Oh goodie... more sexism from PETA.

Do the people in PETA's advertising department not know what 'objectification' means? Do they not care?

is completely fucked up.


This lovely young lady, a one time Dancing with the Stars favorite, is evidently also a favorite in the oh, so discreet top shelf pornography magazine, Maxim, and has appeared in the less-than-discreet Playboy, as well as been voted "sexist model alive". Swim suit model, all that. She knows marketing.


You'd think she'd have had the sense to tone it down a bit, given her fan base. She just set herself up for some really bad jokes.

And PETA is an asshole.

exploitation of females to end the exploitation of animals. that ALWAYS makes them a failure.

where is this ad?

About how the USDA (?) has classified them as a terrorist organization.

their message was consistent and they didn't go out of their way to be offensive.

Campaigns such as the Fur Trim ads mocking women who don't alter their bodies and videos comparing people who do alter pets to the Klan don't exactly help their cause. They could easily help animals without degrading people.

I'd never seen that fir trim ad.

Fuck PETA. They hate women, so I hate them.

I missed the fur trim ad (thanks for the link, jmm). Thankfully, I also missed the repellant video clip. Wtf is Peta's damage? :crazy: Why do they think it's cool to exploit other groups in the process of attempting to 'save the animals'?

I'm very irritated by the imagery of the ad in the op(dogs and the naked angel) What the...? It brings back all the anger I felt after I saw this one (featuring actress, Nia Long):
http://www.dlisted.com/node/33366

Um....anyone want to tell me why the woman of color ends up in an ad, huggin' the pole, while wearing what look like clear, stripper heels? :eyes: :banghead:

Which made me happy, they consider a naked female "SACRILEGE". The Catholic Church is one of the most misogynistic institutions on the planet IMO and I am a bit bad in viewing anything that offends that institution (which at one point in history never met a female they didn't want to roast over an open flame) as the lesser of evils. So I have to admit a guilty pleasure in seeing them angry about the horror of a naked female with a crucifix. Women and their bodies are just so much filth to them.

I was kind of tickled they got pissed as well. Cheeky lot aren't they? All about them, all the time. You ever read any St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas? I was looking up some quotes and I found blog after blog of Aquinas apologists. Ugh. Anyway, Aquinas, at least, is considered one of history's great thinkers. And he was, a superior intellect, a methodical and comprehensive thinker. Yet, because what the apologists call ignorance of biology, or simply because he was a man of his times he considered women to be weak minded, sinful creatures. At best, that's what he thought. He hedged the Aristotle opinion a bit, the one about women being failed males,(paraphrase)but didn't actually disagree.

Like every other major and most not so major religions, he took for granted women were something not quite right, not quite human. Women were made to make babies so what if they die, it's what they're for (paraphrasing 'Ol Martin Luther). Where was his superior intellect then? His philosophy was flawed from the start.

Aquinas didn't think women should be into self decoration either, and certainly wouldn't agree with naked PETA pictures, because he evidently thought men can't control themselves. Wasn't about the women, exactly, other then their role as temptress. He said some shitty things about rape as well. Catholic dogma and philosophy has this huge, malignant black hole sized failure regarding gender, AND sexuality. They won't admit to most of it either, preferring revisionist, apologist versions of history.


The model,
Joanne Krupa had this to say;

"It's understandable that the Catholic League is wary of another sex scandal, but the sex we're talking about pertains to dogs and cats," said the former "Dancing With the Stars" contestant, 30. "As a practicing Catholic, I am shocked that the Catholic League is speaking out against my PETA ads, which I am very proud of.

I'm doing what the Catholic Church should be doing, working to stop senseless suffering of animals, the most defenseless of God's creation"

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/12/02/2009-12-02_catholic_league_slams_peta_ad_featuring_joanna_krupa_holding_crucifix_over_nude_.html

Hmm, sex pertaining to dogs and cats. Whatever.

I posted a short comment in the Facebook HLN group last night (not something I would have joined even for a few hours if I hadn't been angry), after looking at that Donohue's hideous, bloated face angry over a naked woman, and never went back. Unfortunately someone came for me, a completely unknown person sent me a message asking why I didn't think Christians had a right to stand up for what they believed. What I had said on that group page was 'that I supported PETA because the Church thinks women and women's bodies are nothing but filth, so I think the Church is filth for being a misogynist organization' (or some such) and I never returned to that board.

Whenever anyone dares to disagree with the great Xtian monolith they are accused of wanting to persecute them or silence them. I simply don't understand this. Expression of an opposing view is the same as trying to make them shut up????

Needless to say the dude got blocked after I told him that maybe it was time for them to learn to take as good as they give for a change. But the insane reaction, fueled by the media, is amazing to watch and really exposes how religion does not accept anyone who dares to disagree with them, not even in a free society, they control the dialogue everywhere and intend for things to stay that way.

