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

Which PETA Campaign Do You Hate The Most! Vote Now!

Suicide Girls

After learning of PETA's recent agreement to do ads with the Suicide Girls and in light of their most recent demonstration (geez, even Perez Hilton was offended!) Feministing has had enough!  Vote in their Which PETA Campaign Do You Hate The Most poll.  An organization that loves animals but hates on women?  Kinda reminds me of the Michael Vick situation: lots of talk about abused dogs and sports figures, not so much about abused women and sports figures (there was a good article about that on Womens enews a while back here.)

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

12 comments have been made. Post a comment.

a perfect combination

an organization trading feminism for animal rights and a company claiming to empower its models and challenge conventional beauty standards while really doing neither.

So I used to be into PETA.

So I used to be into PETA. But then I realized the disgusting anti-womyn vibes they DO have, the idolizing of celebrities, the certain views of what "beauty should be" and the extremely anti-womyn ads (again!) that they produce. I do not support PETA anymore.

I am a vegan, an animal rights activist ... I don't wear fur, leather, etc ... but I also didn't need naked ads to tell me this. I made the decision myself because I personally don't feel these things are right. However, I won't compromise that towards others because we all have our reasons to make our own personal choices. Like, eating meat or not. I don't judge others for being vegan or not, however. And again, I don't need ads of celebrities telling me what to do or not. I chose my own autonomy.

Me, too

I stopped supporting PETA when they launched their Lettuce Ladies campaign (which wasn't just offensive, it was just plain embarrassing). It's frustrating that PETA is probably what most folks outside the animal rights movement think of when they think of animal rights. Having said that, it's equally frustrating to find myself in arguments with self-identified feminists who refuse to even consider animal rights/veganism by citing PETA's sexist tactics as a reason. And sadly, that number is too high to count.  

Anyway, yeah, I wish PETA would change their ways.  

PETA

Peta is not only misogynist and batshit, they are hypocrites as well. You can see for yourself at petakillsanimals.com. These people are sick.

PETA

Gosh, I expected more from my Bitch-ites.
That PETA KILLS ANIMALS BS is just that - a total lie fest.

Check out the facts; the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) who created the PETA KILLS ANIMALS site is a nonprofit corporation run by lobbyist Richard Berman through his Washington DC-based for-profit public relations company, Berman & Co. The CCF, formerly known as the Guest Choice Network, was set up by Berman with a $600,000 "donation" from tobacco company Philip Morris.

Berman arranges for large sums of corporate money to find its way into nonprofit societies of which he is the executive director. He then hires his own company as a consultant to these nonprofit groups. Of the millions of dollars "donated" by Philip Morris between the years 1995 and 1998, 49 percent to 79 percent went directly to Berman or Berman & Co.

Richard Berman is an influence peddler. He has worked out a scheme to funnel charitable donations from wealthy corporations into his own pocket. In exchange, he provides a flurry of disinformation, flawed studies, op-ed pieces, letters to the editor, and trade-industry articles, as well as access to his high-level government contracts, who are servants of the industries he represents.

Using "freedom of choice" as his battle cry, Berman has now taken on PETA and a number of other groups and organisations whose point of view could have an impact on the profits of his clients by waking consumers up. Berman's Guest Choice Network has an "advisory panel" whose members in 1998 included officials representing companies ranging from Cargill Processed Meat Products and Outback Steakhouse to Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association and Sutter Home Winery. Berman's clients are companies with vested interests in low employee wages; cheap, unhealthy restaurant-chain food, particularly "meat"; and tobacco, soft drink, and alcohol consumption.

Worthy of note is that the lies Berman says could kill humans if taken seriously, and this from a man who is saying PETA kills non-human animals! An article in the December 15, 1999 copy of the Cleveland Plain Dealer describes Berman's support for Uniroyal, the company that produces Alar(tm), a pesticide used on apples. Through his Guest Choice Network, Berman published a newsletter that minimised the risks of Alar to children. The newsletter stated, "According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), one would have to eat 50,000 pounds of apples a day over a lifetime to contract cancer from Alar". In response, EPA spokeswoman Denise Kearns said, "To my knowledge, EPA never issued that kind of statement". In the end Berman admitted that the source of his information was a statement made by Uniroyal. Alar has since been banned due to cancer risks.

PETA's recent successes in gaining "fast-food" industry concessions for more humane conditions for "farm animals" have sent ripples of fear through the food and beverage service industry. About the same time that McDonald's buckled to PETA's demands, Richard Berman changed his front group's name and stepped up his attacks.

I'm proud to be a PETA gal, and anyone who thinks they are anti-feminist can talk to the hand. There is NOTHING more feminist than standing up for social justice by any means necessary.

PETA

All that rigmarole does not justify PETA killing thousands of dogs and cats and using degrading images of women to get attention for their cause. Another hallmark of feminism is we all get to make our own decisions and form our own opinions. You are proud to be a "PETA gal" -- I'm proud to have NEVER been one.

Right On

Agreed with brodymichelle. I'm a vegan too and have friends who are former PETA employees and the PETA organization is definitely pro-euthenasia (yes, they kill kittens, ostensibly out of mercy). Whether or not you're pro-euthenasia, using mainstream women-objectification tactics to sell their message is not exactly full of compassion. And it's hard to think of a slogan more anti-compassionate (and anti-feminist) than "by any means necessary." That's the kind of single-mindedness that the patriarchal powers adhere to. Diversity, integration and networking (across many issues) is what will give us strength.

Vegans Against PeTA

Of all the PeTA-haters I know, the vegans (including myself) are the most vehement. Over on veganfreaks.net forums, they've even written this lovely little rhyme:

Hush lil' baby don't say a word
Ingrid Newkirk is a big ole turd.
And if she cooks you food to eat.
It will be stuffed with "happy meat."

Bitch mag -- pot calling the kettle black?

Of course I'm offended by the PETA ad campaigns. As a long-time radical lesbian feminist, I abhor the explotation of the female body and the objectification of women as nothing more than sexual beings.

I would never give a dime to PETA even though I am also strongly in favor of the humane treatment of animals.

However, how does its strategy of using "shock" to draw attention differ from your magazine? After all, isn't calling yourself "BITCH" simply a way to show how chic and clever and modern you are, how 'in your face' you can be, and how you like to flaunt convensional standards of language and cultural acceptance?

The word bitch (unless applied to certain animals) has always been and is still a derogatory and borderline vulgar term for women. Old fashioned ideas? Sure. But so is not displaying naked women in suggestive poses just to sell products or ideas.

For "Bitch" to complain about PETA is disingenuous and hypocritical.

Peta

Thank you for this. In San Francisco recently, two women in heels were nude in a makeshift shower protesting the wearing of animal fur. They drew quite a crowd....of men. That and along with a nude Alicia Silverstone and other nude women just makes me wonder why do they feel the need to use nude women to make their point?
Their message is good. No one needs to wear fur and it should not be manufactured anywhere. We have more than enough synthetic fibers to sew up whatever we need.
However, in trying to convey their message they are perpetuating the obejctivity of women.
Thank you for this article.

Peta

Thank you, I think for balance we need to see some nude or scantily clad men in a shower protesting fur as well to balance the crowd and message out. The point is good...but when you only get men you miss the other half of the demographics and there is no denying that sex sells for both sexes. That and I would like to see a few nude guys in a shower protesting fur.

animal cruelty>occasional nude photo

They're using shock value to get views to open eyes! I agree that they need to rethink their methods, but i just wanted to say as a pro-PETA girl: The horrors of animal cruelty FAR OUTWEIGH a nudie here or there.