Subscribe to Bitch—an award-winning, 80 page feminist magazine. Image Map

PETA is a Bunch of Bull

[The video originally in this post was removed from YouTube—the above is a photo from PETA's 2012 "Running of the Nudes."]

People think it's funny when I tell them I went vegetarian at 15 in order to impress a boy, and the hilarity continues when I confess that my veganism came about for the same reason five years later. What can I say? Sometimes feminists do silly things to prove their political dogmatism. A year after I broke up with Vegan Boy, I read The Sexual Politics of Meat. I was wavering in my commitment to a cruelty-free lifestyle and needed a feminist kick in the pants--and I got just what I was looking for.

Late this year Carol Adams' groundbreaking work will be re-released, twenty years after it first made waves in feminist and animal rights circles. It's unfortunate that such a smart critique (albeit not entirely trouble-free) has been ignored or dismissed over and over again by PETA's co-founder and president Ingrid Newkirk. The media savvy Newkirk knows just how to get attention: by having people (usually women) take their clothes off in public. Its current T&A campaign entitled Running of the Nudes: Out With the Old--In With the Nude intends to protest the Running of the Bulls during the annual festival of San Fermín in Pamplona, Spain on July 6th-14th. Getting an early start to this year's Running of the Bulls protests, PETA held a sit-in yesterday in opposition to today's bullfights at the trocadero in Paris. Yes, there were naked women.

Mostly, I just think this tactic is tired. I'm over PETA using nakedness in general, and naked women in particular (in addition to other shortsighted and offensive theatrics), in order to get its message across. It's clear when you watch PETA's videos of the "nude news conferences" that the vast majority of the people paying these naked ladies any mind are men. But it's not clear if anyone really gives a hoot about anything but their hooters. Most community organizers can tell you that an action isn't worth repeating unless you can prove you've gotten the desired outcome. So where, pray tell, are PETA's factsheets on their own effectiveness? Buzz is just chatter if you've nothing to show for it.

I think I'll send Newkirk a copy of The Sexual Politics of Meat once it's re-released. Better yet, perhaps I can facilitate a conversation between the two. Who'd like to see Newkirk square off with Adams? It'd make a pretty fabulous media event, don't ya think?

Photo by Patrick Kovarik

Update: In the few hours since this post went live, I came across something even more disturbing: Che Guevara's 24-year-old grand-daughter has apparently teamed up with PETA to do a nude ad using Che's legacy as, um, inspiration--though it comes across more like a mockery to me. Can you imagine what this Argentine Marxist revolutionary would say about his iconic image being used to inspire people to "join the vegetarian revolution" with a picture of his naked heir in a carrot-filled ammunition belt and a military beret?! How revolting!

Update: Just one day later this story about PETA's response to the fly "execution". And I'm not even seeking this sh*t out!

Want more from Bitch? Good news! Our quarterly magazine, Bitch: Feminist Response to Pop Culture, is packed with 80+ pages of feminist analysis, reviews, illustrations, and more. Subscribe today

Subscribe to Bitch


Comments

43 comments have been made. Post a comment.

I think PETA is well aware

I think PETA is well aware what kind of attention their naked protests get. The YouTube video above states that "the eager crowds were *richly rewarded* for their patience and compassion at the end of the conference." Yeah, the reward was four pairs of boobies in public. Great.

I'm vegan, but I do not

I'm vegan, but I do not support PETA. I think with tactics like these and their other campaigns they tend to hurt the cause rather than support it. Their policies are hypocritical and they give vegans and other people supporting a cruelty-free lifestyle a bad reputation. :/

I'm definitely not against nudity. I am as sex-positive as a person can get. But PETA is not making a difference by attempting to manipulate people with sex, except that people begin to associate all animal rights activists with that sort of behavior.

"sex-positive" makes me puke.

"I'm definitely not against nudity. I am as sex-positive as a person can get. But PETA is not making a difference by attempting to manipulate people with sex, except that people begin to associate all animal rights activists with that sort of behavior."

I don't think the author of the article ever stated she was 'against nudity' and I don't understand the connection between a critique of obviously exploitative ads as anti-sex positive? I hate the reference of "sex positive" as if anytime a feminist is pissed over the over-used image of a woman's body to sell something, or the disgust of relegating a woman's worth down to her body and her presumed "natural" sexuality, she must be prude.

