A subsidiary of the department store Beymen, blender bills itself as a “concept store.” (Caution: meat-loving hipsters ahead!) The “concept” (scare quotes because the whole concept of a concept store is way too fucking pretentious for this thrift store shopper to stand), as you may have already surmised, involves the pairing of fashion with misogyny, the conflation of sex and violence, and the linkage of women and nonhuman animals: consumable objects, unite!

With several locations in Istanbul and Ankara, Turkey, blender doesn’t just sell clothing and assorted shiny baubles; oh no! Nor are body dysmorphia and low self-esteem its only wares. Ever the hipster-catering douchebags, each blender store is also home to a butcher shop! Because nothing accents a $500 white angora scarf quite like ghastly blood smear stain. (No, really!)

Curiously, blender attempts to sell its audience on this concept by treating at least half of them like pieces of meat, too!

In what is perhaps the most egregious example of the “woman as meat” meme that I’ve seen yet, this ad for “concept store” blender hits a new misogynistic low. Set against a monotone backdrop, a woman – almost mannequin-like in her blankness – hangs suspended in a supine position. Her nearly-naked body – her photographer/exploiter has so generously allowed her a gaudy amount of jewelry as well as black “fuck me” stiletto pumps – is carved into pieces. Each cut reveals a cross-section of “meat” – muscle, gristle, bone – underscoring the similarity between “us” and the “other,” the nonhumans who are our “meat.” Discrete links of chain dangle from the ceiling; at the end of each is a large “fish” or “meat” hook.
In each hook, a dismembered body part.

As always, the model/meatstuff is predictably thin, light-skinned, blond-haired, and conventionally attractive. Her stare is blank, emotionless, creepy;
think Paris Hilton’s “sex tape,” minus the night vision.

The advert’s tag line reads, “The concept store with a butcher shop.”

Fittingly, Ads of the World refers to this ad as “Blender Concept Store: Butcher Shop.”
——————————

Though the misogynist “Butcher Shop” ad above suggests that blender caters primarily to men, it does sell women’s clothing and accessories as well. Once you enter the website past the landing page, the first image to appear is that of a pair of men’s jeans – coupled with a bloody, raw steak.

The text under the slide reads, “These JBrand jeans | go well with a manly dinner.”

From there, you can continue browsing the men’s clothing items, or navigate (somewhat clumsily) to other categories of goods.

The website’s main feature is a series of four slideshows: one each representing men’s and women’s clothing (rtw) and accessories (shoes & bags). Each individual slide juxtaposes an item of clothing with a concept, feeling, or activity: a goes well with b; if you like x, you will like y. Whereas the men’s slideshows are featured more prominently, more total slides are dedicated to women’s clothing and accessories. (The men get 14 clothing and 2 accessory slides; the women, 20 and 8, respectively. See Appendix A for a rundown.)

The images are somewhat subject to traditional gender stereotyping, with greater potential for gender transgression in the women’s slides. For example, the men’s slides stress danger and adventure; cue: motorcycle stunts, road trips, boxing, and retro acts of rebellion. All served with an unhealthy side of meat.

Oh, the meat! 3 out of 14 of the men’s clothing slides (or 3/16 total) involve thick, “juicy” (read: bloody) hunks of manly meat. (Nothing says masculinity like heart disease, constipation and e. coli!) In addition to the very first slide (mentioned above), there’s:

Slide #6, in which a super-sized piece of steak is coupled with a photo of a strutting male model, decked out in black skinny jeans, a black and white checked (flannel?) shirt, a black scarf and matching cap, and a gray (wool? fleece?) jacket. (Forgive me; a fashion maven, I am not.) “If you like our Dukkan steak | you might also like this J.V. Star USA jacket.”

and

Slide #13, which pairs a thick, greasy hamburger with an image of two jeans-and-tee-wearing teenage slackers hanging out in a industrial park or similar. (There’s lots of graffiti, concrete and metal around.) “If you like our Dukkan hamburger | you might also like this [sic] DeHoghten jeans.”

An additional image of “manly” animal exploitation – a comical caricature of masculinity in and of itself – involves (wait for it!) BEAR WRESTLING!

Slide #8 depicts the same red and gray checked flannel shirt, both draped on a hanger and worn by a slightly wild-eyed man. He prowls the forest, fists balled tightly at his side, angrily searching for a hapless bear to brutalize (at least, this is what we’re meant to assume). “This manly John Varvatos Star USA shirt | goes well with wrestling a bear.”

MANLY, MEAT-EATING MEN ARE SO MASCULINIST AND MANLY AND MERCILESS IN THEIR MASCULINITY! I bet that dude could flagellate a bear into unconsciousness with his bare penis! (The puns, I bring ‘em.)

In contrast, only 1 out of 20 of the women’s clothing slides (or 1/28 total) promote meat consumption:

Slide #9 pairs a photo of a female model strutting down a runway with a rather amateurish photo of a plate of meatballs. “This Paul & Joe cardigan | goes well with a dinner of Swedish meatballs.” I don’t know about y’all, but when I see an overpriced, dry clean only cardigan, I immediately start craving greasy finger food!

(This example in particular highlights a key difference between the male and female slideshows: whereas the men’s images seem to be matched on the basis of feelings and emotions, the women’s are more literal or aesthetic. The women’s images complement each other visually, the men’s, viscerally. E.g., in this slide, the shape of the meatballs mirrors the circular, button-like shapes that decorate the runway. Ditto: the brown color of the meatballs and the brown and beige tones found in the model’s backdrop. But I digress.)

Not surprisingly, both the men’s and women’s slideshows also include depictions of positive human-nonhuman relationships with “pet” animals:

Slide #6 – This playful Love Moschino blouse | goes well with your best friend. (I.e., an uber-adorable, totally cute and fluffy dog wearing a large, red bow.)
——————————

Slide #2 (in men’s shoes & bags) – This retro John Varvatos Star USA boot | goes well with the next punk revival. (As is represented by a kitten sporting a mohawk, striped face paint, multiple ear piercings, and a skull necklace; note to Lemmy: your future Halloween costume, you’re looking at it!)
——————————

thus reflecting our culture’s inconsistent and speciesist attitudes toward different “types” of nonhuman animals: some are for loving; others, eating; and still others, wearing. (And, if blender has its way, some are even potential UFC contestants!) Of course, this dissonance is only compounded by the clothing and accessories available for purchase at blender, many of which appear to be made of animal skins and fibers.

In summary, most of men’s interactions with nonhuman animals are marked by dehumanization, objectification, domination, dismemberment, and/or consumption. Though they receive greater visual representation, only one of the women’s slides overtly shows women engaging in cruelty toward animals. Even while reinforcing traditional gender roles vis à vis our treatment of nonhuman animals, blender tries to hawk its wares – including freshly butchered farmed animals – to men and woman alike.

That they do so using images of human women, similarly butchered and brutalized, is a bit of tragikarma (like a tragicomedy, but minus the lolz) in and of itself. For as long as we accept that some of our sentient kin – brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers – are ripe for consumption, we risk being turned into consumable items ourselves.

Hat tip to Katrina Fox for the image.

—————-

* Hate that “joke.”

** Trigger warnings for images of violence against animals, both human and non: yay or nay? Or are visual and textual descriptions of violence against animals a given on this blog?

—————-

Appendix A: blender Slideshows

Man, rtw

01 – These JBrand jeans | go well with a manly dinner.
02 – This Lot 78 top | goes well with staring out of a Manhattan diner all day.
03 – This Love Moschino coat | goes well with eating a marmalade sandwich.
04 – This Paul & Joe suit | goes well with a good corset.
05 – This DeHoghton jacket | goes well with speed racing.
06 – If you like our Dukkan steak | you might also like this J.V. Star USA jacket.
07 – This Paul Smith jeans-shirt | goes well with an evening listening to Joy Division.
08 – This manly John Varvatos Star USA shirt | goes well with wrestling a bear.
09 – This John Varvatos Star USA jacket | goes well with some vintage badges.
10 – If you like this William Rast outfit | you might also like being a rebel.
11 – This so-edgy-it-hurts Zadig & Voltaire outfit | goes well with an attitude people can feel across the room.
12 – This tight Zadig & Voltaire tee | goes well with a smouldering stare.
13 – If you like our Dukkan hamburger | you might also like this [sic] DeHoghten jeans.
14 – If you like this Paul Smith shirt | you might also like road tripping.

(Slides 1, 6, 8 and 13 include images of animal exploitation; none are suggestive of positive human/nonhuman interactions.)

Man, Shoes and Bags

01 – This John Varvatos Converse | goes well with Babyshambles.
02 – This retro John Varvatos Star USA boot | goes well with the next punk revival. [omg it's a kitten with a mohawk!]

(Slide 2 is ADORABLE!)

