “Oh, sorry babe, I’m a vegan now so I have the right to have sex with you until you are in severe physical discomfort, and suffer possible injury.”

3. Why is the woman in the video going out to buy vegetables for a boyfriend who viciously assaulted her? Oh, right — because even in this screwed-up advertisement, gender norms readily exist – and we all know which gender is supposed to do the shopping — regardless of whether she’s wearing a neck brace.

Well newsflash, PETA: Human beings are animals too. And when you depict women in an overtly sexual manner, as victims of violent sexual activity, you are not living up to your name.

–Hailey

What I don’t like, however, is Oscar nominees Octavia Spencer and Melissa McCarthy sabotaging their own moments of recognition and glory by dishing about their shapewear snafus.

It isn't terribly awful to wear Spanx, but it sure is to feel like you have to out yourself about it before somebody else does.

According to People.com (in an article that ran under the headline “Octavia Spencer Dons Triple Spanx For Red Carpet”), Spencer has “taken to reinforcing her red-carpet attire with Spanx and doesn’t always stop at one pair.” In fact, she announced to the world on the Ellen DeGeneres Show that she often “triple spanx.”

This bothered me 1) because it seemed to reveal her inner insecurity about her body, and 2) because it demonstrates that “to spanx” has entered the pop culture lexicon. (A verb! About how women girdle their bodies! It’s just not right!)

During her chat with Ellen, Spencer went on to recount how when she and Melissa McCarthy ran into each other at a recent awards show, they commiserated about how uncomfortable they both were.

Funny, fearless… and fretting about foundation garments.

Said Spencer: “I could not party that night because I was being pinched in places that I didn’t know it was possible. I said, ‘Oh my God, Melissa, I’m about to die. My Spanx are killing me.’ She said, ‘I just went to the bathroom and took mine off.’”

Sigh. I get it. No one knows better what women go through to look fierce and fabulous than other women. But right now, these two actresses are being lauded as trailblazers. A woman of color up for an award in an important film about civil rights, sexism, and racism, and another repping the game-changing answer to the question “Can women do comedy and big box office?”

I think it would be great if they both didn’t feel the need to talk about the elephant in the room–by that I mean the fact that neither Spencer or McCarthy fit Hollywood’s thin and perfect beauty ideal.

I mean, can you imagine George Clooney or Brad Pitt detracting from their time in the spotlight by self-body-snarking? And correct me if I’m wrong, but I haven’t come across any press of Nick Nolte or Christopher Plummer calling attention to their wrinkles.

The comments Spencer and McCarthy have made regarding their own bodies suggest to me that they think they’re somehow less worthy than other actresses nominated. That they have to call out their own flaws before the merciless press—and we—have the chance.

Ultimately, I wish I could tell Octavia Spencer and Melissa McCarthy (a longtime favorite of mine! Has anyone else ever seen her perform live with The Groundlings in Los Angeles? She’s brilliant!) that their bodies are their business—not the public’s. And that I wish they’d work harder at accepting themselves than keeping it real.

Audrey D. Brashich is the author of All Made Up: A Girl’s Guide to Seeing Through Celebrity Hype and Celebrating Real Beauty.

After visiting the PETA website, I have many concerns with the messages that many of the images in your advertisements and campaigns portray. I find that your ad’s are distracting for the viewer from the real issue which is protecting animals because of the images in your ad’s exploit women. I find it very disconcerting that a group that is as dedicated to saving and protecting animals would not also be as dedicated to the fight against the exploitation of women.

But I’m writing this to you now having done my homework about your organization.

In response to a letter that is posted on www.about-face.org. A member of your organization states that PETA is “staffed largely by feminists and PETA does not want to do anything that contributes to the problems that face women” (http://www.about-face.org/yv/action/letters/petaresponse.shtml) After reading this statement I continued to surf the PETA homepage only to find that multiple ad’s are of naked women, exploiting their body parts in order to “create attention” to PETA’s cause. Your ad’s may get attention but I believe it is not bring attention to stop the cruelty of animals, the attention PETA ad’s receive is that which is repeated in numerous ad’s from food to tooth brushes. Your organization fights for animals but may I remind you that if you don’t’ support the fight against the exploitation and abuse against women there will be no one to support you and your organization as well as the animals. My question to you is this: why PETA continues to use this terrible form of advertising, one could say the PETA “robs from Peter to pay Paul’ you have successfully saved may animals but does it have to come at such a high cost.