I hate the term sex-positive. Come up with something more original and stop creating binaries. We have enough of them already.

xoxo

I agree!

I totally agree - I hate the "sex-positive" arguments too. If a feminist is anti-porn, people accuse her of being anti-sex (as of the two terms are the same).
I'm vegan and I totally HATE PETA's ads. It irritates me to no end - especially since most of the people vegan or vegetarian in America are women. I think it's totally disrespectful. And any of the vegans who support these ads or PETA's tactics are the same women who think that this shit is somehow sex-positive.
Most of the vegans I know, actually HATE PETA as well and do not donate or support them in any shape or form...

Get over your Victorian sensibilities already

People have been using their bodies for political protest for years--look back to Lady Godiva. It's sad that the mainstream media (which most people pay attention to and learn about the world with) only cares about flashy publicity stunts and that the facts alone are not interesting enough, but that's the way it is. It's far more important that the message about animal cruelty gets out and that people debate the issues than it is that people live according to rigid standards of propriety.

Why is burlesque considered cool to Bitch, but when a woman uses her body for political protest it's frowned upon? Get real.

The problem becomes when the

The problem becomes when the crowd is anxiously awaiting to see a couple pair of boobs and not really listening to the message. I'm sure the majority of those guys that were awaiting their prize went out and ate a big burger or something to that effect.

So PETA likes to use nudity to get the message across. Great! So when am I going to see some naked men?

Nude is Nude is Nude... um, no.

A little more context is necessary here...

Lady Godiva rode naked through the streets because her husband told her he would repeal taxes on the poor if she did so. She requested the townspeople keep their doors and windows closed during her ride, which all but one did. (Thus how we got the term "peeping tom" after the voyeuristic tailor who disobeyed her plea.) The result of her protest? Her husband abolished the taxes.

The point is that she was successful in her protest, as is burlesque since the dancers and audience members report feeling sexually empowered and a better body image (among other things). If PETA's methods were effective (which is why I'm asking where the empirical evidence is proving their purported effectiveness), I might be more inclined to agree with you. But there is no evidence that this type of action does anything except titillate bystanders and publish nude-ish photos in the media and online; therefore, PETA's aim to end animal cruelty is not met through this strategy and begs the question: why do they continue to waste resources on an ineffective strategy?

PETA .... effective?

re: "If PETA's methods were effective (which is why I'm asking where the empirical evidence is proving their purported effectiveness), I might be more inclined to agree "

What would it mean for PETA to be effective? You say their goal is to "end animal cruelty". Does anything they do actually make us (them) closer to achieving something like that?

Even securing a vegan market (and, yes, potentially, skimming off a tiny amount of the meat market, no pun intended) does nothing in terms of affecting their goals.

In other words, the nude protests are not an exception in this respect; the issue of mindless ineffective protests is pervasive. Moreover, real thinking about what actual 'success' would look like seems to be so sorely lacking that it seems hard to even start measuring. Has PETA ever conceived of what it would actually take to defeat the meat industry? I don't mean symbolic gestures.

good questions...

and I think the answer is 'no', by and large, PETA is not effective overall. They're simply a part of the media machine that kicks out stories with little meat (pardon the pun), and then pat themselves on the back despite very little actually changing. And what has/does change seems to be as a result of companies figuring out that there is an untapped market out there for vegetarian and vegan items, so change seems to be more a result of the commercialization of vegetarianism than any animal rights activism. I wonder what percentage of vegetarians actually prioritize animal rights as a reason for their meat-free diet, as opposed to, say, their health.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. If PETA wanted to defeat the meat industry, they'd be creating strategic campaigns to undermine the capitalist system that allows it to thrive.

You know what? You are so

You know what? You are so right! This was bugging me about this article and I couldnt quite articulate it before.

I kinda hate PETA, a lot, but you know what? It's a double standar to say it's okay for a woman to be naked when she is doing X bitch approved activity but not to protest something that she truly believes in.