Woman, rtw

01 – These super-tight JBrand jeans | goes well with a spot of cowgirl chic.
02 – This Love Moschino designer outfit | goes well with being in charge of a designer office.
03 – The details on this timeless DeHoghten jacket | go well with a knight in shining armour.
04 – This sumptuous Elisabeth & James dress | goes well with a night at the cabaret.
05 – This 3.1 Phillip Lim dress | goes well with getting your priorities straight .
06 – This playful Love Moschino blouse | goes well with your best friend. [i.e., a dog wearing a large, red bow]
07 – This Maison Martin Margiela dress | goes well with a Whirpool galaxy.
08 – These Maje Jeans and long sleeved shirt | go well with a baguette fight.
09 – This Paul & Joe cardigan | goes well with a dinner of Swedish meatballs.
10 – If you like this William Rast outfit | you might like the open road.
11 – If you like this Tara Jarmon dress, you | might like picnics in the country. [the second image is that of a mother cow and her child grazing in a small backyard yard, seemingly on a bucolic "small farm" in the country]
12 – If you like these Tara Jarmon pants | you might like being a femme fatale.
13 – If you like this Williams Rast outfit | you might also like being a rebel.
14 – If you like this Zadig & Voltaire top | you might also like a wild night out.
15 – These Maje Jeans | go well with a ride on the Highway to Hell.
16 – This Paul&Joe jacket | goes well with a girl’s best friend. [i.e., diamonds and other shiny baubles]
17 – If you like this Zadig & Voltaire knitwear | you might like being a little bit spooky.
18 – If you mike this Tara Jamon dress | you’ll like a little bit of mystery. [the second image is of a black horse with inflated black balloons obscuring her head]
19 – If you like this Zadig & Voltaire vest | you might like this very expensive diamond skull.
20 – This gorgeous Elisabeth&James top | goes well with a late afternoon ride on this schwable.

(Slide 9 includes an image of animal exploitation, whereas slide 6 is suggestive of a positive human/nonhuman relationship. Also featuring nonhuman animals, slides 11 and 18 are a bit more ambiguous.)

Woman, Shoes and Bags

01 – This 3.1 Phillip Lim bag | goes well with a perfect shade of red lips.
02 – This Marc by Marc Jacobs bag | goes well with your own private transportation. [i.e., a horse]
03 – This uber-slick Australia Luxe Collective | goes well with a stylish boyfriend.
04 – If you like this Dr. Martens | you might also like digging for gold.
05 – This Pierre Hardy boot | goes well with a walk under the clouds.
06 – This Marc by Marc Jacobs lace up boot | goes well with a quiet boat ride with friends. [on what looks like a fishing boat?]
07 – This velvety smooth Australia Luxe Collective boot | goes well with a midnight rendezvous.
08 – If you like this Pierre Hardy sneaker | you’ll like the new General Elektriks album.

(Slides 2 and 6 include images of what could be interpreted as animal exploitation.)

My initial instinct, of course, was to pen a 10,000 word, line-by-line rebuttal of Friedrich’s statements, but just the thought damn near gave me an aneurysm. So not worth the stress! Instead, I decided to pop the vegan maraschino cherry on my Anti-Feminist Vegetarian Bingo card.

The game? It’s on like Donkey Kong, bitches!*

Anti-Feminist Vegetarian Bingo: Bruce Friedrich/ARZone Live Chat ed.
FYI: A plain-text version of this card, complete with links to refutations and debunkings, is available here.
——————————

SO CLOSE! We were SO CLOSE to scoring a big fat sexist bingo! Next time, maybe. Probably. Most definitely.

Anyway, let’s take a look at of some of the “feminist” nuggets Friedrich dropped during the chat. The “hits” are labeled with the appropriate square; the non-hits, to be incorporated into v.2!

Square B-1: “Sex sells.”

Regarding our use of sex in our campaigns:

[...]

2) Sex sells and isn’t offensive to most people. That’s the super-brief reply to that question.

Oh, the old “sex sells” cliché! Such a classic, that one.

99.9% of the time, when people say that “sex sells,” what they really mean is that women’s sexualized, dehumanized, objectified, dismembered, and all-around pornified bodies sell. Or, put more succinctly: “sexism sells.”

Speaking of GQ magazine’s recent Glee spread, Anita Sarkeesian of Feminist Frequency breaks down the difference between “erotic or sexual images, stories, and video of people engaging in healthy sexual lives and experiences” and “the patriarchal objectification and sexualization of womens’ bodies.” (Transcript here.)

The images in which PETA trades don’t commonly involve healthy depictions of female agency and sexuality, but rather women posed and performing for the male gaze; usually invisible or implied, but sometimes – as with PETA’s 2011 soft-core porno/Super Bowl ad, which is discussed in more detail later on in the chat – fully present, leering, sneering and degrading. Almost all of PETA’s naked women ads are suggestive of mainstream pornography, what with their emphasis on thin, white, conventionally attractive models, bent and contorted into submissive postures, vulnerable, vacant, and ready for a good fuckin’. Bonus points for faux lesbianism for het male enjoyment!

Square G-3: “PETA objectifies / sexualizes / exploits men, too!”

1) We use anyone famous who is willing to do it. Our most recent shoot was with Baltimore Ravens star Willis McGahee (which delighted me, because I live in Baltimore). We’ve used as many men as women, perhaps more.

While it’s true that PETA’s celebrity spokesmodels split roughly 50/50 men/women, a) a vast majority of the men get to keep their clothes on, while women are just as likely to appear partially or fully naked as not and b) when men do appear in the nude, their ads tend to be fun, funny, humorous, and full of personality – in direct contrast to the women, many of whom could easily be mistaken for Real Dolls.

(Also humorous is Friedrich’s insistence that,

As noted previously, PETA uses men and women in our adverts and our street campaigns; for the former, it’s anyone famous. For the latter, it’s anyone who wants to do it.

Uh, yeah. It’s not like PETA screens us no-name rubes for fuckability or anything. *snort*)

Along these lines is Square I-3, “Makes violence against women look sexy.” Though not directly addressed in the chat, there’s an especially pernicious subgroup of PETA’s imagery that does just this (and Friedrich’s blanket defense of PETA’s tactics makes this square fair game, I think).

In order to stress the similarities between human and nonhuman animals, PETA (and, increasingly, other animal advocacy groups) sometimes swaps human for animal victims in common scenes of animal exploitation.

For example, women might be shown symbolically “carved up,” with dotted lines painted onto their bodies in order to indicate different “cuts” of “meat,” in much the same way that butcher shop posters depict cows and other farmed animals:

(An eerily common image, this one.)

While others, chained, bloodied and beaten, function as stand-ins for imprisoned “circus animals” such as elephants:

Additional acts of violence inflicted on women (and the occasional man) in place of nonhumans include vivisection, imprisonment in cages (bonus points if it’s a person of color), factory farming, and force-feeding, such as this especially disturbing campaign poster designed in protest of foie gras:

(Forced fellatio, anyone? I MEAN FOR SERIOUS!)

My issue isn’t with the comparison of women to animals – we are animals, after all, and there’s no shame in this – but rather with the conflation of sex and violence. These ads – and others like them – are part and parcel of the “Sexy Dead Woman” trope, described here (with transcript) by Anita Sarkeesian:

(Yes, I am a huge Feminist Frequency fangirl. Guilty as charged.) A small number of the images – such as those featuring sexy female corpses who/that would rather be caught dead than in fur – are literal representations of this meme.

That PETA unironically and with little self-reflection churns out images designed to both repulse and arouse by making violence against women look sexy is appalling. Doubly so when you consider that we are a culture steeped in violence against women – not just in the imagined realm of pop culture, but in the “real world” as well. Hundreds of women are beaten, raped and murdered every day in the U.S. alone; why does PETA feel it necessary to reinforce this abuse visually, and to further couple it with gratuitous T&A?

Returning to Square B-1, if this is PETA’s idea of “sex,” we’re all fucked.

Square O-4: “Accuses vegan feminists of trying to control / oppress / veil other women.”

Really? I thought it [PETA's "banned" 2011 Super Bowl ad] was funny. Anyway, the women at PETA who conceptualized and shot the ad would suggest you’re telling women what to do with their bodies, which could be seen as more “reducing them to things” than the ad (I think).

Certainly the women who volunteered to be in the advert would suggest that they didn’t feel like “little more than flesh and blood sex toys.” And they would wonder at your desire to tell them what to do with their bodies.

Ah, yes! Because criticizing PETA – as an institution and social justice organization** – for perpetuating arguably sexist and misogynistic memes is EXACTLY THE SAME as telling individual women that they cannot be seen in public unless 75% of their skin is covered by clothing. EXACTLY. Vegan feminists are like the American Taliban in this way, dontchaknow.

Feminism 101 FAIL: “Women can’t be sexist.” / “Women are de facto feminists.”

First: feminism—Two of PETA’s three board of directors are women; the other is a gay man. PETA’s top two people (Pres and Exec VP) are women, and are four of our top six people (the other two are gay men).that was supposed to be “as are four of our top six people” (of course).

So is Friedrich suggesting that women and gay men (“Gay men,” WTF! that’s a new one for me! Sex and the City stereotyping, holla!) aren’t socialized into the same sexist and misogynist culture as are the dudebros? Or that we’ve some magical immunity to the indoctrinating powers of our collective social institutions?

As if. Women and gay men can so be sexist/misogynist/anti-feminist! See, e.g., Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schlafly, Jill Stanek, Naomi Wolf, and Kate O’Beirne. (Shall I keep going?) Also: Andrew Sullivan and the Log Cabin Republicans.

And it’s worth nothing that even the “best” of feminists fuck up sometimes.

LOL FAIL: [Insert strict patriarch joke here.]