And I would bet they would all make fun of the Muslim reaction to those cartoons a few years ago any chance they got with a perfectly straight face and never get a sniff of the irony.

...I'd LOVE it, if they'd shut up. We had eight years of being force fed their garbage for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Enough already! They can take it back to the churches, cathedrals, confessionals, etc. Leave it out of public discourse, as I for one am OVER it.

Your post (and the sentiment behind it) cracks me up! :rofl: I can *totally* relate! :thumbsup:

Not that I'm be the first or last person to be driven away by the tolerance of sexist attitudes here.

use it in a movie to promote the horrors of torture, that is fine. so the men are going to get a hard on all thru the movie watching the female sexually humiliated as she cries in fear, it is for a greater purpose.

sell a product? well, unless it pisses off the fundies.

The type of sexism from PETA and what we have from the Catholic church are damn near inseparable. Feminists are often accused of being anti-sex, (unless, of course one is 'sex positive'-- what the fuck ever)

That is a fallacy of the first order. Feminists are interested in promoting sexual health. These ads wouldn't sell shit without the unhealthy and sexist sexual repression inherent in our culture, repression that has roots in large religious organization. One of the results is that women are continually prostituted at the same time our reproductive rights are constantly challenged.

This particular PETA ad is a perfect composite of of misogyny based sexual repression feeding male sexual entitlement and the objectification/prostitution of women

Attempting to argue with people convinced that the way to sexual freedom is to use women's bodies to sell everything is like pissing up a rope. These are the people think hard core porn is the ultimate in sexual sophistication, that women in porn are really having orgasms, and that prostitution is a choice.

They don't care. And they hate women.

the torture film, the clip i saw really bothers me. and a person that acts like he is a part of the movie, cannot reasonably discuss the sexualizing the violence of women. that really bothers me. wish i hadnt seen the clip, and know this film is out there for the male apetite. and that is just how it feels from the two clips i saw. the clips that the movie producer felt was what?, representitive of the movie.

prostitution thread poster saying all sex is paid for. ergo.... all women are prostitutes. ergo all women are whores.

not one man in that thread said... come on man, that is so wrong. not one

but they had a grand time talking about sticking their dicks in things

this is our progressive male. this is du.

and an org that purposely uses women in all ways for their cause. the number of women defending cause it pissed off the catholics. not one would address woman fucking veggies in the super bowl ad. what will they do to women to top that off this year. as people defend their cause.

less than a year ago, we had peta in town. in amarillo texas. caused a little "to do". had a bed on a corner street with a couple near naked women, entertaining the macho tx male as they drove by. the women looked like fools. the males acted like fools. vile, crude comments about the women

do we feel empowered women?

as they enjoyed their nakedness and sexual suggestions.

and ripped peta apart....

it accomplished nothing for peta's cause

it only reflected bad on female

and we are suppose to be proud. embrace it. feel empowered?

it makes no sense to me what so ever. no self respect. stupid. and really, in the females stupidity they did not even have a concept at the humiliation they should be feeling.

the so called "sex positive" feminists. That implies falsely that other feminists are against sex in some way, which has never seemed to be so.

"Sex positive feminism" seems to be "feminism" with a high tolerance for sexual objectification.

"It's okay to be a sex object, a sex symbol, or a living sex toy if you choose to be.

Assume the best possible scenario in which there isn't any coercion of any kind and insist that feminists are interfering in situations where everyone is participating willingly and enjoying themselves.

Assume that this must be the convenient reality just so that you can go on enjoying the existing sex industries as they already are without thinking too much about it.

Deny any possible complications or negative factors, like the reality of dire poverty, drugs, and sexual violence, coercion, and of course the ever prevalent sexism and misogyny that complicates things and undermines the fantasies.

I really dislike the label "sex positive feminist" because it is so incredibly misleading. It is more realistically "Patriarchy permissive pseudo-feminism."

Re the 'fur trim' ad -- the links I had to the docs no longer work, so I'll copy from a previous post of mine at DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.org/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3480883&mesg_id=3484642

Galen Sherwin,
President NOW

To Whom It May Concern:

I am outraged by the most recent advertisement by PETA featuring a woman's unshaven panty line with the tag line "Fur Trim: Unattractive". This is a gratuitous and insulting image that makes its point at the expense of women.

As an organization that works for equality for women in all areas of society, the National Organization for Women is committed to countering negative and degrading images of women in the media and advertising industries. It is ironic that PETA, an organization that works so hard to counter what the mainstream media tells women about what they need to do to be considered beautiful (i.e., wear fur), would choose to do so with an image that reinforces beauty standards that are oppressive to women. This ad basically says that women's natural state is unattractive – hardly an original point, as that is what women are told in one form or another by countless ads for beauty products, accessories, and clothing lines. It also resorts to a crotch shot to make its point – a cheap shock tactic with a twist that ads insult to injury.