I understand that many of the celebrities are volunteers that have made the choice to pose in seductive ways and use their bodies for a cause that they believe in. But what I find most compelling is the fact that the feminist on your staff would not protest of the printing of these ad’s if they truly believed in “not contributing to the problem” of the demeaning portrayals of women.ÝÝ

May other organizations have found very effective ways to voice their opinions and receive support without using women in seductive, sexual ways in order to get their message across. Why hasn’t PETA followed in the footsteps of theirs and stop this exploitation of the women not only the ones used in their ad’s but for women everywhere. I ask you to show your strength as a world wide organization and take a stand against the negative depiction of women in advertising.

I look forward to your responses which I will be able to share with others who are concerned with the protection of women’s integrity and self-respect.

With regrets that is letter had to be written, in order to protect women like myself, those that work in your office and for your female supporters.

Kathleen

Peta’s Response:

Dear Kathleen,

Thank you for contacting us with your concern and for taking the time to visit our Web site. I’m sorry you disagree with our tactics.

Here at PETA, our main goal is simple: deliver the issue of animal rights the public and inspire people to grassroots action. Sometimes this requires strategies which some might term extreme, but part of our job is to shake people up and, yes, shock them, in order to initiate discussion, debate, questioning of the status quo, and of course, action. We attempt to bring controversial issues such as veganism and cruelty in the entertainment business to the type of people who would otherwise never give a moment’s thought to the animals.

Our approach has proved amazingly successful–in the 2 decades since PETA was first founded, it has grown into the largest animal rights group in the world, with 750,000 members and supporters worldwide. For a list of our victories, go to: http://www.peta.org/about/hist.shtml and http://www.peta.org/about/success.shtml.

Some of our victories are accomplished by months of undercover investigation and a tireless pursuit of justice through the courts; some by calling for consumer boycotts, initiating shareholder resolutions at annual board meetings, and urging our members to write letters.

We will do just about anything to get the word out, even to point of pulling outrageous stunts or colorful ads and demonstrations that include “naked” women and men. We have learned from past experience that the media, sadly, thrives on such shenanigans. We can’t get people to stop buying, for example, milk, if they aren’t aware of problems in the dairy industry. Getting the news out in the media, therefore, is vital. Unlike our opposition, which is mostly composed of wealthy industries and corporations, we cannot afford costly ad campaigns, and thus have to rely on getting free “advertising” through media coverage.

As someone who has participated in “naked demonstrations” (participants in these demonstrations wear underwear and female participants keep their chest covered), I do not believe that the way that I chose to express myself should be restricted simply because I’m a woman. I also feel there is nothing shameful or “wrong” about the being naked. Fortunately, we do not live under Taliban rule and we should not feel as though our bodies are something to hide. I believe it is oppressive to imply that it is acceptable for males participate in “naked” events but not females.

Our “naked” demonstrators and advertisement models choose to participate in these events because they want to do something to grab people’s attention. This tactic has been used since Lady Godiva rode her horse naked to protest taxes on the poor in the eleventh century. These activists are dedicating to helping foxes who are electrocuted and skinned by the millions for the fur industry, calves who are torn from their distraught mothers and slaughtered for the meat industry, elephants who are beaten bloody and forced to live in chains year after year, and the billions of animals who suffer from torture, maddening isolation, starvation, terror, and violent death at the hands of uncaring industries.

We feel all people should feel free to use their mind and body as a political instrument to bring attention to animal suffering and we appreciate any effort to help those who have no voice.

Thanks again for taking the time to share your views. Although we understand you do not support this tactic, we encourage you to continue to help animals, human and non-human, in your own way.

Sincerely,

Anna West

Assistant Manager

PETA Writers Group

www.PETA.org

To: info@petauk.org

Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 6:38 AM

Subject: The Ethical Treatment of Women and Girls

Dear people at PETA,

I am a vegan who is deeply committed to the ethical treatment of animals. I believe that this commitment is part and parcel of my feminist commitment to struggle against all forms of oppression. As is now standard in academic feminism, I believe that various forms of oppression are interconnected and mutually reinforcing.

