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.

——————-

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.

* 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

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

In the comments, Helen points out that all three animals – (pussy)cat, beaver and chicken (errr, rooster; read: cock) are euphemisms for female and male genitalia. I know, so obvious! How on earth did I miss it!? Especially when I caught the significance of the beaver! Clearly, I’ve been off my game lately.

Anyhow, it’s my feeling that these gendered/speciesist slurs actually make the whole ad campaign that much more distasteful. While the targeting of men in addition to women might help to level the playing field, gender-wise (well, as much as it can be in a culture that disproportionately values women’s physical appearance and beauty – however it is defined – as opposed to men), we’re still faced with the exploitation and mockery of three nonhuman animals in order to sell…waxing products. Add to this the fact that the animals were specifically chosen for their correspondence to sexual slang, and…yeah. Ick, all around.

—————

One part “sexy meat,” one part zoo porn, with a little child sexploitation thrown in for good measure, these ads for Queen Bee Waxing are all kinds of creepy, no matter which way you slice ‘em. (Not that I’m suggesting that you should slice them! They’re animals, not deli “meat”!)

Queen Bee Waxing operates a Salon & Spa in Culver City, California. Its services include tanning, mani/pedis, facials, eyelash extensions (!), and all manner of body waxing: full leg, half leg, eyebrows, full arm, half arm, back, chest, underarms, lip, genitals, anus – wherever your body generates unsightly hair, the friendly “waxologists” of QB will be there, ripping it violently from its roots.

One caveat: some forms of waxing will cost you extra if you’re a gross, hairy cave-dude. For reals! (Don’t you just love how they assume that all men are hairier than all women? In point o’ facts, my Italian ass just so happens to grow lusher body hair than my husband’s Irish one.)

To illustrate just how childishly smooth QB can strip your bits, they’ve demonstrated their mad skills on unsuspecting animals! (Not for reals – I’m guessing/hoping that the animals below have suffered these indignities in a digital sense only.)

From top to bottom, we have a cat, a beaver [insert obligatory joke re: women's genitals here] and a chicken. Each of them stand stark naked, seemingly bewildered by their own baldness.

Actually, scratch that; the chicken looks fucking insane with rage. Can you really blame her?

So here we have three nonhuman animals, mocked, objectified and exploited, in order to sell men and women – mainly women – an extravagantly overpriced product that 1) they don’t need and 2) may be harmful to their health.

On point #1: Body hair is natural. We all have it. As babies, we are born with a soft, dewy coat, and as we age, our body hair thickens and darkens. By removing this hair – and in such large quantities – men and women are reverting to a childlike appearance. In particular, adult women are taught that to be bald and hairless is sexy and attractive. (Hello, pornification of children and childhood! Infantalization of grown women, how nice to see you again!)

On men, body hair is mostly regarded as “manly” – unless, of course, one man is “wearing” too much of it (as if it’s an accessory!), in which case it’s “gross,” “primitive,” “Neanderthal.”* In contrast, men with little or no body hair are seen as less masculine; feminized; womanly. And what’s worse than being a woman, hmmm?

Women are allowed less wiggle room in terms of “acceptable” body hair. Women are taught to pluck – nay, shape! – their brows, shave their legs and armpits (and perhaps their arms, too), and “tame” their “bikini lines” – all at an early age. Women with “too much” body hair are mocked; they are “ugly,” “manly,” “unfuckable,” “bestial.” Women with too little body hair – well, a woman can never have “too little” body hair, silly! The more a lady resembles a pre-teen girl, the better!

Speaking of pre-teen girls, while researching this piece, I unintentionally stumbled upon a morsel of information that I wish to Cheesus I could purge from my brain. To wit (and don’t say I didn’t warn you!):

Young children also get waxing treatment with children as young as eight receiving wax treatments such as eyebrows, legs and genital waxing. Such genital waxing on young girls has been called “virgin bikini” waxes, and is aimed at either reducing the girl’s need for pubic hair removal in the future or stopping hair growth permanently with as few as five or six treatments as long as the child has never shaved before. The increase demand for preteen waxing is being met by spas, with some 10,000 spas in offering services only for young girls and early teenagers in the United States of America alone. The International Spa Association has reported that 16% of teens who have had spa treatments have had waxing done. The association has not been able to give figures for younger children because it is illegal to survey them.

While the 10,000 figure seems a bit dubious, the cited resources do check out – see, for example Too young? Preteen girls get leg, bikini waxes at MSNBC and Trend: Pretty babies at Philadelphia Magazine.

I don’t think I need to parse out the high hilarity of the Wiki author’s reasoning,** but I will say that subjecting your minor child – girl or boy – to completely unnecessary and potentially harmful cosmetic procedures is child abuse, full stop. Especially when performed on the genitals! (And yes, I do think male circumcision ought to be outlawed – though I don’t consider it as grave an injustice as female genital mutilation. It’s like comparing apples to pigs, people!)