Enough already! Why don't you try protecting animals without objectifying women? I think you'll find that this approach is much less likely to alienate those who would be inclined to support the work you do.


Ingrid Newkirk,
President PETA

Dear Ms. Sherwin:

I was dismayed to read your snotty letter about our panty ads.

I would be surprised if you don't shave your legs or under your arms. I'll also bet that if you have ever worn a bikini you've made sure not to have hairs poking out the side of it. If you didn't, you would have been the only woman at the pool or the beach not to be so particular.

PETA's ad speaks to something the overwhelming majority of women worry about–grooming. Since we left the 60's style of unshaven leg hair and bushes behind, most people, regardless of gender, like the groomed look better. It's not sexist, it's just a fact.

A depiction of a woman's waxed legs or crotch isn't automatically exploitive. Do you order NOW to picket Bloomingdale's when you open the paper on any weekend and see the underwear ads? I'll bet not. In fact, if you're like the majority of women, you have probably thought "that's a nice push up bra" and cut out the sales ad for panties. If women didn't do and think those things, the stores would stop running the ads. They aren't for men. And what if they were? If you see a picture of a cool-looking man in BVDs, do the women in the NOW office all pitch a fit, or do the heterosexual staff linger over it? If you're a lesbian, substitute some hot chick for a guy and tell me the harm in enjoying the scenery.

Do you not wear pantyhose because it creates an exploitive look? What about skirts? Or are you only threatened by the sight of women's "naughty bits" uses as a political statement? Frankly, I'd be amused to see Christian women "jigglin' for Jesus", or how about relief workers using their sexuality for their cause by showing their buttocks? Think of it: "Fannies Against Famine!"

Please stop this knee-jerk, reactionary rubbish. There are a ton of women out here, including longtime feminists like me, who don't appreciate being "spoken for" in this repressive way. We can use our bodies for pleasure, profit, and politics if we want. Please stop playing the role of outraged father, brother, or boyfriend!


OK here's my Two Sense sent to Ms.
Written in the Letter-to-Editor style we love so well...
<this is from the owner of the site where I got this, which no longer exists - i>

I am a vegan, animal rights activist and feminist and I must vote with Ms. Sherwin of NOW on this one (Fur Trim: Unattractive). Ingrid Newkirk is in dire need of a reality dose. There is a lot of dissidence within the animal rights community over PETA’s misguided sexist tactics. PETA’s detractors are not just furriers and hunters but radical animal rights’ activists who are disillusioned by PETA’s often stupefying campaigns. Their manic embracing of the status quo in female exploitation is depressing and cringe-inducing to anyone with half a brain. So where is Ingrid’s half? She says she’s a feminist – has she ever looked it up in the dictionary? She says "most people like the groomed look better – it’s a fact". Maybe it’s a fact in a sick culture where women by the thousands are being mutilated with breast implants. Maybe it’s a fact in a country where anorexic nude waifs are projected as the ideal woman (hence PETA’s chronic use of them) and young girls starve themselves to death. But it’s not a fact to me. She’d ‘be amused to see Christian women jigglin’ for Jesus, using sex as a weapon, but do we really want to keep that old war between the sexes going? In effect she is dumbing down the message, the implication being that people (men in particular) won’t pay attention unless you flash your boobs and shimmy out of your undies. Sadly, this only makes PETA look dumb and dumber.

Maybe Ingrid is a feminist of some sort – but she’s jaded and hasn't tapped into her real feminine power. Her bigotry and lack of respect for people in general is apparent in many PETA ads and as a leader in a major social cause she should consider that she just might have a major blind spot on this one. The goal of these combined movements is to get beyond the tits/ass/cleavage/jiggle/legs/fur/claws to the spirit within and grant equal compassion and respect to all, whether they be Kate Moss or a 200 lb woman with a hairy pussy.

I hope Ingrid Newkirk gets a dental abscess every time she utters the word "feminist".


edit ... I type 25 words, I misspell one ...

LOL you got that right.

as she proceeds to not only be snotty but flinging personal insults. the height of unprofessional. but then you can tell that by the way she runs the organization

and with my few words i had three misspells, just found them before edit.

but their advertising and public relations work depends on naked women and sexism and that really hurts everything they do. x(

It would be really helpful for the movement as a whole if they could find a way to promote animal right and vegetarianism/veganism without degrading and objectifying women. :(

When they put nearly naked women in cages to make a point about caged animal I could have accepted it if they were willing to put men in those cages too. But why only women? The sexism detracts from the point they are making about the obvious cruelty of caging animals.

If you do a google search for PETA ads there are 5 ads featuring men out of almost 100 ads featuring women.

animals, e.g., showing photos depicting cruelty in process (taking advantage of their shock value to attract attention), or if they used animals abused in circus training, to make their points about women's rights?