I am deeply offended by the fragmentation of a stereotypically attractive woman that is prominently displayed on your homepage. Indeed, as soon as I saw the image I closed your site, as is my habit when I come across sites that treat women as consumable objects. I am certainly not alone in this. Many feminists and others who are committed to living ethical lives believe that this commitment entails banning Internet sites, television shows, magazines, and anything else that is degrading to women or others. In offering ads that are bound to offend most feminists and countless other ethicists, you are losing the respect of individuals who tend to be highly motivated, politically active, well-informed, open to cultural criticism, and willing to struggle against the status quo. Similarly, as I’m sure your personal experience suggests, those who are committed to the ethical treatment of nonhuman animals tend to be committed to a wide range of ethical views, including the goals of ending world hunger, sexism, racism, elitism, and promoting environmental sustainability. Thus, I am convinced that many of your likely supporters and would-be converts are apt to be repulsed by your take on the ethical treatment of women and girls and your apparent lack of commitment to portray women in a realistic and positive way.

As a young woman, aunt, and someone who hopes to have children, I find the fragmented woman on your homepage threatening and disheartening. First, it presents an unattainable standard of beauty that is extremely damaging to the confidence of girls and young women. These images serve to make women and girls feel ugly, fat, unwanted, and inadequate. How can this help your cause? You are not trying to sell “beauty” products or women. You are not trying to make a “buck” at whatever cost to your moral framework. Rather, you are trying to promote an ethical way of life. How can you teach people to be decent and care about the well-being of others while you busy yourselves treating women as objects that can be used to increase the status of nonhuman animals?

No doubt, PETA hopes to sway as many people as possible to treat nonhuman animals with respect, and the more committed they are to this goal, the happier you will be. Why not encourage them with the right reasons? Why not build your campaigns on original ideas and images that help to depict the overwhelming compassionate, environmental, world hunger, feminist, and health reasons that favour the conclusion that it would be best if they live a lifestyle that respects nonhuman animals? These arguments are very persuasive and thought-provoking, and can be designed to stand out in a way that yet another objectifying image of a woman cannot. This would have the benefit of encouraging people to genuinely care about nonhuman animals (and others). When vegetarianism is reduced to a fashion statement, on the other hand, its “advocates” are inconsistent, unreliable, uninformed, and quick to move on to the next best fad. Are these really the “ethicists” you want to promote?

Second, this advertisement encourages your viewer to look at women in ways that reduce them to their parts and treat them as objects for another. If you know it is wrong to do this do cows, chickens, and pigs, what stops you from realizing that it is wrong to do this to women? Your use of this image, and other strategies that objectify women (such as your “I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur” campaign), encourage a mentality that naturalizes sentient beings as objects for another. This mentality needs to be questioned and dismantled. How else can we expect to teach others that nonhuman animals are to be respected in and of themselves? How can we expect to encourage this attitude while treating women as serving the function of gratifying the desires of other, more powerful, beings?

Third, and similarly, that you are willing to present women as objects in hopes of liberating nonhuman animals suggests another attitude that has been counterproductive to the goal of ending the oppression of nonhuman animals: the belief that ethical vegetarians care more about nonhuman animals than they care about human animals. This attitude often makes ethical concern for nonhuman animals seem ridiculous and/or as though it is in direct competition with other ethical goals.

So long as PETA continues to run such degrading ads, I will continue to donate my time, money, and effort to NPO’s that do not resort to the objectification of women in order to end the objectification of other animals. I have read extensively on the links between sexism and speciesism, and written my Master’s Thesis on this topic. If you read up on the links between sexism and speciesism with an open mind, I am convinced that you will come to believe that no animals will be free until we are all free from degradation, objectification, and exploitation.

I will be sending a copy of this image and the URL to your website to About-Face, a watchgroup that monitors the medias representation of women and girls. No doubt, it will soon be posted as another sample of an organization that degrades women, and PETA will once again be listed as a group who should be banned for ethical reasons.

Please review the literature on the subject and rethink your approach! As I think the goals you promote are extremely important, I would very much like to advertise your group rather than discourage others from donating to you or visiting your website.