Brooke Cameron [again in response to the aforementioned Super Bowl ad]: You thought simulating oral sex, with men behind the cameras sneering at them, funny?

Do you have daughters, Bruce? How would you feel if they began simulating oral sex with vegetables because it was deemed “a fact of life”?

Bruce Friedrich: I did think it was funny, yes. I don’t have daughters, no. I do know a lot of young women who think it’s great (and none, including the ones in the ad who didn’t like it). I am sorry that you don’t like it though.

Brooke Cameron: I am sorry that you find it acceptable, but thank you for your response

Bruce Friedrich: The eternal struggle of fathers continues, BTW. :-) Of course.

YOU’RE GOING TO WEAR WHAT!? :-)

In which Friedrich responds to Cameron’s concerns that women are being sexualized and objectified – and simultaneously, literally mocked and degraded, i.e. verbally by men – by cracking a joke about fathers who attempt to control their daughters’ sexuality and sexual agency out of fear and disgust (and a vague, retro sense of ownership, no doubt).

Kind of like this uber-obnoxious Tide commercial (appropriately titled “Too Short“), which is currently in heavy rotation and makes my stomach curl every time I see it:

So not funny, dude.

And fuck you very much, Tide.

Finally, for the coup de grace (if not the win), Square O-3: “Responds to criticism w/ Can’t we all just get along?; We’re on the same side here.; etc.”

While I totally support an open dialog about anything and everything (why I like ARZone and am on again), I do wish that we could spend less time arguing (okay, to be totally honest, I wish people would stop using their precious time to criticize other animal activists); on the one hand, open discussion is great.

This argument assumes that we are all on the same side, all united against a common evil, namely: speciesism and the oppression of animals. And that’s one big fucking assumption. ‘Cause you see, there’s a lot of inequity in this old world, and not all of it is based on species membership. Some is rooted in gender and sex; some in sexual orientation and identity. Still other forms of oppression stem from differences in race, ethnicity, nationality, ability, size, physical attractiveness, and the like. Some authors and activists posit that all these bigotries share a common link or mechanism, such as the willingness of humans to categorize their fellow beings into “us” and “the other” based on meaningless, arbitrary criteria. (Intersectionality, look it up!)

Even though speciesism is the most pervasive and destructive (quantitatively speaking, that is), I find all “isms” equally abhorrent. Vegans who perpetuate discrimination against marginalized humans in the name of “animal rights” are no more “on my side” than are, for example, feminists who engage in speciesism.

Also, why is everyone so down on criticism? A little self-reflection now and then is healthy – it helps you to grow and evolve, as a person and as an activist. Most of PETA’s critics operate out of a sense of love: not for PETA itself, but for the nonhuman animals on whose behalf we are working.

To continue with the above quote:

On the other hand, if we make our points and the other side disagrees, there’s a lot to be said for saying “maybe they’re right.”

It seems to me that a lot of people in this (and every other, of course) movement are totally convinced that they’re right, and they denigrate people who disagree.

Well, that certainly cuts both ways, doesn’t it? Listen, Bruce (et al.): if a cadre of angry women (and assorted male allies) keep telling you that they are offended by PETA’s sexist campaigns, perhaps it’s best to STFU and listen to them? Seriously consider their arguments? Read an intro to feminism book or take a women’s studies course, maybe? It’s obvious from your comments above that you’ve quite a bit to learn about the subject, my friend.

Look. There was a time when – as a newbie vegetarian and a seedling feminist – I uncritically supported PETA’s campaigns and tactics. I donated to PETA, proudly wore its tees, even still have some of its ’90s-era magnets plastered on my spare freezer. (I actually do like some of PETA’s campaigns, absent their larger context.) And then I became engaged in feminism and transitioned to veganism, and had many of my beliefs and assumptions challenged. My positions on these (not to mention, a whole host of other topics) changed and evolved. Continue to evolve. For me, my views on human rights and animal rights go hand-in-hand; one influences the other and vice versa. And I simply cannot accept the ways in which PETA treats women (and other marginalized groups) in the supposed service of animals. It’s an affront to veganism, frankly. We’re all animals, yo!

The point is, I didn’t always think this way. I was not “totally convinced that [I'm] right.” Even now, I understand and accept that my views will continue to change and evolve. I welcome it, because it means that I’m growing.

I think it high time that PETA stop digging in its heels and do the same.

—————

* Don’t hate, reappropriate!

** Allegedly.

—————

Update, 3/2/11: This piece has since been crossposted on the ARZone blog – so feel free to join the discussion over there as well!

Nick Cooney is the founder and director of The Humane League (formerly known as The Humane League of Philadelphia), a farmed animal advocacy group that engages in veg outreach*, humane education, and targeted campaigns – as well as the occasional emergency animal rescue. The group primarily operates in Philadelphia and Boston, with additional campaigns in the Washington DC and Los Angeles areas. Nick holds a degree in Non-Violence Studies from Hofstra University and formerly worked conducting nutrition education programs with the University of Pennsylvania’s Urban Nutrition Initiative.

His first book, Change of Heart: What Psychology Can Teach Us About Spreading Social Change, was recently released through Lantern Books:

Scientific research has generated a wealth of information on how people can be persuaded to alter their behaviors, yet this body of knowledge has been largely ignored by those working to improve society. Change of Heart: What Psychology Can Teach Us About Spreading Social Change brings this information to light so that non-profits, community organizers and others can make science-driven decisions in their advocacy work. The book examines over 80 years of empirical research in areas including social psychology, communication studies, diffusion studies, network systems and social marketing, distilling the highlights into easy-to-use advice and serving as a psychology primer for anyone wanting to spread progressive social change.

As massive as my bedside book pile has grown, I’m afraid that Change of Heart isn’t in my immediate future. However, Elaine has already reviewed the book at Vegan Soapbox, and you can also check out a number of relevant reviews with Nick that have popped up on the internets, including those at Digging Through the Dirt** and Kiss Me, I’m Vegan.

Following is a brief excerpt from Change of Heart; the TOC, introduction and first chapter are also available for viewing at Lantern Books.

#######

Want To Spread The Animal Rights Message? It Helps To Be “Norm”al

We like to think we’re independent and that we make choices based on what we want to do, not what others are doing. However research on social norms—information about what most other people are doing—suggests we’re influenced by the majority opinion much more than we think. Invoking social norms can help animal activists succeed in getting the public to go vegan, boycott fur, and make other animal-friendly choices. Before discussing how, let’s look at some examples of social norms in action.

Famed persuasion researcher Robert Cialdini and his colleagues worked with a hotel to make changes to room signs encouraging the reuse of towels. Previously the signs had asked guests to reuse towels to help protect the environment, but Cialdini and his team replaced these with signs that simply noted the majority of guests did reuse towels. After switching from an environmental message to a social norms message, towel reuse increased by twenty-six percent. When the signs noted that most guests of that particular room reused towels, reuse increased by thirty-three percent.

This same effect has been shown in numerous other studies. White college students who were told they had more stereotyped perceptions of African–Americans than their peers later endorsed fewer stereotypes. An Oklahoma anti–littering ad campaign that showed littering to be a violation of social norms got the percentage of residents who said they would feel guilty if they littered to rise from thirty-seven percent to sixty-seven percent in just a few years.

Statements of social norms can be used for any activist efforts where the behavior being promoted is already in the majority. Distributing door hangers that point out the majority of residents in a community spay and neuter their companion animals should increase the amount of spaying and neutering going on in that community. Combining a statement of what the social norm is with resources on how others can carry out that behavior can be particularly effective. For example, “65% of Philadelphians have spayed or neutered their companion animals! Have you? Here is a list of low-cost spay/neuter clinics in your neighborhood…”

Another method of using social norms is modeling. When individuals—either community leaders or regular people—engage in a particular behavior, other people take hints from them as to how they are supposed to act in that situation. In a study published in the Journal of Environmental Systems , researchers at the University of Santa Cruz wanted to see how they could encourage students to take more environmentally friendly showers. The school’s hope was that students would turn on the water to get wet, turn the water off while they soaped up, then turn the water back on to wash off. Placing a sign about the issue on the locker room door led only six percent of students to comply. However having the sign plus one person in the shower modeling this behavior (without speaking to or even looking at other students) increased compliance to forty-nine percent, and having two people modeling the behavior increased compliance to sixty-seven percent. In another study, showing photos of students participating in a previous blood drive led student participation in a current blood drive to increase by seventeen percent. Another study found that children who saw a film depicting a child’s positive visit to a dentist’s office lowered their own anxiety about their dental visit when they were the about the same age as the child in the film.

In distributing animal rights leaflets to large crowds of people, one of the biggest issues that activists deal with is “throw–down”—the leaflets that get thrown on the ground by people uninterested in them. One of The Humane League’s current outreach activities is distributing booklets on factory farming and veganism at the Warped Tour, a traveling concert series that draws nearly a half million attendees each summer. At an average Warped Tour date we’ll distribute about seven thousand booklets, a portion of which will get thrown down on the ground. The portion being thrown down varies greatly depending on how many other leaflets are on the ground. If we clean up regularly so that there are few or no booklets on the ground, very few people will throw their own down because it doesn’t seem like anyone else is doing so. On the other hand if we’re lax in cleaning and the ground is covered with booklets, concertgoers are drastically more likely to throw their booklets down too because doing so seems acceptable or even expected. Identical results have been found in controlled scientific studies on littering.

