Via Suicide Food, I bring you what is possibly the most obscene animated gif in the history of the internets. You know it’s bad when an atheist starts praying to the Big G.
I love this series of anti-vivisection ads from the Australian animal rights organization Animal Liberation:
Again with the meat-as-sex meme.
In this commercial for fast food chain Arby’s, a dutiful wife dresses up as an Arby’s waitress for her husband’s birthday. In the bedroom, if you know what I mean, where she delivers a chicken corpse to her eagerly awaiting hubby. Cue sexxxay, “doing it” music: Boom-Chicka-Wow-Wow! As the wife/waitress slinks into the room - somewhat uncomfortably, mind you, as though she was wheedled into doing this against her better judgment - the Arby’s logo (a red hat) “pops up” over dude’s head while he smiles with hunger/lust.
(Oh Arby’s, so clever with the double entrendes, you are! Original, too.)
Here, beef functions as an aphrodisiac and dinner time is sex-ay time. It goes without saying that dude is a REAL MAN because he eats REAL MAN food, i.e., food with a face. No veggies on his plate, nosiree. Except for ketchup, of course.
Which begs the question: if eating meat is analogous to having sex, is the wife/waitress a living piece of Chicken Cordon Bleu?
——————-
Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare commercial meat arby’s video youtube animals and women intersections parallel oppressions sexual politics of meat sex death piece of meat speciesism sexism misogyny feminism
Burger King’s latest ad campaign - Whopper Virgins - is a convoluted mess of racism, sexism, speciesism and colonialism, all crammed into a a series of 15-to-30-second ads.
To wit:
Let’s dissect, shall we?
Just for the record: I’m not particularly fond of the latest PETA2 ad featuring Khloe Kardashian. However, it’s not Kardashian’s state of (un)dress that bothers, rather, it’s the way in which PETA’s photographers have posed her that irks my feminist sensibilities. Though not as bad as, say, the Suicide Girls series, Ms. Kardashian is somewhat pornified in this ad: here, her body is turned away from the camera, so that it appears that the audience is following, ogling, stalking, sneaking up on her from behind. (From a racial perspective, I also find it interesting that PETA chooses to depict one of their few women of color models with a teased, “wild” hairstyle; while I know little about Khloe Kardashian, it doesn’t appear as though she normally wears her hair this way.)
Now, if this were just one of a handful of PETA ads that resemble a Playboy layout, I’d dismiss it as inevitable; PETA recruits a number of celebs to pose for their print ads, and no doubt some of these women (and men) will prefer more sexualized poses (in our pornified society, after all, women do trade on such images in order to get ahead; and I’d much rather criticize the culture which makes such compromises necessary, as opposed to the women doing the compromising). Yet, the ad fits a larger pattern wherein
women are more likely to pose in the nude than men; and, if you were to objectively compare the PETA print campaigns which feature nude men and women, you’d see that the portrayals are drastically different. Strip away PETA’s logo and slogans, and the women’s photos look like they were pulled straight out of a recent edition of Playboy. Young, white, thin, feminine, (conventionally) attractive women are displayed on all fours, backs arched, gazes vacant, faces and torsos turned away from the camera, submissive in posture, ready for a good fuckin’. In contrast, the men’s shots are fun, funny, inspiring, humorous, and full of personality.
So yes, I do think there’s more than enough room for a feminist critique of PETA’s ads, print and otherwise. That said, I don’t at all trust feminists who objectify non-human animals (by eating, wearing, gawking at, or otherwise exploiting them) to offer an unbiased critique of an animal advocacy group’s objectification of women. Assuming that PETA is indeed sexist*, speciesist feminists are no better: both objectify a group of living, sentient beings based solely on group membership.
Furthermore, these women have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo vis-à-vis their relation to (i.e., domination of) non-human animals: if they were to accept PETA’s premise that non-human animals have rights and interests equal to those of human animals, they’d have to reconsider their meat-eating, leather-wearing, dog-buying ways. In short, they would have to acknowledge (and thus, renounce) their human privilege.
So, how do the women at Feministing (et al.) claim moral superiority, again? While they may sometimes be correct in their interpretation of PETA’s campaigns, this veg*n feminist finds them no more trustworthy than an openly, unabashedly racist white feminist criticizing civil rights leaders for their misogyny. While their conclusions may be correct, their reasoning and motivations are forever suspect.