You have a really good point

You have a really good point in comparing Bitch's burlesque show to this. However, I think that the context is different and important. Burlesque shows are not a form of protest; it's sex to sex's end, rather than used as a manipulative attention-getting technique. It's about possessing and sharing one's body in the context of an environment that specifically celebrates women's bodies, within an established tradition that has been subverted. PETA's greatest problem (to me) isn't the use of nudity (which might be occasionally important - for anti-fur ads or something else). It's the constant and exploitative use of nudity, the lack of agency on the part of the nude women (who are not identified as in a burlesque show, but rather made into human meat). It's the purposeless and tired nudity, used for shock and attention rather than enjoyment and appreciation of the human body.

Burlesque shows are still problematic, but I don't see how Bitch's participation a year ago in a many-sponsored event negates their ability to discuss the exploitation of women's bodies by PETA.

Do the burlesque shows still

Do the burlesque shows still adhere to typical beauty standards??? (Thin, tall, busty). I'm just curious because that's my biggest problem with PETA. They only have women who fit that standard, front any of their demos.

Lady Godiva "using her body for political protest"

As I recall, the legend of Lady Godiva presents her naked ride through Coventry as her husband's idea, the point is kind of that he was attempting to use those terms to shame her for questioning his policies. I am certainly not trying to imply that nudity is shameful, but I think that comparing Lady Godiva's act of sacrifice to "look, tits!" sort of misses the message.

WELL-SAID!!!

WELL-SAID!!!

One step forward for Animals, One step backwards for Womyn

This has consistently been my problem with PETA and a few other feminists who use nudity/sexuality to get attention. Instead of focusing on the issue at hand (protesting the running of the bulls), the media is only giving them attention because of their nudity, thus their issue at hand is belittled and mostly ignored.

PETA stands for animal rights, and as a long time vegetarian I completely support that. But why degrade womyn to promote rights for animals?

Dear PETA- you are shooting yourself in the foot. You make no sense and I am tired of it. I remember the huge naked Pamela Anderson billboard and when I wrote to you objecting and I remember receiving a reply that said something like.. you are open to using anything that would gain attention.

Well F you then.

PETA does this

To deliberately get the attention of men, who are vegetarians and vegans in fewer numbers than women (Note: I don't have any figures to prove this other than my personal experiences within my own community and social circles. Most of my vegetarian/vegan friends are females). PETA is definitely shooting themselves in the foot for their tactics. Using celebrities in their cause is no help either. I don't need celebrities telling me how to live my life.

Note to Lindsay: Burlesque is a form of performance art and dance that uses less nudity than you think - the burlesque performances that I have seen leave much to the audience's imagination (The women performers took off just enough of their costumes to reveal pasties and kept their thongs and garters on). Josephine Baker was a Burlesque artist. It is not at all stripping, pole dancing, lap dancing, and fake boobs. In fact, I saw probably more women than men in the audiences of the few burlesque performances that I have been to. Look around the web well enough and you might find some videos and other useful information about the subject.

Kudos to Bitch for recognizing that some porn and other forms of womens' erotic expressions are actually empowering. Thanks for counting burlesque among them.

I have no statistics on

I have no statistics on whether or not men or women are vegans/vegetarians more than the other, but I wonder, besides the president of PETA, who is female, who are the big players in the animals rights movement? Are they women, or is this another instance of a social movement where for the most part the men are the big players and the women do the dirty (naked?) work?

Y'all might hate but...

PETA do get sh*t done. Check out http://www.peta.org/feat/PETAMilestones/main.html
From getting Burger King to agree to reduce the suffering of animals in its supply chain, to getting Avon and various other cosmetic companies to stop testing their products on animals, to getting various other animal testing facilities shut down, or more regulated, to getting Gap Inc. to stop importing leather from China and Inda, where conditions are particularly harsh, to getting Forever 21 to stop selling fur, PETA are getting sh*t done.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have a conversation about utilizing women's bodies for publicity, but I also don't know that these tactics are entirely without merit.
Love 'em or hate 'em, at least you've heard of them.
And regardless of whether any of these shock campaigns are winning over any hearts and/or minds on the spot, how can we quantify the extent to which PETA's general publicity and presence in the media spotlight has colored the overall ethos? I'm willing to bet that more people today have the phrase "animal cruelty" floating around somewhere in their subconscious than did 30 years ago. And who knows how far that goes in the state houses and court houses and voting booths and boardrooms and kitchens and fitting rooms, etc.

none of these milestones...

were as a result of their nude campaigns, not to mention that some of them are worded quite vaguely and the milestone may or may not have anything to do with PETA.