When passing out leaflets, we should also be aware that people will tend to model what the person in front of them did: if that person took a leaflet, they are more likely to do so. If the person in front of them did not take a leaflet, and especially if several people in a row did not take a leaflet, they are less likely to do so. When you’re passing out leaflets and several people in a row turn you down, it’s helpful to pause and let a few people pass before resuming offering leaflets.

Additionally, if you’re sitting behind an outreach table at a festival or on the street, it’s helpful to have one or two friends standing on the other side of the table posing as interested passersby. Their presence models the idea that your table is interesting and that other people should come check it out. If you have a sign–up sheet on the table, it’s best to fill in the first line or two with fake names and addresses; doing so provides a social norm for people who visit your table so they feel that they too should sign up. If you’ve got a donation jar on the table, it’s best to fill it at least halfway with cash, including some larger bills. This provides a social norm as to what visitors to your table should do. While none of these practices have been formally tested, they fit in with the principle of social norms and in The Humane League’s experience they have been very effective.

While social norms can be a very powerful tool for persuasion, be careful not to use them in a counterproductive way. For example, our materials should not say “The majority of the public still continues to eat meat even though animals suffer so cruelly on factory farms.” Doing so encourages the undesirable behavior because it affirms that most people are doing it. In situations where the desired behavior is not in the majority, either focus on attitude norms (“Eighty-six percent of Americans are opposed to the cruelties that occur at factory farms”), point to role models (“What do actress Alicia Silverstone, football star Ricky Williams, and Beatles star Paul McCartney have in common? They’re all vegan!”), or find some other way to invoke social norms in a positive way (“More and more college students are going veg every year!”).

When we are out spreading our message of compassion to animals, keeping it “norm”al can make us more effective at reaching our goal!

For more on the role that psychology can play in creating change for animals, visit www.ChangeOfHeartBook.com

#######

* Alternately described as “vegan” and “vegetarian” on its website.

** It’s funny that Tracy should describe some of the conclusions drawn in Change of Heart as “likely controversial.” Since I haven’t read the book, I’ve no idea which sections she might be referencing. But. The heading attached to the above excerpt did remind me – and uncomfortably so – of the well-intentioned but race- (class-, etc.) privileged Engine 2 Diet video that made its way around the internets last spring (see, e.g., we’re “just a bunch of normals”). However, this association is only superficial, as the “‘Norm’al” in “It Helps To Be ‘Norm’al” refers to social norms governing desired target behaviors rather than personal appearance or group membership; for example, taking a flyer vs. tossing it on the floor, because that’s what everyone else is doing.

That said, I don’t know whether Nick also advises animal advocates to “mainstream” their appearance in order to “fit in” with or avoid “offending” their audience while engaging in activism – which, according to some, is 24/7, as vegans constantly serve as role models to non-vegans. Certainly, I hope not – and, if so, this isn’t something I endorse. It’s important to understand and discuss how calls to appear as “normal” as possible can reinforce other “isms” – as I plan to do in greater detail in an upcoming post about Matt Ball and Bruce Friedrich’s 2009 book, The Animal Activist’s Handbook.

Regular readers know that I’m no stranger to pop culture analysis. (In fact, I watch so much television that it’s only a matter of time before I start to resemble the potato above. But at least it’s sweet!) Well, for my next VeganMoFo trick, watch while I dissect the above advertisement – and then refute it with some super-hot vegan food (not-)porn action. Shall we?

A large, rather symmetrical sweet potato (Seriously, when’s the last time you’ve seen such a beautifully proportioned sweet potato? I would love to peel the hell out of that baby!) occupies most of the real estate in the ad above. The potato is dissected into six discrete pieces by a cartoon-like, white dotted line that’s been superimposed over it, thus evoking the look and feel of old-timey butchers’ posters. You know the kind: hanging in Sam the Butcher’s storefront, such posters helpfully illustrate the different “cuts” of meat one can obtain from the body of a murdered and dismembered nonhuman animal. (Google, for example, “cuts of beef”. This is an image that PETA seems fond of mimicking/parodying, with debatable success. But I digress, and dangerously so!) Other images in the series depict a zucchini and eggplant carved up similarly.

Because every “cut” of the sweet potato is identical to the others, the ad seems to be suggesting that such visual analogies are ridiculous; humorous, even. Compared to “meat,” plant-based foods are boring. Monotonous. Lacking in variety or diversity. Undifferentiated masses of blah. In other words, being a vegan/vegetarian sucks balls.

The most interesting aspect of this ad series is that it’s promoting – wait for it! – vegetarian food (!). Specifically, Fry’s Vegetarian Foods, which specializes in meals heavy in mock “meat.” Though I’m disappointed to see a vegetarian company engage in the negative stereotyping of plant-based foods, I can’t exactly say that I’m shocked, given the context.

I know, I know; it’s all in good fun, right? Except when it’s not. The consumption of animal flesh and secretions is largely a choice in Western cultures – and one category of “reasons” (excuses, really) that carnists commonly use to justify their dietary choices involves societal mythconceptions and prejudices concerning cruelty-free options, i.e., that any foodstuffs that do not contain animal by-/products are necessarily boring, bland and monotonous. Rather than cater to these harmful stereotypes, we should actively challenge them.

Which brings me to the VeganMoFo Photo Essay portion of this post. What follows are twelve gorgeous, creative, yummy dishes that incorporate sweet potatoes as a primary ingredient. (I might have just as easily executed this project with zucchini or eggplant, but hey, ’tis the season, am I right?) The tip of the proverbial iceberg, these photos and recipes demonstrate that vegan foods are anything but boring.

Now grab a knife, fork and potato peeler and dig in, MoFo-ers!

1. Roasted Sweet Potato Salad With Black Beans and Chili Dressing:

2. Baked Sweet Potato and Red Pepper Wontons:

3. Sweet Potato Latkes with a Vegan Sour Cream:

4. Sweet Potato, Pumpkin and Spinach Puffs:

5. White Pizza with Sweet Potato and Caramelized Onions:

6. BBQ Lentil and Baked Sweet Potato Soup:

7. Baked Sweet Tater (topped with raw almond butter, ground flax seeds, hemp seeds, unsweetened coconut, coconut oil, cinnamon, nutmeg and salt):

8. Sweet Potato and Black Bean Chili:

9. Cookie-Crusted (!) Sweet Potatoes:

10. Sweet Potato Fries (Chef’s Choice, holla!):

11. Sweet Potato Chips (take your pick, peeps!)

…and, for the grand finale…

12. Vegan Sweet Potato Pecan Ice Cream:

Oh, hell, let’s just make this a Baker’s Dozen, mkay? Here’s a dish you can share with the canines in your family.

13. Golden Baked Tofu and Sweet Potatoes (for dogs & their peoples!)

(Hint, hint: sliced and dehydrated, sweet potatoes make for pretty NOMy DIY dog chews, too!)

With that, I hope we’ve laid the issue of vegetable versatility to rest. Veganism only hinders those cooks whose minds were narrow and stagnant from the get-go.

And merciless: plants don’t scream when you kill and cook them.

—————–

Photos are shared under a Creative Commons license by the following Flickr users: sassyradish; Halyma; sweetbeetandgreenbean; penguincakes; well.written.or.badly.written; sweetbeetandgreenbean (redux!); prideandvegudice; flyzipper; sweetbeetandgreenbean (she loves her sweet potatoes, yo!); massdistraction; travelvice; VeganBaking-dot-net; smiteme (hey, that’s me!); and denn, for the win.

Check it: “The World Becomes What You Teach”: An Interview With Humane Educator Zoe Weil

Based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (psych101 students, represent!), Ellyn Satter developed a corresponding hierarchy of food needs, arguing that one cannot “choose” to consume healthy products unless one’s more basic needs – such as having enough food to eat, having acceptable food, and having reliable, ongoing access to food – are already met.

Satter’s Hierarchy of Food Needs:
Bottom to top, the six needs are as follows: Enough food; Acceptable food; Reliable, ongoing access to food; Good-tasting food; Novel food; and Instrumental food.

The choice to consume vegan food (vs. the necessity of consuming vegan food) seems to rest at the apex of Satter’s hierarchy, and as such, can only be made “when all underlying needs are consistently satisfied”: “The person functioning at the apex of Satter’s Hierarchy of Food Needs reliably gets enough to eat of rewarding food and has food acceptance skills that are good enough to allow him or her to eat a variety of food. That person is thus in a position to consider choosing food for instrumental reasons: to achieve a desired physical, cognitive, or spiritual outcome. This description is analogous to Maslow’s concept of self actualization.”
——————————

While this hierarchy is primarily being discussed in relation to our consumption (or lack thereof) of nutritious, healthy food, i.e.:

The graphic suggests that getting enough food to eat is the most important thing to people. Having food be acceptable (e.g., not rotten, something you are not allergic to) comes second. Once those two things are in place, people hope for reliable access to food and only then do they begin to worry about taste. If people have enough, acceptable, reliable, good-tasting food, then they seek out novel food experiences and begin to make choices as to what to eat for instrumental purposes (e.g., number of calories, nutritional balance).