Just as they insist that PETA needs to lose the sexism before feminists will take them seriously, they need to lose the speciesism before they can expect veg*n women to give a damn about what they have to say.
* Which is a gross generalization, considering PETA’s vast membership numbers; better still to say that president Ingrid Newkirk and/or other higher-ups is/are sexist, and the organization is sexist to the extent that Newkirk/those in charge influences their hiring and PR policies.
——————
Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare peta people for the ethical treatment of animals peta2 sexism misogyny fur Khloe Kardashian flickr photos pornified women feminism speciesism
A “real” feminist wouldn’t employ such a silly argument in defense of PETA’s campaigns, whether sexist or not:
MJ: One question I did have. I really do appreciate the work PETA has done but it has gotten a lot of criticism for using women in some of its ads. A lot of times in bikinis, or scantily clad, I think there was a striptease campaign that came online recently. What do you say to people who criticize PETA and say that it’s not women-friendly, that it denigrates women?
IN: Well, it’s rubbish because the organization is run by a woman, who is me. I marched in the earliest of rallies, I am an adamant feminist, but I’m not a prude and I think you can go to the beach and see people who are in less than you can in a PETA ad.
Let me guess: you also have a Black Friend ™, such that none of PETA’s campaigns could possibly be racist, either?
Seriously, this is such a ridiculous argument that I need only two words to refute it: Ann Coulter. Women are not immune from misogyny, you see. Sometimes, they’re even more vicious in their hatred of other women than are their male peers; because of the common (mis)perception that “women cannot be sexist,” women are oftentimes granted license to act in an even more misogynistic manner than their male counterparts. It’s not often that you hear a man argue that women’s suffrage was a mistake - yet Ann Coulter has posited as much, and she still manages to get speaking gigs.
You go on to say:
Our people are all volunteers, no one has asked a woman to take off her clothes. I’ve done it myself, we’ve all marched naked if we want to, and I think that it’s very restrictive and in fact wrong. I would expect someone in, say, Iran to tell us that we should cover up, but I don’t expect women or men in this country to criticize women who wish to use their bodies in a form of political statement, to tell them, you need to cover yourself up. There’s this idea of ‘naughty bits’ and I just think it’s funny more than anything else. It’s not sexist, it may be sexual, but no. No woman has ever been paid to strip. She has decided to use her body as a political instrument. That’s her prerogative and I think it is anti-feminist to dare to tell her that she needs to put her clothes back on.
Certainly, I agree that it’s “anti-feminist to dare to tell [a woman] that she needs to put her clothes back on”; however, there’s a difference between allowing your supporters to use their naked bodies as “political instrument[s]” and taking advantage of your [female] supporters’ willingness to get naked for the animals by playing into cultural stereotypes regarding gender roles, beauty, sex, class, race, etc. As I noted in my defense of your “Breast is Best” campaign, PETA does have a despicable habit of pornifying women in their photo/print campaigns while simultaneously portraying men as full human beings, complete with agency and personalities.
In PETA’s world, women are more likely to pose in the nude than men; and, if you were to objectively compare the PETA print campaigns which feature nude men and women, you’d see that the portrayals are drastically different. Strip away PETA’s logo and slogans, and the women’s photos look like they were pulled straight out of a recent edition of Playboy. Young, white, thin, feminine, (conventionally) attractive women are displayed on all fours, backs arched, gazes vacant, faces and torsos turned away from the camera, submissive in posture, ready for a good fuckin’. In contrast, the men’s shots are fun, funny, inspiring, humorous, and full of personality.
Yes, you can be sexual without being sexist; just look at these campaigns featuring naked men as proof:
Update, 10/16/08: Ann @ Feministing linked to this piece, but over at Smite Me!, where it was originally posted. In response, I clarified my position a bit, particularly the whole “sex sells” angle, which I believed she misinterpreted. Go check it out.
———————
Update, 9/27/08: Mary Martin @ Animal Person discusses Ben & Jerry’s obtuse response to the campaign, as well as The Today Show’s take on the kerfluffle. Hint: you may want to write them about their weak attempts at “journalism.” Because, like it or not, many Americans’ sole provider of mainstream media news may very well consist of inane newstainment programs such as The Today Show.