On point #2: Waxing is potentially dangerous; the more sensitive the area, the greater the danger. I think you know where I’m going with this, yeah?

All Jennifer (not her real name) wanted was a smooth bikini line. But within 24 hours of getting a bikini wax at a reputable New York City salon, an infection crept in. She developed a fever of 102, chills, and pain in her left thigh. “I thought I’d caught a cold,” she says, “but after five days, the pain was worse.”

Her doctor diagnosed her with cellulitis, a potentially life-threatening bacterial infection of the skin and the underlying tissue. Jennifer spent the next 15 days in the hospital hooked up to an IV that pumped her full of antibiotics and heavy-duty painkillers. She also had surgery to drain the infection. “One doctor said I could have lost my leg!” she recalls. “It took me months to recover physically and emotionally from the whole ordeal—a steep price to pay for a little vanity.”

While there are no reliable stats on body wax related complications, Jennifer’s experience wasn’t unique. This past March, the state of New Jersey nearly banned Brazilian bikini waxes after two women landed in the hospital as a result of them (one of the women filed a lawsuit against the state cosmetology board). And in 2007, an Australian woman with type 1 diabetes almost died of a bacterial infection she got after a bare-it-all wax.

What makes them risky? “Pubic hair is there for a reason—to protect the sensitive skin and mucous membranes in the genital region,” explains Linda K. Franks, M. D., an assistant clinical professor of dermatology at the New York University School of Medicine. “Getting a wax literally strips away that layer of protection.”

Waxing can also pull off tiny pieces of the skin’s outermost layer, creating a portal through which bacteria can enter the body. What’s more, the process creates inflammation, which can trap bacteria beneath the skin. All of this sets the stage for skin infections (including staph), folliculitis (infection of the hair follicles), and ingrown hairs.

“Anytime you compromise the integrity of the skin, you’re going to increase your risk of infection,” Franks says. She advises people who have diabetes, chronic kidney or liver disease, skin conditions such as eczema or psoriasis, or weakened immune systems to avoid waxing altogether.

(By the way, I have had folliculitis – not related to waxing – and it is brutal.)

Radical suggestion: Since waxing body hair (pubic hair in particular) is an unnecessary and risky procedure that primarily serves to conform to and reinforce sexist beauty standards*** – and also perpetuates rampant consumerism – why not forgo it altogether? Just sayin’.

And then there was the chicken. As disturbing as I find the first two images, it’s not often one sees a cleanly plucked cat or beaver. These ads are creepy, yes, but almost cartoonishly so. Chickens, on the other hand, are routinely “plucked” clean (read: defeathered) as part of the slaughtering process.

Once inside the slaughterhouse, fully conscious birds are hung by their feet from metal shackles on a moving rail. The first station on most poultry slaughterhouse assembly lines is the stunning tank, where the birds’ heads are submerged in an electrified bath of water. Although poultry is specifically excluded from the Humane Slaughter Act which requires stunning, the practice is common because it immobilizes the birds and expedites assembly line killing. [...]

After passing through the stunning tank, the birds’ throats are slashed, usually by a mechanical blade, and blood begins rushing out of their bodies. Inevitably, the blade misses some birds who then proceed to the next station on the assembly line, the scalding tank. Here they are submerged in boiling hot water. Birds missed by the killing blade are boiled alive. This occurs so commonly, affecting millions of birds every year, that the industry has a term for these birds. They are called “redskins”.

And, from the Vegetarian Society,

Broiler chickens are slaughtered at just 6-7 weeks of age (a chicken’s natural lifespan is around 7 years). Almost 800 million broiler chickens (784.39 million) were slaughtered in the UK in 2008 (798.52 million in 2007). On reaching the slaughterhouse, broiler chickens are removed from their crates and hung upside down shackled by their feet to a moving line whilst still fully conscious. Their heads and neck are dragged through an electrically charged water bath designed to stun the birds, rendering them unconscious. The moving line then takes the birds to an automatic neck cutter. Birds are then bled before entering a scalding tank to make the plucking easier. Broilers often experience pain and struggle while hung in shackles, and they may suffer during the slaughter process. It is estimated that over 50 million broilers across the European Union may be slaughtered while fully conscious.

Or perhaps our dear QB mascot is a genetically engineered “featherless” chicken, so “designed” to “grow” in hot climates? (By the way, this article? Totally makes me reconsider my earlier – albeit ancillary – praise of Dr. Tatiana.)

In this context the waxed chicken ad is even more tasteless than are the others. “Ick” all around.

—————

* Interestingly, body removal methods are also marketed to both men and women as a means to look less “animal” or “ape” like – as though we aren’t indeed both animals and apes! See, for example, Body Hair Makes You An Ape at Sociological Images.