As Michelle at The Fat Nutritionist writes, sometimes when a person chooses to eat nutritionally deficient or fattening foods, it is not because they are “stupid, ignorant, lazy, or just a bad, bad person who loves bad, bad food.” Sometimes, it’s “because other needs come first.” (Source: Sociological Images)

it’s equally applicable to veganism and vegan foods: obstacles such as hunger, poverty, food insecurity, lack of access to food, etc., severely constrict people’s ability to choose a vegan diet, on multiple levels (e.g., individual, community, population). As long as we’re serious about creating a vegan world, we must address these human inequities as well. (That, and it’s the right thing to do.)

Check out the Food Empowerment Project for more.

Let’s end this post on a shiny, happy note, shall we? Cue: all those supercute, fluffyfun doggie photos I took last month!

Rennie, distracting me from my summer reading.

Peedee, chillin’ under the lawn chair…

which is currently set up in the porch, so hot has it been this past month. In fact, I think I was able to use it just once before the heat wave hit. Yuck.

Ralphie, lawn dancing and proudly flashing his penis for the camera (men!).

Ralphie’s shameless display of red hot manhood worked; Rennie totally wants a piece of that! He’s not having it, though.

Kaylee shows off her crazy teefies!

Once more, for good measure.

Another round of lawn dancing…

…and we’re done. As per usual, Jayne chose not to make an appearance, instead hanging out on the other side of the yard. Such a loner, that one.

]]> http://www.easyvegan.info/2010/08/15/more-randomness/feed/ 1 http://www.easyvegan.info/2010/07/09/why-not-just-liberate-the-fucking-farm-hmmm/ http://www.easyvegan.info/2010/07/09/why-not-just-liberate-the-fucking-farm-hmmm/#comments Fri, 09 Jul 2010 15:47:38 +0000 Kelly Garbato http://www.easyvegan.info/?p=14081

An ad for Butch dog food, in two parts. The panel on the left shows neatly wrapped sausage, over which is superimposed the following text: “I’m as guilty as the next girl of licking the odd bone. But believe me, there’s no substitute for being stuffed full of meat.” In the right panel sits a small pug, an expectantly eager look on her face. Just in case her gender isn’t readily apparent, the ad is dripping in pink.

Writing about the life and death of porn star Stephen Hill – perhaps most famous for his role as Barack Obama in Palin: Erection 2008 – in Salon, journalist Susannah Breslin bemoans the fate of male porn actors, or “mopes”:

If porn is a joke — and, particularly these days, it most assuredly is — male porn stars are its punch line. Reams of text have been written about how porn supposedly victimizes the women who work in this branch of the sex trade, but inside the straight porn industry, it’s the female performers who have the greater power, higher status and bigger paycheck. [...] So-called woodsmen are paid significantly less than their female counterparts, for their efforts are treated like props on the movie sets where they perform near Herculean sex acts of which most men can only dream [...] and more often than not end up as decapitated, frantically thrusting tubes of meat in this industry’s final product. Due to the hardcore nature of the porn business and the toll it takes upon all its workers, the porn industry functions as a meat grinder for the human condition, and men are its offal. They may score bragging rights as professional cocksmen, but the reality is these are the working stiffs of a business that has virtually no interest in the men it employs and all the interest in the world in the women with whom its movies are forever preoccupied.

Just two paragraphs previous, Breslin described a visit to the set of a porn film, circa Valentine’s Day 2001:

From the outside, it’s one more stucco building on a suburban street in the San Fernando Valley. Inside, some 90 men have congregated to masturbate on a young woman for the making of an adult movie called “American Bukkake 13.”

Sabrina Jade, who has long, reddish brown hair and emerald green, catlike eyes, is seated on a towel in the middle of the floor. A plastic cone has been duct-taped around her neck like a funnel, or an Edwardian collar. Jim Powers, the director, came up with the idea when he saw a dog wearing a similar apparatus around its neck after a visit to the vet.

(Links and emphasis mine.)

Um, yeah. If men are “tubes of meat,” women are the farmed animals who are force-fed the least desirable pieces of their murdered and dismembered cousins. Forced into carnism and/or cannibalism; at once “meat” and “meat-eater.” Enslaved, caged, tortured. Right up until the time when they’re hoisted into the air, hung upside-down by a hook through the thigh, and left to die, throats slit, bleeding out. In the meantime, maybe some randomly passing slaughterhouse worker decides to jerk off into the dying animal’s eyes. Just so he knows, in that 30 seconds, that it’s not he at the bottom of the shitpile, nosiree.

Maybe, maybe not.

And that’s all I’ll say about that.*

* Or, you know, not:

This is probably where I should clarify my feelings on pornography and (other types of) sex work, but I’m ambivalent and otherwise not in the mood. Suffice it to say, while I support the rights of sex workers, I have trouble believing that such work can ever truly be “empowering” – or even 100% consensual – when performed/produced in the context of a patriarchy. Which is, you know, every fucking contemporary society the world over. Ditto: in the context of a rape culture.

Although I agree with Breslin that pornography can be harmful to men as well as women, I don’t think there’s any question as to who’s being intentionally humiliated and degraded in most mainstream, heterosexual porn scenarios. The “interest” shown in women of which Breslin speaks comes not from a place of respect or power, but from the oppressive perspective of the male gaze. Woman as canine cum dumpster, if you will. Double the objectification, double the “it.” (And no amount of pay can convince me of the empowerfulness of such a scene.)

Anyhow, for further reading, check out the recent porn blowup on Scienceblogs, by way of Savage Death Island, aka IBTP. The comment threads are all kinds of awesome, to wit:

So, mainstream porn is the factory farming of porn, all feedlots and manure lagoons, ending with a bullet to the brain, while there are all sorts of free-range porn, where the calves willingly kill themselves to bring pleasure to their diners.

Also, in her bid to create a “ZOMG WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ!!!?!” story, Breslin overlooks what is, dare I say, the most important facet of the case: namely, that after an 8-hour suicide standoff, the cops reportedly tasered Hill while he was perched precariously on a ledge. Subsequently, he plunged 50 feet to his death.

Irresponsible use of / over-reliance on tasers? Police brutality? An intersection of race + gender + dis/ability stereotyping? You do the math and tell me where the real story lies.**

** Since first I wrote (and neglected to publish) this post several weeks ago, new information has emerged in this case; Hill was not tasered by police, but shot several times with “a nonlethal weapon” (whatever that means). Police further contend that he fell to his death while attempting to jump – from the cliff to where, I do not know. Anyhow, none of this negates the information that was available at the time Breslin wrote her piece for Salon.

——————-

]]> http://www.easyvegan.info/2010/07/09/why-not-just-liberate-the-fucking-farm-hmmm/feed/ 1 http://www.easyvegan.info/2010/06/30/show-us-your-tits-for-the-animals/ http://www.easyvegan.info/2010/06/30/show-us-your-tits-for-the-animals/#comments Thu, 01 Jul 2010 03:32:23 +0000 Kelly Garbato http://www.easyvegan.info/?p=14335 Update, 8/3/10: www.schlongs4seals.com is live! I’m still working on the interactive photo gallery and discussion features, but the blog is functional (and has already logged more posts in August than I was able to write here in all of July) and all of the other pages are done. Also, I’ve uploaded all my schlong-related artwork to a set of photo pages as a temporary solution whilst I hunt the internets for a shiny piece of WP-compatible photo gallery software.

Leads for said software would be both awesome and appreciated!

—————–

Update, 7/14/10: www.schlongs4seals.com is now mine. Muahahahaha! (At the time of this writing, the domain just redirects back to this post, but still: Muahahahaha!) Stay tuned for details!

—————–

Update, 7/13/10: I just received a notice that Facebook deleted my SCHLONGS4SEALS page because:

You created a Page that has violated our Terms of Use. A Facebook Page is a distinct presence used solely for business or promotional purposes. Among other things, Pages that are hateful, threatening, or obscene are not allowed. We also take down Pages that attack an individual or group, or that are set up by an unauthorized individual. If your Page was removed for any of the above reasons, it will not be reinstated. Continued misuse of Facebook’s features could result in the permanent loss of your account.

So, just to recap: serious requests for women to send in their tit shots “for the animals” = a-okay; satirical requests for men to send in their crotch shots “for the animals” = hateful, threatening and/or obscene. Facebook, I do believe you hate women!

Anyhow, I’m currently weighing my options, which look rather slim at the moment. I could try setting up a similar page, but then I risk having my account disabled – a hassle which just isn’t worth it. Flickr might prove more welcoming to a SCHLONGS4SEALS group – I mean, hey, it’s home to entire groups dedicated to sexually harassing upskirt photos (!) – and indeed, the faux PSAs I created are all safe and sound in their own lil’ Flickr collection. But, you know, different social media sites, yada yada yada. My final and grandest idea is to go Thatchers out and launch an entire SCHLONGS4SEALS spoof website. Which sounds great, but OMG I so do not have the free time!

So, we shall see. In the meantime, if you’re on FB and find this whole affair as despicable as do I, why not hop on over to that *other* page and report it for similarly violating FB’s TOS? Seeing as most of us are either women or have friends who are women, might I suggest choosing “targets me or a friend” from the drop-down menu, as this continued objectification of women most certainly constitutes “an attack on an individual or group.” Please and thank you.