———————
Hey! Feminists! You want to know why PETA continues to engage in (possibly) sexist, racist, classist, sizeist and otherwise “offensive” and “controversial” campaigns?
I’ll give you a hint:
In the top screenshot, a Google search for the terms PETA + “breast milk,” which returned 51,900 hits.
In the bottom screenshot, a Google search for the terms PETA + Hormel + pigs, which returned 11,500 hits.
The bloggers at PETA2 want to know what your favorite AR song is.
I chose The Sexual Politics of Meat by Consolidated - that would be the second segment on this vid:
What’s Your Cut? by the Barks is pretty mofo awesome too.
So, what’s your cut, veg*ns?
——————
Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare video blogging music videos vlogging youtube music videos the barks consolidated the sexual politics of meat what’s your cut vegan veganism vegetarian vegetarianism feminism misogyny racism homophobia
My favorite patriarchy blamer has come out as a vegetarian! At least methinks so:
A couple of years ago I got called on the carpet by a vegetarian blamer who was deeply grossed out by blogular photographs of my meaty lunches. At the time I demurred, not having fully worked out the connection between women’s oppression and the global megameatyocracy. But today I lounge before you in my lime green recliner and declare that there is no legitimate argument on behalf of consuming corporate meat. Convenience is not a legitimate argument. Price is not a legitimate argument. The delicious flavor of applewood smoked bacon is not a legitimate argument. Tradition is not a legitimate argument. Culture is not a legitimate argument.
Culture, as a matter of fact, is never a legitimate argument for anything. Fuck culture.
I am prompted to state the obvious by the reports of ground beef recalls and animal cruelty circulating around the media today. An undocumented immigrant meat industry worker has been arraigned for “illegal movement of a non-ambulatory animal,” which is a sanitized way of saying that he savaged sick cows with electric prods and forced them to their feet with fork lifts, among other things.
Despite the protestations of the corporate spokesperson, this slaughterhouse sadism cannot and must not be considered an anomaly. It is a documented fact that whenever human beings are given authority over lower-status beings — whether the lower status beings are cattle or women or slaves or prisoners of war — those in authority are unable to contain their vicious impulses and quickly morph into sadistic amoral assholes. This is a cornerstone of patriarchy. As is the rationalization, parroted, unsurprisingly, by the meat worker: “I was only following orders.”
Thus we can but conclude that hamburgers and radical feminism are mutually exclusive.
(Emphasis mine.)
Bonus pleasant surprise of the day: a majoroty of the Blamers are responding positively to Twisty’s proclamation, with many singing the praises of veg*nism themselves. Even most of the omnivores are expressing some degree concern for animal welfare, as evidenced by their support for organic/free range/hand raised meat and dairy products. Hey, it’s a start. And it’s much better than the widespread scorn we misanthropic animal lovers/people haters encounter on other *cough* feminist blogs *cough*cough*.
Now if ya’ll will excuse me, I have to go wipe a tear. This may be the happiest day of my life (on the interwebs, that is).
———————–
Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare feminism blogs blogging ibtp i blame the patriarchy vegan veganism vegetarian vegetarianism meat factory farming the internets quotables
My very first “Consuming Women” post - way back in June - was of an Elle Bache ad that featured a nekkid woman dangling precariously atop a set o’ chopsticks, sushi-style. Tagline: “Skin good enough to eat.”
Woman-as-fish: does it get any classier than this?:
Ugh.
Fast-forward seven months. Turns out this was one ad in a series of three. I found the other two on Ads of the World while searching for more pics to add to the Animals & Women set. They’re not quite as offensive as the sushi one (really, how do you top comparing women to fish?), but they are insulting nonetheless.
First, woman-as-sweet-sweet-nectar:
And woman-as-ambiguous-edible-morsel:
And the spoon is pink! (*Squeals*) How cute.
—————
Tagged: animals animal+rights speciesism speciesist women sexism sexist misogyny feminism anti-feminist The+Sexual+Politics+of+Meat Carol+J.+Adams AnimalsWomen Consuming+Women meat Ella+Bache
www.flickr.com
|