** The choice is either wax the genitals of a 9-year-old girl between two and six times, or condemn your daughter to a lifetime spent torturing her junk? Talk about a false dilemma! How about not waxing one’s lady bits at all!?

*** Sexist in that they do not apply equally to women and men. Seriously; how many men do you know who are completely hairless? ****

**** Similarly, PETA has employed these stereotypes and differing standards of beauty in its anti-fur campaigns.

On one end of the spectrum, PETA shames women who don’t sufficiently conform to modern norms regarding the grooming of pubic hair. Women with “fur trim” – i.e., unkempt bikini lines – are mocked as “fashion victims,” akin to nonhuman animals who are enslaved, tortured and murdered for their (attractively hairy) skin (!):

The take-home message? Women who don’t look like modern-day porn stars are “a turnoff.” Nice!

In contrast, men are more likely to see their body hair – their natural “fur” – being celebrated (if humorously so):

That said, most of PETA’s models and spokescelebs are either waxed or airbrushed back to infancy – a practice in accordance with modern trends.

—————

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare advertisements waxing, beauty feminism feminist animals and women intersections parallel oppressions body hair pubic hair body waxing queen bee waxing pop culture photo blogging peta fur fur trim flickr photos chickens cats beavers bald factory farming slaughter featherless chickens

Update, 1/7/10: In the comments, Cara pointed out that the cow isn’t in leaning on a bar counter as I first thought, but into a car window. She is indeed a prostitute – a “street walker,” if you will – picking up a john (that would be us, the viewer!). In this context, I think it likely that all three “food” animals are dressed as prostitutes from different decades: the ’80s, the ’50s, and the ’20s, maybe?

Just when I thought it couldn’t possibly get any worse.

—————–

To date, all of the advertisements involving “sexy meat” that I’ve dissected have depicted, literally, “meat” – i.e., dead meat. While this conflation of sex with death and violence is incredibly disturbing, the advertisers’ motives for doing so are obvious: clearly, they want us to think not of the living, sentient beings these corpses used to be, but of the delicious, succulent foodstuffs that they have been processed into. Objectified, the animals are things to be bought, sold and consumed. Worse still, they are absent referents – invisible, erased beings whom we aren’t meant to consider at all.

In this context, I’m not sure whether these advertisements for Martini Bitter are more or less disturbing than those for Rachachuros and McCormick seasonings or the DIY tutorial for making bikini-clad turkeys.

Each image depicts a living “food” animal dressed to look like an “easy” woman.

From top to bottom, we have:

“Beef”: In a smoky, hazy (read: seedy) bar or night club, a cow leans suggestively on the counter, as if to order a drink or “pick up” the man standing next to her – that is, the man behind the camera (hello, male gaze!). Her hoofs – which, somewhat suggestively, resemble the tips of two penises* – are crossed loosely at the wrists (ankles?). She’s white, with a full head of flowing white hair. However, the lighting in the bar casts a soft pink hue on her fur.

We know that the cow is a “she” because her body has all the trappings of femininity: she wears a tight blue dress, complete with cleavage and plunging neckline (instead of multiple udders, the cow has been enhanced with two D-cups!); her outfit is accessorized with multiple necklaces and bracelets; and she carries a pink purse slung over one shoulder. (In fact, her garish pink purse doesn’t quite obscure the subtle curve of her ass; you can spot it, hiding in the shadows – if you dare!) The cow wears makeup, too: a hint of pink eyeshadow and lipstick. Sadly, the makeup might be the most tasteful aspect of this “artwork”!

All in all, the “beef” ad has a very ’80s feel about it. Possibly the cow is just a “loose,” liberated women, looking for a one-night stand; or perhaps she’s a (*ahem*) “working girl.” Either way, the viewer is meant to understand that she (*gasp*) enjoys sex – and quite a bit of it, at that.

“Pork”: In contrast to the cow, our dear pig looks to be a flirty secretary or ’50s pinup girl rather than a more modern woman (a “working girl” in the 9 to 5 sense?). Dressed in a cute, frilly green blouse/skirt combo, she sits atop a desk; whether it belongs to her, her boss or her husband, we know not. She leans back suggestively, one hand (also very penile in nature) resting on the desk, supporting her, the other bent back behind her head. Maybe she’s about to give the (male) audience a playful flick of her brunette hair, or perhaps she’s treating us to a better view of her breasts (which are more of a B cup to the cow’s D; could this be because our pig comes from a more innocent time?).

Again, we perceive the pig as “female” because she’s extremely “feminine.” In addition to the clothing, she wears her hair long and pulled away away from her face with a red ribbon. She sports matching red pumps and a “tasteful” pearl necklace. Her posture, too, is “feminine” – submissive and compliant, the perfect servant/secretary!