Where is the evidence to

Where is the evidence to suggest that these companies acted based on the harrassment and protest done by PETA? The tactics that PETA uses are sensationalistic and are far more about getting their name mentioned than they are about saving animals.
I actually am less likely to tell people that I am a vegearian or to talk to anyone about why vegetarianism/veganism
is better because all they think about when they hear it is the ridiculous nature of PETA and their protesting. PETA has done a lot of harm to the animal rights movement while trying to take credit for as much as they can.

They also kill eighty

They also kill eighty percent of the animals that come to their shelters, which amounts to thousands every year, are for the breed ban on pit bulls, owns stock in meat companies such as Tyson, awarded Temple Grandin for designing "humane" slaughterhouses, slaughterhouses even Micheal Pollan described as troubling, and had the Lettuce Ladies hand out burgers for KFC. They do more for KFC, Burger King and McDonald's than they do for animal rights and veganism. As Friends Of Animals says, Lettuce Respect Women And Animals.

In their defense - a lot of

In their defense - a lot of the animals that they "rescue" are too gone to be helped (especially any that are from factory farm type settings). Do you know what I mean? And if they can't find a shelter for those animals, then what? It's not like we have a surplus of sanctuaries or shelters...
I also think that number is wrong (80%). I know there was a story a few years ago about two people who euthanized a couple thousand cats and dogs but it was found that PETA hadn't ordered them to do it, they took it upon themselves to do it. I think that whole thing was misinformed by the petakills.com website - which is hosted by the CCF (which is very anti-PETA because PETA targets a lot of companies they receive donations from). Some other websites created by the CCF were the petascams.com and naiivevegetarian.com website. So don't trust information from these. Everytime they have had a claim that seemed sketchy, I did my own research and found that they used a lot of misinformation.
Just to let you know as a precautionary - always use some non-bias websites...

Do you think that this

Do you think that this society would have abolished slavery if a bunch of women protesting it, were running around naked? You can't sell ideologies to people, it's impossible (you can sell products etc but not morals). They have to get to that point on their own terms, which people will never get to viewing naked women - if anything, PETA has probably sold more internet porn. Affirmitive action seems to be the ONLY way to get ones point accross and using naked women is NOT effective. You can't fight opression by using it. It's like fighting fire with fire. A complete waste of time. The only thing that it MIGHT gain from this tactic, is some extra money. For example - in the case with SHAC - no one was getting naked for that group BUT they ended up getting Huntingdon Life Sciences to go under - which is a hell of a lot more than anything PETA has done and SHAC in the US hasn't existed NEARLY as long as PETA.
My other issue with PETA is that they don't seem to adhere to the abolitionist standpoint. They push for larger battery cages - which chicken farmers will only stuff more chickens into.
And I think the other HUGE problem is that PETA completely ignores the religious people that might consider going down the route of compassionate living. I would gather that MOST people in this country are religious of some sort - and most religions (for good reason) value modesty (whether people find that sexually repressive or not is another debate). Why do they continue to shut out most of Americans from their target audience? No devout christian is going to see one of these ads and think, "Hmmm, veganism sounds like it's very honorable etc."
I just think that they go over the top offensive and rather than turning people on to the idea of animal rights, it turns them away. Most of the groups on the internet aimed against veganism are mostly aimed against PETA and the tactics of PETA. PETA is a thorn in my ass because whenever someone finds out that I'm vegan, I'm automatically assocated with them.

a vegetarian against peta

I can't stand PETA, and I've been vegetarian since I was a child. I do not support animal rights, I support animal welfare. (I think animals raised for food should be treated as humanely as possible--but I don't think it's wrong to keep a dairy cow or raise chickens for eggs, etc.).