Best,

Sheri

Peta’s Response:

Dear Sheri,

Thank you for contacting PETA and expressing your concern. We appreciate your concern and your comments have been passed to the appropriate people in our office. As an organization staffed largely by feminist women, we would not do something that we felt contributed to the very serious problems that women face. The models who choose to participate in our ads and actions do so because they want to do something to make people stop and pay attention to animal cruelty. I would like to note that we also feature men in our ads. To check out PETA’s Broccoli Boys, go to: http://www.lettuceladies.com/broc.shtml!

Our purpose is to stop animal suffering, and we rely on opportunities to reach millions of people with powerful messages. We have found people do pay more attention to our racier actions, and we consider the public’­s attention to be extremely important. Sometimes this requires tactics like naked marches and colourful ad campaigns that some people find outrageous or even rude; part of our job is to shake people up and even shock them in order to initiate discussion, debate, questioning of the status quo, and, of course, action. The situation for billions of animals is critical, and our goal is to make the public think about the issues. Although some consider our projects that feature naked women to be controversial, many women express their support for this effective campaign.

PETA does make a point of having something for all tastes, from the most conservative to the most radical, from the most tasteless to the most refined, and this approach has proved amazingly successful–in the two decades since PETA was first founded, it has grown into the largest animal rights group in the world, with over 750,000 members worldwide.

We respect your right to disagree with our tactics, but we hope you’ll continue to help support our projects that you do agree with, such as our free vegetarian starter kit give-aways (http://www.meatstinks.com/livevegpak.asp) or our spaying and neutering campaign (http://www.helppuppies.com/). We also hope you check out some of our undercover investigations.

Thank you for providing us with this opportunity to respond to your concern and for all you do to help animals!

Fiona Pereira, Office Co-ordinator, PETA

PO Box 36668, London SE1 1WA

Tel: 020 7357 9229 ext.221

Fax: 020 7357 0901

www.PetaUK.org

]]> http://www.about-face.org/take-action/your-voice/letter-to-peta-2/feed/ 0 http://www.about-face.org/take-action/your-voice/letter-to-peta/ http://www.about-face.org/take-action/your-voice/letter-to-peta/#comments Thu, 11 Aug 2011 20:12:00 +0000 http://www.about-face.org/?page_id=7333 February 14th, 2002

Ingrid Newkirk, President
PETA
501 Front Street
Norfolk, VA 23510

Dear Ms. Newkirk,

In a recent drive down Venice Boulevard in Los Angeles, I spotted a billboard with the headline: “I hate men’s guts,” followed by: “Thick around the middle? Go veg!” As a supporter of PETA, I was disappointed to see that the organization has chosen to do an ad campaign that is offensive on so many different levels.

As a comedian, I can clearly see that the ad was intended to be humorous and over the top. But as a plus-size woman and Chair of the Plus-Size Task Force of the Screen Actors Guild, I represent millions of Americans as an outspoken critic of the media’s perpetuation of negative stereotypes of plus-size people. To my dismay, I found the PETA billboard to be another example of deeply entrenched negative stereotyping.

And having the famous drag queen Lypsinka imitate a shrewish woman screaming “I hate men’s guts” offends my sensibilities as a feminist because it plays right into another stereotype of women hating men.

With so many talented and creative minds at work, I’m confident the ad agency and PETA can develop more positive campaigns to capture people’s attention and encourage them towards your goals without offending millions of women and plus-size people.

On a positive note, I’d like to compliment the staff of PETA in the San Francisco and Norfolk offices for responding to my concerns courteously and in a timely fashion.

Sincerely,

Diane Bliss
Founder & Chair, Plus-Size Task Force
Screen Actors Guild

Further note after Peta’s response:

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.

After visiting the PETA website, I have many concerns with the messages that many of the images in your advertisements and campaigns portray. I find that your ad’s are distracting for the viewer from the real issue which is protecting animals because of the images in your ad’s exploit women. I find it very disconcerting that a group that is as dedicated to saving and protecting animals would not also be as dedicated to the fight against the exploitation of women.

But I’m writing this to you now having done my homework about your organization.