A screenshot, taken on 6/26/10, of the “Support For The Seals!” Facebook page. The image shows a fan photo – which has since been deleted – submitted to the page by Petra Simkova, in which the wearer of a pair of white undies (men’s briefs?) is flashing what JK Rowling would oh-so-demurely call a “rude gesture” at the camera. In other words, what we have here is an exaggerated crotch shot and a middle finger – all in all, an adequate summary of my feelings towards Facebook and Michael McDade (aka SeaL Shepherd).
——————————

—————–

Update, 7/3/10: If you’d like to participate, but don’t have a Facebook account, not to worry! Just send me your package @ easyvegan [at] gmail.com and I’ll upload it as an admin. You can choose to remain anonymous OR be credited (with a link back to your blog or site), whichever you prefer!

—————–

A bottom-less Pamela Anderson strikes a flirty pose as she models PETA’s ‘Save the Seals’ tee. The shirt is all-white save for a black sketch of a fuzzy-wuzzy seal on its front. The ad’s copy reads, “What do I have in common with Barack Obama, Vladmir Putin and the Dalai Lama? We all oppose the massacre of baby seals. It’s time to end Canada’s shameful slaughter.” And, in red and gray text: “Pamela Anderson for PeTA” and “SAVETHESEALS / END CANADA’S SEAL SLAUGHTER.”
——————————

Over the weekend, I was browsing a few friends’ Facebook feeds when I happened upon Support For The Seals!. Purportedly, the page aims to “raise awareness” about seal hunting in Newfoundland – by (wait for it!) encouraging female fans to post photos of their tits:

Boobs for seals…did he just write that? Yes he did. Show your “support” for the seals!

1) Suggest to 100 friends! (link above)

2) More friends = more boobs = more support for the seals!

Much thanks to these brave ladies! Get your mammos!

Now, if I wasn’t already suffering from blog fatigue, I might offer a coherent vegan/feminist critique of this so-called “campaign” (scare quotes because it reads more like a Girls Gone Wild casting/sexploitation call); and, knowing me, this essay would clock in at no less than 2,000 words. Probably it would contain a good deal of salty language, and not a few references to “the kyriarchy” and “intersectionality.”

For example, I might begin my rant with a brief analysis of the “post your bra color for breast cancer” Facebook campaign on which Support For The Seals! is based, arguing that it:

1) trivialized breast cancer by making it all about the boobies (instead of, you know, life or fucking death);

2) excluded some actual breast cancer survivors from participating (i.e., those who have undergone double mastectomies have little need for bras; insensitive much?);

3) played into cultural memes which reduce women to body parts (What, no “boxers or briefs” campaign for testicular cancer? No, that would be silly!); and

4) did little to actually raise awareness of the issues surrounding breast cancer (Dietary and environmental risk factors, anyone? Time to drop the I word, methinks!), thus transforming the well-intentioned but misguided effort into a day of titillation for Facebook’s (heterosexual, sexist) male members.

I might also argue that Support For The Seals! is infinitely worse than the aforementioned breast cancer campaign, as a) it involves actual photos of actual women’s actual breasts, whereas b) the link between the objectified body part and the cause it’s supposed to further is much, much more tenuous (nonexistent, you might say).

I might point out that, practically speaking, this page does little more than provide a bunch of internet pervs with additional wanking material (as if they’ve a need for more, amiright ladies?); certainly, it does nothing to actually “raise awareness” about Canadian seals and the many threats they face, nor does it provide concrete assistance (material support, monetary donations, volunteer pledges, etc.) to those working to end seal hunting.

 

The first in a series of (faux) VAPETA PSAs I made using Photoshop. A group of four young, skinny, white men (underwear models, presumably) strike a pose wearing nothing but their tighty whities – which are oh-so-tastefully decorated with sketches of cute, fuzzy wuzzy seals. The ad’s copy reads, “FOUR RANDOM DUDES FOR VAPeTA” and “SCHLONGS4 SEALS / END PETA’S MISOGYNY / LIVE VEGAN” in bold red, black and white text.
——————————

I might further note that, nowhere on the page’s long list of “sister” groups can a similar group for males who wish to show their Support For The Seals! be found. Nor are photos of men’s sex organs welcome on Support For The Seals! (Two photos of seemingly male crotches were posted and subsequently deleted between Saturday and Monday, as were comments critical of the page.)

Finally, in order to preempt claims that I’m just humorless prude in need of a good lay, I might also reveal that I myself have participated in a “show us your [insert body part here]” campaign in the past. The ReBellyon was a fan protest of Roadrunner Records’ decision to cut several clips of a bare-bellied Amanda Palmer from her music video for the song “Leeds United,” reportedly saying that the footage was axed because label execs thought the musician looked “too fat” to be showing her midriff in public. (Holy run-on sentence, Catwoman!) In response to RR’s sexism and sizeism, fans and supporters took photos of their own bellies, submitted them to www.therebellyon.com, and mailed them to RR with letters of dissent. At first glance, the ReBellyon might seem similar to Support For The Seals!; however, unlike the latter, the former: a) was a direct, relevant response to a specific issue; b) had a concrete, measurable goal; c) welcomed fans of all sizes, shapes, colors, ages and genders as participants; and d) ultimately demonstrated that beauty is not specific to a certain gonosomal makeup or dress size. Most “show us your…” campaigns fail on all counts; this doesn’t mean that I’m blanket opposed to all such efforts.

But sometimes words only seem to carry you so far; where reasoned argument and impassioned prose fail, a visual demonstration may be in order. Plus, yada yada, blog fatigue.

Instead, I decided to re-imagine Support For The Seals! with men as the objects of (s)exploitation, implored to bare their manly parts “for the animals,” treated as if their penises are the most (only?) worthy of contributions they can make to “the movement.” The way women so often are.

So instead of a lengthy rant (syke!), I bring you SCHLONGS4SEALS, a Facebook page that encourages men to post their “junk shots” in order to “raise awareness” for seals and, um, other stuff. Rather than rehash what I already wrote (and also because I half expect FB to shut it down), here’s an excerpt from the group’s info. (Keep in mind that the phrasing and tone are lifted directly from Support for The Seals!.)

Overview

One year ago, a well-intentioned but self-loathing Facebook user put a group together for breast cancer. “Show your bra for breast cancer support,” she wrote. This movement to foster breast cancer “awareness” did little more than provide a bunch of internet pervs with wanking material. (As if there’s a shortage of objectified female body parts both online and ITRW, amiright ladies?)

Well, this “bras for breast cancer” group highlighted another kind of cancer that’s infecting our culture, my friends. A cancer of the metaphorical kind. It’s called sexism, you see, and it involves the sexualization, dehumanization and objectification of girls and women. This cancer manifests in myriad ways: rape apologism and rape culture; the policing of women’s bodies and conduct; a denial of women’s reproductive rights; and the use of women’s sex(uality) to sell anything and everything under the sun, including social justice movements – to name but a few examples. This cancer has been metastasizing for millennia – since the dawn of the kyriarchy – and has claimed the souls of billions of females the world over.

As a vegan and a feminist, I’m sad to say that many of my animal-hugging brothers (and not a few sisters) have yet to acknowledge the existence and power of the kyriarchy. Worse still, many of them happily act as its foot soldiers, enforcing and reinforcing its oppressive memes: sexism and misogyny (natch), as well as racism, homophobia, transphobia, colonialism, xenophobia, ableism, sizeism, lookism – and even, at times, speciesism. Just this morning, I was browsing my friends’ Facebook feeds when I came across a group called “Support For The Seals!,” which purports to help seals by encouraging women to send in pictures of their “boobies.” Um, say what now?

Rather than rant and bitch and blame the kyriarchy, as I so often do, I decided to create “Schlongs For The Seals!,” as a sort of “sister” page to “Support For The Seals!” By applying the “sex sells” principle to men’s bodies (omg cocks!), I hope to turn campaigns which rely on the objectification of women’s bodies (omg boobies!) on their heads (tee hee, she said “heads”!), thus demonstrating how truly ridiculous these ads really are.

Mission

Men, please show us your “junk shots”! Show your support for the seals (and cows and pigs and cats and rats, etc.) – and your vegan sisters – with some cock cleavage. The more over-the-top, the better! Enhance your pants with some extra padding, turning that size small jock strap into a double-XL.

Ladies, don’t feel left out! Don a pair of men’s undies, stuff ‘em with socks or a Not Dog! or whatnot, and snap away.

No nudity, please; simple tighty whities or boxer briefs will do.

And everyone: please stand against oppression, wherever you find it. Sexism = racism = speciesism. Live vegan, always and in every way.

Of course, this is all rather tongue-in-cheek. Thus far, the only “junk shots” uploaded to the page are fake ones I created using underwear advertisements, television and movie stills, and the like. I also created a few faux PSAs, “sponsored” by the shadow group VAPETA (borrowed from the always-awesome blog Vegans Against PETA), as well as some humorous promotional materials. Fans are welcome to post their own campy crotch shots as well.
 