PETA has demonstrated time and time again that they are sensationalist doucebags who will do anything for attention--from rampant objectification of women in this instance, to comparing circuses to slavery or the meat industry to the Holocaust (the Holocaust On Your Plate campaign), so honestly I find their attention-getting antics like this unsurprising and far from the most tasteless thing they have done (check out: http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_tol.jsp?id=1266)

What's most disturbing to me about PETA is their ties to the Animal Liberation Front. While not directly linked to them, PETA has contributed to the legal defense of people convicted of firebombing research facilities and uses a lot of ALF propaganda and footage of raids in their own propaganda. I really think people--terrorists--who firebomb research facilities are about as bad as those who firebomb abortion clinics.

I suppose my point is that I really am not surprised by their antics at all, but I'm curious about why these individual women are making this decision to get naked for PETA, and why the animal rights cause? Can you imagine groups of women doing this for a different cause--like to stop human trafficking? I can't.

I agree with everything you

I agree with everything you said and really can't add anymore although Glamour magazine (UK version) did do a naked photoshoot shoot in aid of an anti trafficking campaign, it was rather tasteless.

trying to imagine "tasteful" naked protests...

Your response is making me try to think of instances where women using their naked bodies would make for intelligent and effective protest, and I really can't think of anything, other than issues pertaining to body imagine.

At first, I didn't find PETA's "I'd Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur" campaign tasteless, but they just couldn't let it end there.

It's all relative?

I've been a vegetarian/vegan (for animal rights, health and environmental reasons) for over a third of my life, and I am not a supporter of PETA. You all make good points, pro and con, about using one's naked body for protest. I do think that unless the message is directing tied to the visual nudity, such displays can be a bit offensive, unnecessary and, therefore, not exactly feminist-friendly.

PETA did this for Mother's Day in 2008. I don't how I feel about it, really. It just seem more thought out and relative to the protest than a group of young, thin women in their skippies talking about bull fighting. If the nudity will help the public remember the message, the slogan, whatever, than I guess it's worth it. But, personally, I feel it's gotten a little ridiculous (and redundant) lately.

Amanda L. Kraft

Considering that el Che was

Considering that el Che was such a disgusting human being and a general murdering asshole - whatever, let them mock him.

this.

this.

I think it's also

I think it's also instructive to look at which bodies PETA uses in their campaigns. Mostly women. And, I have never seen any sort of size/shape diversity in PETA's campaigns -- they just recycle a tired old oppressive standard of female beauty -- thin, curvy, long-haired, etc. It's part of the "going vegetarian makes you sexy" schtick. Well, I am a fat vegetarian. I know plenty of fat vegans. Where am I represented in PETA's campaigns? Nowhere.

PETA's tactics are a turn-off.

freak show

There is the old adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity, and when you get a bunch of girls to go naked in the effort to advance a cause, a marketing executive might applaud the effort as the "product" grew its own sensationalistic legs without any capital investment.

The problem however is that by using a marketing effort that screams " BARE TITTIES!", Peta may be able to wet the appetites of the horny and/or curious onlookers to get attention to the cause but is anyone really going to take the effort seriously? I have issues in general with the ethics that Peta preaches but I think any political effort would be hampered by this sort of attention getting gimmick.

I'm a full-blooded omnivore.

I'm a full-blooded omnivore. That said, of course I still don't like PETA, for all of the above reasons.

However, because PETA has such a high profile, I still remember that my first exposure to the idea of vegetarianism was due to PETA's advertising. Although the vast majority of people who see PETA's ads may not become vegetarians, I'd assume that the ads were a starting point for many. Of course, these people would have to go out on their own and research it further, but at least PETA might have planted the vegetarian seed in their minds, if you will.

Again, not that PETA is cool...but I'm fine with acknowledging the few things it does right.

In the End, We're All Made of Meat

Maybe I'm cynical, but doesn't this highlight the vulnerability of the human body instead of its 'sexiness'? When I see a naked human, male or female, in an artificial/man-made environment and especially outdoors, the effect is not at all sexual but rather sad and pathetic. We are helpless without clothes, and at the mercy of the elements (the sky in the picture of the French protestors looks none too welcoming). I'm sure the ad campaign was done at least partly for the shock value, but aren't we all being a bit superficial by taking it at face value?

Human beings, without the trappings of technology, without our artificial hides to keep us warm and protected, would be as vulnerable as the animals we now exploit by use of these developments. No one has pointed out that the naked girls (and guys! there are some men there as well) in the picture are stuck with the lances used to wound the bulls during a traditional bullfight, which makes me, for one, draw the conclusion that human beings are just vulnerable collections of bones, meat, and skin, with the same complex nervous systems and capacity for pain and suffering as any other mammal.

