Peta is not sexist , and here is the proof ! (Dial up warning)

Now , they are over the top . But to accuse them of something they are not is just muddying the waters.

It's got sex written all over it.

Sensual does not equal Sexist

sex =| sexist.

The post is there to counter those that say that PETA only uses naked women so they are sexists/misogynists.

:sarcasm: captioned, for the humor impaired.

on this issue, it's hard to tell the sarcasm from the real thing. Your post was made by several that were clearly in earnest.

I'll take a front row seat and try to have your back.

Guess I'll just have to study this some more . . .

No. Because we know that comparing black men to apes is a HORRIFIC stereotype historically used to justify enslavement and racism.

We also know that showing naked women bloodied, tortured, and/or dead--there for the purpose of someone else's sadistic sexual gratification--is an awful stereotype of what women are "for" in a sexist society.

So why is it okay for PETA to play with one stereotype and not another?

Because we are trained to see racism but not sexism.

As I said in the first thread, I have no problem with the stars of both sexes baring all to get the attention of viewers. They're communicating their endorsement and commitment to a cause.

But even in the picture of the man in chains--he doesn't look bound by the chains at all. If he were really chained up like women are in pornography, he'd look like a torture victim, which is precisely the point.

Seriously, thanks for providing the images of the men so we could help further the discussion. We really are trained NOT to see sexism in pornography--to see it as natural and as free speech--so having these comparison photos helps explain the situation a little better. I don't get angry about these things. I had to be educated to "see" differently too, before I woke up to what was really happening.

"But even in the picture of the man in chains--he doesn't look bound by the chains at all. If he were really chained up like women are in pornography, he'd look like a torture victim, which is precisely the point"

EXACTLY. The men in these ads do not look like victims. Many of the ads featuring women are violent and disturbing.

actually playing on the fact that having them like that is wrong? Are you really thinking that PETA is saying women should be butchered and/or put in a pen? Or do you think they are possibly trying to play off the shock of "holy crap, that's wrong" and then trying to put that reaction onto the non-human animals? I'm guessing the later is the point of their ads/protests.

it is not any single action from peta. it is a whole.

blubber ad. a womans insecurity. be skinny? instead of be healthy?

for better sex while being healthier due to diet changes.

The pubic hair ad is specific to the culture. It wouldn't have played as well 30 years ago but the general societal trend is to trimmed pubic hair right now. They played on that.

I am overweight, but the blubber ad makes a point that a vegan diet would be healthier. If I ate a strictly vegan diet, I would be healthier. My cholesterol is better as a vegetarian than it was on meat. It generally is healthier to reduce meat consumption.

are not skinny, consuming plenty of calorie laden foods with animal.

healthier, maybe, depending again on diet and exercise.

i know many that consume certain meats, little meat and are as healthy as skinny.

metaphor, playing on it, sex sells, satorical, porn.... using women. you can use all kinds of words and the bottom line is, they are using womens sexuality to sell their philoshy.

I can tell you eating healthier is good regardless of your body image. One can be fat enough that it's unhealthy.

IF one happens to be naturally husky that's one thing. But overweight because one eats greasy burgers all the time is quite another.

but they dont eat meat. vegans that have a horrible diet and dont exercise, adn they dont eat meat. and i know people that eat meat, little meat and are healthy, with a healthy diet and exercise.

that is not the point of using mean, insulting commercials to make their point. if they wanted to make the point they could have without being insulting. they were purposely insulting and then suppoerters say, .... why are you offended, why are you insulted. when the intent was to offend and insult.

hypocrisy

at the least, be honest.

Because PETA hasn't done that.

Doesn't that mean they consider both to be wrong?

And since they consider it wrong, doesn't that mean they are not encouraging it when they make ads against it? I mean, the whole point of shock activism is to .. SHOCK you with unpleasant images. IF someone else gets some "sadistic sexual gratification, it's not because it was something Peta had planned or endorsed.

Seriously, sexism or racism or any other -ism is not objective. It can't be judged machine like whether there are is A and not B or some proportion there of.

It's subjective which means the friggin context is important. And i mean the context of the ad by the advertiser, not what random viewers may add to to it with their own biases and prejudices.

Just like a watermelon isn't inherently racist. Black people eating at KFC isn't inherently racist. A post card of watermelons around the White House right after a black president is elected IS racist.

Really I don't know how to explain it better then that. Though that Mad TV skit where the Senator saw young naked boys in every peice of art he looked at might work as well.

We all supply context. That's how the human mind works--not how our Buddha-nature, Christ-within, or larger consciousness--whatever you call it--works--but how engaged cognition works.

The post card analogy you raise would be culturally meaningless to an illiterate Thai peasant. It's not to us.

The context of sexualized violence against women is all around us, but it's not universally decried. In fact, it's largely celebrated, judging by how much of it is consumed on the internet, every day.

The context of violence against black people as black people may be secretly celebrated by KKKers, but culturally it's decried.

PETA does not create ads that equate violence against animals with violence against black people (black people as black people--to distinguish from pornographized black women) because it's aware that this larger cultural context will be called upon by its viewers and that PETA will thus appear insensitive to that context.

PETA does feel free to equate violence against animals with sexualized violence against women because it gets cover as knowing what it's doing while not really believing that it's bad. If it really believed that, it'd do it equally with black men. And it doesn't.

The leaders of PETA may not be conscious of what they're doing. But to those of us who are involved in various movements against violence against women, particularly in the anti-pornography movement, we're well aware of how this invitation to "not-see" the violence against women as violence against a real human being works.

I was a member of PETA (and the Humane Farming Association, and other animal rights organizations) and have been a vegetarian for 24 years. I agree with most of their positions. But this is not the most effective strategy. It drives more people to attack their causes, which bothers me, since I believe in animal rights and don't like to see them trivialized by bad PR decisions on PETA's part.

Thank you for making the point of context, cultural blindness and differing treatment so clear.

their goals are worthy. I don't care what some of these holier than thou hand wringers have to say..

Oh, wait...

What's not to like?

Since we're going to get into the finer points of male objectification. . . :-) Men just standing there seem so, so, vacant.

I basically don't think this is accomplishing what PETA wants. Raising people's sexual meter in this case isn't creating a positive or negative association with wearing fake furs, stopping experimentation, or vegetarianism. It confuses the psyche. Politics aside, it's just not the most persuasive iconography.

:)

As for accomplishing what PETA wants... many say it is exactly what they want: getting people to talk about PETA.

Womens and mens category...

http://sexyvegnextdoor2010.peta.org/Winners.aspx

The layout is kind'a tacky... looks more like something one would see for an online "dating" or mail order Russian bride service.

:sarcasm:

Eye candy for cougars? Time to take my BP meds. :silly:

Were it but any other organization than PETA, the objections on the thread would be dismissed as prudishness and uptight Victorianism.