In response to a letter that is posted on www.about-face.org. A member of your organization states that PETA is “staffed largely by feminists and PETA does not want to do anything that contributes to the problems that face women” (http://www.about-face.org/yv/action/letters/petaresponse.shtml) After reading this statement I continued to surf the PETA homepage only to find that multiple ad’s are of naked women, exploiting their body parts in order to “create attention” to PETA’s cause. Your ad’s may get attention but I believe it is not bring attention to stop the cruelty of animals, the attention PETA ad’s receive is that which is repeated in numerous ad’s from food to tooth brushes. Your organization fights for animals but may I remind you that if you don’t’ support the fight against the exploitation and abuse against women there will be no one to support you and your organization as well as the animals. My question to you is this: why PETA continues to use this terrible form of advertising, one could say the PETA “robs from Peter to pay Paul’ you have successfully saved may animals but does it have to come at such a high cost.

I understand that many of the celebrities are volunteers that have made the choice to pose in seductive ways and use their bodies for a cause that they believe in. But what I find most compelling is the fact that the feminist on your staff would not protest of the printing of these ad’s if they truly believed in “not contributing to the problem” of the demeaning portrayals of women.ÝÝ

May other organizations have found very effective ways to voice their opinions and receive support without using women in seductive, sexual ways in order to get their message across. Why hasn’t PETA followed in the footsteps of theirs and stop this exploitation of the women not only the ones used in their ad’s but for women everywhere. I ask you to show your strength as a world wide organization and take a stand against the negative depiction of women in advertising.

I look forward to your responses which I will be able to share with others who are concerned with the protection of women’s integrity and self-respect.

With regrets that is letter had to be written, in order to protect women like myself, those that work in your office and for your female supporters.

Kathleen

Here’s the response that I received:

Dear Kathleen,

Thank you for contacting us with your concern and for taking the time to visit our Web site. I’m sorry you disagree with our tactics.

Here at PETA, our main goal is simple: deliver the issue of animal rights the public and inspire people to grassroots action. Sometimes this requires strategies which some might term extreme, but part of our job is to shake people up and, yes, shock them, in order to initiate discussion, debate, questioning of the status quo, and of course, action. We attempt to bring controversial issues such as veganism and cruelty in the entertainment business to the type of people who would otherwise never give a moment’s thought to the animals.

Our approach has proved amazingly successful–in the 2 decades since PETA was first founded, it has grown into the largest animal rights group in the world, with 750,000 members and supporters worldwide. For a list of our victories, go to: http://www.peta.org/about/hist.shtml and http://www.peta.org/about/success.shtml.

Some of our victories are accomplished by months of undercover investigation and a tireless pursuit of justice through the courts; some by calling for consumer boycotts, initiating shareholder resolutions at annual board meetings, and urging our members to write letters.

We will do just about anything to get the word out, even to point of pulling outrageous stunts or colorful ads and demonstrations that include “naked” women and men. We have learned from past experience that the media, sadly, thrives on such shenanigans. We can’t get people to stop buying, for example, milk, if they aren’t aware of problems in the dairy industry. Getting the news out in the media, therefore, is vital. Unlike our opposition, which is mostly composed of wealthy industries and corporations, we cannot afford costly ad campaigns, and thus have to rely on getting free “advertising” through media coverage.

As someone who has participated in “naked demonstrations” (participants in these demonstrations wear underwear and female participants keep their chest covered), I do not believe that the way that I chose to express myself should be restricted simply because I’m a woman. I also feel there is nothing shameful or “wrong” about the being naked. Fortunately, we do not live under Taliban rule and we should not feel as though our bodies are something to hide. I believe it is oppressive to imply that it is acceptable for males participate in “naked” events but not females.

Our “naked” demonstrators and advertisement models choose to participate in these events because they want to do something to grab people’s attention. This tactic has been used since Lady Godiva rode her horse naked to protest taxes on the poor in the eleventh century. These activists are dedicating to helping foxes who are electrocuted and skinned by the millions for the fur industry, calves who are torn from their distraught mothers and slaughtered for the meat industry, elephants who are beaten bloody and forced to live in chains year after year, and the billions of animals who suffer from torture, maddening isolation, starvation, terror, and violent death at the hands of uncaring industries.

We feel all people should feel free to use their mind and body as a political instrument to bring attention to animal suffering and we appreciate any effort to help those who have no voice.

Thanks again for taking the time to share your views. Although we understand you do not support this tactic, we encourage you to continue to help animals, human and non-human, in your own way.

Sincerely,

Anna West
Assistant Manager
PETA Writers Group
www.PETA.org