You think women are objectified? Men and women worldwide treat most mammals-- living organisms that are just as biologically and physiologically complex as ourselves-- as nothing more than objects to be eaten, played with, experimented on, or just plain patronized (see any first-world rich girl with a dog in her handbag).

But are you saying that any

But are you saying that any crime or offense against a human--being it murder, objectification, or patronizing--is the same exact thing, morally and ethically, as committed against an animal? Can you really patronize a dog? (I can't stand it when people treat animals as fashion accessories, however, I don't think you can patronize a dog).

The thing is, PETA doesn't have a track record for inspiring meaningly dialogue, they err on the side of the ridiculous, offensive and sensationalist.

wtf?!

Can I just be the one to point out that women aren't even comparable to animals?

PETA uses naked women's bodies to not only draw tacky attention but also to draw parallels between women and animals. You rarely (if ever) see naked men covered in mock blood, wrapped up in a fake meat package with a bar code sprawled across their chest. Why don't they attempt to draw a parallel between humans and animals and not just women and animals? Maybe we need to not just call out the annoyance of constant naked women selling products and life style politics but also the disgusting insult that a woman being raped is the same as a cow being hooked up to a machine and milked?

Recovering vegan here and avid PETA hater!!!

Give me the avo with the life-style politics on the side please.

Your point doesn't make much

Your point doesn't make much sense to me. If anything, "The Sexual Politics of Meat" is a cry for anyone willing to strip down for the cause! You can't say something is sexist when it involved all genders. That defeats its own definition. Just as many men are involved in PETA's naked campaigns, its just that the media focuses more on females. I'm a man, leader of a feminist collective, and I once helped out in a PETA naked demo that happened to be mostly male.
There are far better things to complain about like workplace equality (PETA has one of the best equality worker policies in the non-profit world), prevention of sexual abuse, and gender-neutral and respectful language.

Being naked for a cause empowers many people, and to dictate that they should not is the opposite of what a good feminist should do.

They use men?!?!

Okay - so when they have marches, sometimes PETA uses men but overwhelmingly - they use naked women to front ALL of their campaigns (posters, billboards etc). Cuz you know, naked men are not sexy (at least that's the myth they are perpetuating). I have never seen a professionally made ad, or a well circulated PETA ad that featured naked men - PETA wouldn't offend me as much if they actually used men MORE in the spotlight. In fact - the ABC ad that they did a couple of years ago with Dita Von Tease - had a man in it but he was fully clothed and he looked about 60. She was standing over him with her leg lifted up behind him in a stripper type outfit.
The other problem I find with PETA is that they use women that fit the beauty standard for their major ads (Pamela Anderson, Dita Von Tease, Alicia Silverstone). I have never seen them feature a heavier set woman or even women who are flat chested. It's pretty rediculous. Not to mention - Pamela Anderson loves her plastic surgery - guess what is a major industry for animal testing? And Dita Von Tease wears fur in some of her other photo shoots, which completely contradicts their most known campaign.
I think there is a difference between getting naked and only having women who fit the beauty standard front their ads. If they featured more men and put more spotlight on the men who get naked for these campaigns, it wouldn't bother me a bit.
I also don't see why sexualizing animal abuse is so widely accepted.... It just seems really disgusting to me.

"Being naked for a cause

"Being naked for a cause empowers many people, and to dictate that they should not is the opposite of what a good feminist should do."
That is a logical fallacy. AND a silencing technique. Please don't do that! None of the feminists here are trying to dictate over people and tell them what to do.... I'm not sure where in the heck you got that from... They are critiqueing something that is clearly sexist. I have yet to see a man be featured in one of their ads, in an objectifying way (and yes, there is a huge difference between plain nudity and sexualized nutidy). Nudity can be empowering but how is it empowering when they keep showing the same brand of women? The problem with this culture is how the naked women always have to be sexualized. In PETA ads, they aren't just standing their naked - they are standing their with that methodical "come fuck me" look that you find in all porn mags.
Whenever people bring up a good point and someone reaches for the, "Don't tell me what to do, it's my body, waaaaa." I get really annoyed. We can't take a closer look without being called militants? Are you serious? A good feminist takes a good hard look at everything within this culture that supports the objectification of women. It's the same argument anti-porn feminists are constantly facing... Anytime a radical feminist brings up good points about the porn industry - they get shot down with, "Don't tell us what to do." and all I hear from that is *fingers in ears, "lalalalalalalala I can't hear you lalalalalala." Good feminists don't ignore the truth. Maybe you don't know much about PETA cuz you were only in that ONE campaign but trust me, they are definitely sexist and they clearly think objectifying women will somehow end the objectification of animals...