Image #5 in the SCHLONGS4SEALS series. Starring Gubernator Arnold Schwarzenegger as Conan the Barbarian (from the 1982 film of the same name), our VAPETA spokesman appears decked out in a Hyborian Age getup of a leather and fur loincloth, complete with matching head and arm bands. Sword at his side, Conan implores the viewer to “PUNCH CAMELS, NOT SEALS.” A seal pokes her head up from the bottom left-hand side of the screen to snark: “He must be one of those single-issue celebs.”
(The punchline, for puzzled readers: in the movie, a drunken Conan stumbles into a camel, whereupon he punches her in the face for the “infraction.” It’s a semi-famous scene, even spawning its own misogynist slang.)
——————————

While this effort was most definitely inspired by Support For The Seals!, the page is really just a symptom of a larger problem – namely, sexism and misogyny (and every other “ism” under the sun) that permeate the animal advocacy community. (As a ringleader on this front, this would be where PETA indirectly comes into play.) [1] Thus, while “boobies/schlongs for seals” is the primary focus of the page, some of the ancillary materials address related issues (for example, PETA’s willingness to partner with leather-wearing celebrities in protest of fur).

But what about the objectification of men?

A valid concern, and one I anticipated and considered before creating the page. The whole “is turnabout fair play, if used to facilitate an a-ha! moment?” question is one I’ve been mulling over for several years now – ever since I saw this representation of like objectification of male and female superheroes. The debate over whether the comic (and gaming) industry’s trend towards impossibly huge-breasted and scantily-clad heroines is sexist usually devolves into some inanity about the unrealistic musculature of Superman & Co. Attempts to explain, with words, how this objectification – if you can call it that – is not at all comparable usually fall on deaf ears. These three crudely rendered visuals, on the other hand? Priceless. (If I had a whit of artistic ability, I’d “translate” a comic book for every male superhero, I tell you what.)

But do such images necessarily objectify men, thus becoming similarly oppressive in nature? I don’t think so, for three reasons:

1) Context matters. In a vacuum, SCHLONGS4SEALS might appear the male equivalent to Support For the Seals! – i.e., just as objectifying to men as the latter is to women. However, we don’t live in a vacuum; context matters. And the context with which we’re dealing is a sexist and misogynist culture in which women are routinely sexualized, bestialized, objectified and otherwise exploited. While the kyriarchy is not kind to most men, as a whole (and other group memberships being equal) this group fares better than its female counterpart. Certainly, men’s bodies and their disembodied parts – particularly those which are deemed “sexual” [3] – are not routinely used to sell everything from jeans to cars to car insurance to social justice movements (the occasional humorous Diet Coke exception aside). [4]

Given this context, I’d argue that the bar for male objectification is set much, much higher than that for female objectification – because, in mainstream culture, we simply aren’t socialized to view men that way. My one lone Facebook page isn’t going to change this; hell, a million Facebook pages won’t change it. Thus, this inversion of objectification ultimately reads as more ridiculous or humorous than it does objectifying. [5]

The source photo for this sixth image in the VAPETA SCHLONGS4SEALS series is a screenshot of an old Seinfeld episode. In “The Pick” (Season 4, Episode 13), Cosmo Kramer (aka Michael Richards) auditions to become a Calvin Klein underwear model. The still above shows Kramer entering the CK office dressed in nothing but a pair of tighty whities, white athletic socks, and black (leather?) dress shoes. The ad’s copy reads, “MICHAEL RICHARDS FOR VAPeTA” and “SCHLONGS4(WHITECOAT)SEALS / ‘I’ve got a Benetton heart and a fuckin’ David Duke cock.’” in purple and white text. A seal pokes her head from the bottom of the frame, whispering to the audience: “Pssst! I thought John Mayer was the douchenozzle with a ‘white supremacist dick’?” (You know, just in case the joke wasn’t readily apparent.)
——————————

IMHO, this is also the dynamic from which such images draw their power: when women are reduced to tits and ass, we barely notice, as disembodied tits and asses can be found everywhere. Female objectification is just so blasé. But when men are subjected to likewise objectification, the result is…unusual. Absurd. Shocking, even. Viewers take note of the incongruity between the images on the screen and the cultural milieu in which they exist.

And hopefully, when presented with a little social commentary, such images – and the reactions they evoke – will help to illustrate how this objectification, when visited upon female bodies, is equally ridiculous.

2) SCHLONGS4SEALS is deliberately outrageous and over-the-top. Starting with the title (Does there exist a more juvenile slang term for “penis” than “schlong”? I think not!), I tried to make the page as obviously silly as possible. I don’t intend for viewers to take this male objectification literally or seriously, but rather to understand it as a piece of satire (and an educational tool to boot). Hence the cute, fluffy seals peppering the “junk shots,” the liberal use of ridiculous slang, and the faux “offshoot groups” – not to mention, the photos of cartoon characters in their tighty whities, the still of a diapered toddler snagged from the latest Huggies commercial (which I so love for its weirdness and borderline perversity!), and additional stills of “famous” on-screen moments in men’s underwear (most of them played for comedic effect, naturally – and in direct opposition to how such moments unfold when it’s women wearing the lingerie).

3) Though the page’s copy might not stress this point enough, I do not expect (m)any actual men to post photos of their actual crotches (at least, not in their natural states). For starters, I don’t anticipate overwhelming audience participation here – which is why I created a bunch of my own “junk shots.” Granted, a number of these photos are of conventionally attractive underwear models, with a decided emphasis on the crotch region – but as I argue in #1 above, I don’t think that these images are inherently objectifying. (If women only appeared naked and disembodied in underwear ads, I’d be quite the happy camper.) Also noted above, I made sure to include a variety of men, of different shapes and sizes – including the fictional and the animated.

When and if “real” men do submit their own photos, I encourage absurdity. Since conventional Western female beauty standards idealize large (cosmetically enhanced) breasts, I likewise urge anyone who wishes to participate to send in photos of themselves wearing men’s underwear that has been enhanced with, um, “outside” materials – socks, Not Dogs!, vibrators, stuffed animals, whatever. The bigger and campier, the better.

Nor do I limit audience participation to men; women are welcome to send in their own flamboyantly embellished “junk shots” as a sort of feminist “fuck you” to that other page. Probably I’ll also slap on a pair of men’s briefs and photograph my own bad self when I get the chance, too.

Update, 7/5/10: Done and done!
Image: A stuffed gray seal emerges from the fly of my men’s BLAH BLAH BLAH brand boxer briefs.
——————————

If anyone does happen to submit a photo that I find genuinely objectifying, either in intent or practice (Such as, say, an upskirt photo of an unwitting man; but does a male equivalent of the upskirt photo even exist?), I will remove it from the page.

Anyhow, that’s what I was up to last weekend. If you’re intrigued and/or on Facebook, feel free to “like” and share the page (or not), post your own photos and – most importantly – bookmark it for future use. For example, the next time someone responds to your carefully crafted, 2,000 word essay with the oh-so-thoughtful retort, “But PETA [or whomever] objectifies men, too!”
 

In this VAPETA PSA, a (young, white, ripped) naked man (naughty bits discretely covered with a pair of undies) and seal lounge together on the beach. The man – his eyes closed, a faraway look on his face – seems lost in rapturous thought. In sharp contrast, the seal exists in the here and now: flippers clasped to his side, a look of hilarity on his face, the seal appears to be rolling in the sand with laughter. The ad’s copy reads, “SCHLONGS4 SEALS / BEAT OFF, NOT SEALS” and “SOME HORNY GUY FOR VAPeTA.” A thought bubble emanating from the seal’s head reveals his opinion re: this “campaign”: “Oh, PETA. $34 million & this is the best you can do? Fuck me. No, ryl.”
——————————

 
Footnotes

[1] According to the page’s info, Seal Shepherd is the mastermind behind Support For The Seals! As far as I can tell, SS is not related to PETA, though it/he does base its/his campaign on PETA’s own Save the Seals celebrity tee dealio (and it/he also hawks PETA’s t-shirts accordingly on its FB page). There are some other shenanigans going on with SS – to which I was tipped off after launching the page – but that’s a morass I’ve zero desire to get sucked up into.

Interestingly, Save the Seals is one of handful of celebrity-studded PETA campaigns that is (relatively) gender-neutral and nudity-free (save for Pamela Anderson’s contribution, seen above – and on Support For The Seals!, natch). [2] Thus, Seal Shepherd has managed to take a campaign to which I was somewhat indifferent, and make me loathe it with the heat of a thousand suns. Well done, SS! Thus is the transitive power of PETA’s misogyny – from PETA to SS and back to PETA again.

[2] Though still arguably problematic from a single-issue perspective.

[3] And here it’s worth noting that men possess fewer sexualized body parts than do women; less of men’s real estate is considered eye candy for the female gaze than is women’s for the male gaze.

[4] Should you disagree with me on this most fundamental of points, might I direct you to PETA’s own oeuvre? I don’t mean to pick on them, it’s just…the picking’s easy, you know?

[5] Again considering context, I should also point out that some groups of men (and women) are more readily objectified than others. Men of color, for example, are oftentimes stereotyped as base, animalistic, hyper-sexual beings – predators, even – thus rendering their sexual objectification that much easier. The bar for objectification depends not just on gender, but also race, ethnicity, nationality, sexuality, gender identity, class and religion (to name but a few), as well as the power differential(s) between all parties involved.
 

]]> http://www.easyvegan.info/2010/06/30/show-us-your-tits-for-the-animals/feed/ 9 http://www.easyvegan.info/2010/06/11/reclaiming-the-f-word-expanding-the-v-word/ http://www.easyvegan.info/2010/06/11/reclaiming-the-f-word-expanding-the-v-word/#comments Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:11:38 +0000 Kelly Garbato http://www.easyvegan.info/?p=14116

I can’t see the point in women being equal to men if men are not equal to each other. *

Yes!