Vegetarian Pro-Nudity Because It Works

Thankfully I've been a vegetarian for four decades. I didn't become a vegetarian for health reasons although poisons accumulate in animals' fat, meat is often high in cholesterol and an incomplete protein short of essential amino acids. I didn't become a vegetarian for environmental reasons or to reduce world hunger even though twenty times as many people could be fed if the corn and soybeans used to feed cows to for their meat were used to feed people instead. I was thankful I'd become a vegetarian when I saw a two hour long documentary on public television entitled 'Meat'. One hour was a film of cows from the time they were herded into the slaughterhouse until the time they came out in packages. The other hour was the same thing, but of sheep. The reason I became a vegetarian was because I realized that other animals have a consciousness. They have emotions like we do. Think about your pets. Your cat or your dog. PETA being out in public naked or throwing red dye on fur makes people stop and wonder what it's about. It gives people just enough pause to conceivably wonder what meat is and how it got there. Maybe they'll realize they're eating a slaughtered animals muscle (or animal guts in hot-dogs and sausage) instead of just mindlessly glomming it down. I love the nudity and it's for a good cause. I wonder how many less hits I'd get on my website if there weren't panty-photos of me there for adult womens' amusement at http://www.sissypantybuns.com/wordpress/?page_id=56

I am an animal welfare

I am an animal welfare campaigner and long time vegetarian in the UK and am totally appalled by PETA, an organisation with links to the porn industry.
It is a total and utter disgrace.

David Cross for PETA

Ok, so this doesn't change everything, but it is f-ing hilarious.

http://www.peta2.com/OUTTHERE/page/davidcrossfur72.pdf

Personally I think this is a case of "keep the people fighting amongst themselves so they don't make progress". Vegans/Vegetarians against PETA is giving the meat industry exactly what they want. And like their methods or not, PETA does get noticed, it does get results, and it is better known than almost any animal rights organization. I do, however, think the naked-women-campaigns are old and tired. They got attention with their I'd Rather Go Naked Than Wear fur. I think it's time to look into some new areas.

I go back and forth on this one. On the one hand, I don't like force-feeding people ideologies. On the other, PETA is clearly using the fact that sex sells to support an end. And the women in the campaigns probably get a laugh about how stupid men are for paying attention to their campaign just because their boobs are out. And "hating on" these women is simply telling them they don't have the right to use their bodies how they want.

How about, instead of fully supporting, or railing against PETA, people in the vegetarian/vegan community find some sense of unity and work together towards types of protests we can better agree on. This divisiveness really isn't helping.

Naked women promote eating meat

Now HOW is this supposed to work? Men love to see women naked, so PETA provides a free peep-show. This peep-show is supposed to discourage these horney guys from eating meat? Hmm... So.. stop eating meat and no need for protests.. no protests, no free peeps. Are they really that stupid? Think not. Actually, as long as they eat meat they get to see naked women free!! What's not to like ? But, can you schedule these "protests" for bachelor parties and cookouts:-)

You WILL agree with me!

Assuming Newkirk hasn't read The Sexual Politics of Meat is kind of an Everyone-Who-Reads-This-Book-Will-Wholeheartedly-Agree-With-Me mentality. Maybe she has read it. Maybe she's using it as a basis for her men-connect-women-with meat-campaigns. Just saying.

Don't get me wrong. It's a fantastic book, and I believe it's incredibly important for people to be able to connect the oppression of women with the oppression of animals (and the oppression of different races and the oppression of different classes and the oppression of different sexualities, etc.) But you can't assume everyone will agree with a book just because you do. Or even interpret it the same way you do.