And also:

I can’t see the point in nonhuman animals being equal to humans if humans are not equal to each other.

Think about it.

In this advertisement for Redtape Shoes, a man lounges on an ottoman, seemingly in his own modern, sparsely decorated living room. In the background, an aquarium takes up an entire wall. In it swim three bikini-clad women (white, thin and otherwise conventionally attractive by Western standards), whom he ogles over his shoulder.

Like fishes, these women are but mere decorations, objects to be used, displayed and discarded at will. The product’s tag line – which is adorned by silhouettes of “mud flap babes” – reads “Live Your Fantasy”. The audience is to assume that it’s every man’s fantasy to treat women like nonhuman animals, i.e., property.

Misogyny? Check. Heterosexism? Check. Sizeism? Check. Lookism? Check. White privilege? Check. Speciesism? Check. And so on and so forth.
——————————

* F Word reader Polly, quoted in the forthcoming book Reclaiming the F Word: The New Feminist Movement (Catherine Redfern and Kristin Aune, Zed Books, July 2010), in reference to poverty, capitalism, and economic equality and oppression (page 115 in the ARC).

—————

Tagged: animals animal rights intersections intersectionality animals and women parallel oppressions quotables vegan veganism feminist feminist reclaiming the f word quotables equality flickr photos property misogyny sexist sexism marketing ads fish fishes aquarium

]]> http://www.easyvegan.info/2010/06/11/reclaiming-the-f-word-expanding-the-v-word/feed/ 1 http://www.easyvegan.info/2010/04/18/if-you-fuckin-with-this-bitch-then-you-betta-be-paid/ http://www.easyvegan.info/2010/04/18/if-you-fuckin-with-this-bitch-then-you-betta-be-paid/#comments Mon, 19 Apr 2010 03:03:48 +0000 Kelly Garbato http://www.easyvegan.info/?p=13455 Mars, Inc. wants you to know that a bitch is a bitch is a bitch – and, whether she be digging for gold or for bones, that bitch ain’t shit.

What’s next, a Hartz commercial warning clean-cut, Oscar Newman-clad male dogs against tramping around with loose, low-class bitches, lest they catch fleas? Or perhaps an RNC attack ad, depicting a female puppy mill breeder intentionally popping out litter after litter, all in a self-absorbed attempt to pad her welfare check and buy that shiny pink rhinestone collar she saw on Animal Planet? Dog Almighty.

—————

In case you can’t view the images, there are three in total, each of which is based on the same concept: a stereotypically “ugly” male dog has “landed” a “hot” female mate who’s way out of his league. (Cue: every tv sitcom ever made.) The male dogs – a portly basset hound, a wrinkly bulldog, and a big, black (bull)mastiff (!) – represent the Peter Griffin to the females’ Lois; each is some combination of overweight, droopy, saggy, sloppy, out of shape, lower-class, and – in the case of the mastiff, who’s shown wooing his woman in a swanky limo – possibly a pimp or “playa.” (Perhaps we should just be thankful they didn’t use a big, black pit bull in this last scenario?)

In contrast, the females – a white Afghan hound, a white poodle, and a shiny-haired King Charles spaniel, respectively – are refined, trim, and well-groomed, with long/clean/styled fur, all of which is meant to signal their superior social standing. In keeping with the product’s name – Frolic biscuits – each pair is shown frolicking in a luxurious locale: poolside at a posh resort; in a plush hotel room, decorated with red velvet furniture; and in a large, leather-trimmed limo stocked with plenty of wine and pink satin pillows. The tag line on each photo reads, “She’s only with him for his biscuits.” (So nice to see you, heterosexism!) These bitches are like the Anna Nicole Smiths of the dog world, yo!

And yes, I had considered the possibility that the advertisers were trying to upend – or at least poke fun at – the “woman-as-gold digger” cliché, especially in light of the many appreciative comments this campaign received at Ads of the World. But. I fail to see how simply projecting a misogynist stereotype onto nonhuman animals – without any sort of social critique or subversive play on said stereotype – does anything to challenge the prejudices reflected therein.** The added racial stereotyping in the “limo” image just makes this campaign all the more distasteful.

Gender and race aside, we’re still left to deal with the breedism; in the above ads, different breeds of dogs are associated with different socioeconomic classes and aesthetics, some more desirable than others (hence the “lesser” males’ need to “buy” the coveted female dogs with biscuits). While this may seem harmless fun, breedism has pernicious real-world implications; see, for example, “pet” overpopulation statistics and breed-specific legislation.

—————

* Lyrics lifted (and tweaked!) from the Kanye West/Jamie Foxx musical misogyny-fest “Golddigger.” (Please keep in mind, however, that misogyny is not unique to rap music. Far from it.)

** Nor am I inclined to give Mars the benefit of the doubt.

—————

Tagged: animals animal rights mars mars petfood dog food dog treats advertising dog canine pet companion animal animal companion intersections intersectionality gold digger stereotypes beauty money power bitch bitches golddigger sexism sexist misogyny misogynist flickr photos feminist feminism parallel oppressions race racism racist gender breed breedism species speciesism

]]> http://www.easyvegan.info/2010/04/18/if-you-fuckin-with-this-bitch-then-you-betta-be-paid/feed/ 2 http://www.easyvegan.info/2010/04/17/the-animal-experience/ http://www.easyvegan.info/2010/04/17/the-animal-experience/#comments Sat, 17 Apr 2010 16:28:39 +0000 Kelly Garbato http://www.easyvegan.info/?p=13421

Eight of Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary’s sixty-two Signature Billboards, all from the “We Know Our Victims Well” series. Clockwise from the top left:
They long to live as much as we do.
(A single white duck gazes into the camera.)
They long to be loved as much as we do.
(Hen and rooster Libbie and Louie find refuge in one another’s touch.)
They face life together like we do.
(A pair of ducks wander through the snow.)
They love their children as much as we do.
(An adult llama and his child smile together.)
They need their mothers as much as we do.
(A cow nuzzles his mother.)
They protect their children as fiercely as we do.
(A cow and her calf stare defiantly ahead.)
They raise families like we do.
(A duck family – complete with five youngsters – strolls along in harmony.)
They fall in love like we do.
(One cow licks another with obvious affection.)
——————————

A few weeks ago, the always-awesome Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary unveiled a new campaign to aid activists in combating speciesism – and all the oppressions it sanctions – specifically that directed towards “food” animals. With its Signature Billboards, Peaceful Prairie gives faces, individualities, life stories, and emotions to the many animals we call “food” – cows, pigs, chickens, ducks, sheep, lambs, goats and fishes:

They speak for themselves…

We don’t always have the opportunity to raise awareness of the animals’ plight during daily email correspondence but now, with Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary’s latest campaign, we’ve made it easy and effective for anyone to learn how their actions can save the lives of other animals, lives that matter to them as much our lives matter to us.

The graphics – each of which pictures one or more nonhuman animals, as well as a brief but powerful statement about her life experiences, relationships with/to other nonhumans, and/or personhood – are organized around four main themes:

• We Know Our Victims Well;
• 55 Billion Reasons to Live Vegan;
• Humane Farming, An Oxymoron; and
• Subjects of a Life

Designed for use as email signatures, you can also display these graphics on your blog or website, or share them on social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter.

Collectively, the images illustrate what I like to call “the animal experience.” While many people operate under the assumption that humans – and only humans – experience profound emotions such as love, grief, sorrow and joy; that humans – and only humans – are capable of reflecting upon their lives, yearning and striving to be better, and expressing delight at pleasures great and small; and that humans – and only humans – are “people” deserving of life, anyone who has every truly known a nonhuman animal will tell you that this just isn’t so. Animals love, grieve, suffer, play, fear, cry, rebel, defend, fight and make nice, much as humans do. They think. They feel. They live and they die. In every way that matters, nonhuman animals are much more similar to humans than they are different than. Forget “the human experience”; this is the animal experience.

By the by, if you’re looking for a sweet, vegan Mother’s Day gift – or just want to spoil yourself or a friend – check out the upcoming Ninety-Five: Meeting America’s Farmed Animals in Stories and Photographs. Published by No Voice Unheard, the book features some of Peaceful Prairie’s own nonhuman residents (including sanctuary patriarch Justice as the cover model), as well as stories from sanctuary volunteer and heartstring harpist Joanna Lucas. In anticipation of the book’s release, Peaceful Prairie is currently running a special: the first 50 supporters to donate $50 or more will receive a free copy of Ninety-Five.

Perhaps Mom would like to sponsor a sanctuary resident either way?

—————–

See also:

Libby and Louie (a Valentine’s Day Love Story)

Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary: Don’t Let Him Kill Me!

Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary: Dairy is a Death Sentence

Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary: Don’t Kill My Baby!

Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary: Milk Comes from a Grieving Mother

On being someones, not somethings.

—————–

Tagged: animals animal rights activism vegan veganism peaceful prairie peaceful prairie sanctuary meat nonhumans animals farmed animals food animals intersections intersectionality personhood life animal emotions animal intelligence animal families mother’s day photo blogging

]]> http://www.easyvegan.info/2010/04/17/the-animal-experience/feed/ 0