This lady might look classy, but she’s still “easy” – her knee-length skirt is pulled up, revealing a generous portion of her “meaty” thighs. Remember the good ole days, when there was more of women to love! How did they say it?: “More cushion for the pushin’!” Or, in this case, “More meat for the teeth!” Indeed.

“Mutton”: Our third and final ad takes us back even further in time, to a turn-of-the-century brothel (or a modern-day retro replication?). The sheep is either a prostitute (*cough*whore*cough*) or, perhaps, a burlesque dancer (*cough*whore*cough*) – but my money’s on the former.

In comparison to the cow and the pig, the sheep is butt nekked! Yes, silly, she has a full coat of fur (“wool”) – but that’s no more concealing in this context than a handlebar mustache! She’s a lady sheep, and as such, the only human/woman clothing she’s wearing is a red feather boa and black knee-high fishnets, decorated mid-thigh with a matching red rose. Her face is made up with copious amounts of eyeshadow, lipstick, rogue and mascara – clearly she’s a (*ahem*) “performer” of some sort. Completing the vintage look are a large red feather perched atop the sheep’s head and a thin pencil cigarette clutched in one hoof.

Her belly may say “lamb chops,” but her come-hither look practically screams “cheap sex.”

Each of the ads carries the same tag line and logo: next to a bottle of Martini Bitter, the copy proclaims that the product “Makes food taste that easy.”

Of course, as some readers noted at Ads of the World, a bitter is a digestive aid:

A bitter is an alcoholic beverage that contains herbal essences, has a bitter or bittersweet flavor, and is typically flavored with citrus. There are numerous brands of bitters, which were formerly marketed as patent medicines but are now considered to be digestifs rather than medicines.

Bitters are principally used as digestifs and as flavorings in cocktails.

Bitters commonly have an alcoholic strength of up to 45% ABV but are normally consumed only in small amounts as a digestif or when added as a flavoring agent (similar to vanilla flavoring, which is also dissolved in alcohol).

In this context, Martini Bitter makes “meat” (taste) “easy” – as in, easy to digest. The advertisers play up this angle by depicting the “meat” as “easy” women (who are apparently also “meats” to be “tasted” and eaten). However, this comparison – as opposed to the outright zoophilia hinted at by other AOTW commenters – does not detract from the ads’ tastelessness.

No, there are still two glaring problems, namely:

1 – The dehumanization and objectification of nonhuman animals. While the animals in these ads are clearly alive, we are not to recognize their sentience, individuality, or personhood – but their potential as a main course.** They are not whos, but whats – except that they are whos, and grossly anthropomorphized and sexualized whos, at that!

2 – The dehumanization and objectification of women – or, more accurately, the dehumanization and objectification of certain “kinds” of women. Women who either enjoy sex for sex’s sake or, worse still, are sex workers*** are fodder for jokes about rape, enslavement, violence, murder and dismemberment: “Food animals are women! Women are whores! Whores are things to be bought, sold and consumed! Hardee har har!”

Women – not “even” sluts, prostitutes, pinup girls, burlesque dancers and other assorted sex pots – are not “meat.” Neither are nonhuman animals. And sex is nothing like slaughter and butchery.

[Previous posts in the series: One, two, three.]

—————–

* Yes, I realize that cloven hoofs – hoofs split into two toes – do naturally resemble the head of a penis. That said, I think the similarity has been exaggerated in these ads; for example, the toes are soft and rounded rather than sharp and angular, better fitting with the male anatomy. In particular, the pink tones in the first image enhance the parallels; the cow’s hoofs resemble penises in both shape and color/texture.

** A motive belied by the ads’ respective titles: instead of “Cow,” “Pig,” and “Sheep,” we have “Beef,” “Pork,” and “Mutton.” To be fair, I don’t know whether Martini Bitter or AOTW named these ads – but I don’t think it much matters, either way. If the former, Martini Bitter is driving the point home; if the latter, message:received by whomever did come up with the ad titles.

*** This isn’t to suggest that the two are mutually exclusive, mind you.

—————–

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare intersections parallel oppressions violence intersectionality the pornography of meat carol j. adams animals and women speciesism sexism misogyny advertisement ad meat sex flickr photo sexy meat pornified masculine feminine porn sexy suicide food marketing photo blogging martini bitter pork beek mutton pig cow sheep rape sex worker burlesque dancer ’80s pinup girl retro secretary night club bar

These dairy-based offenses have become so frequent that even Sarah Haskins – who has poked fun at yogurt ads not once, but twice – cannot keep up with all the stupid.

First, we have this uber-obnoxious ad from Fiber One:

In case you can’t view the video, here’s the gist: A thin, blonde, WASP-y looking woman – who, incidentally, appears to have stepped straight out of the ’80s – runs into a friend at a Fiber One sample station, located outside the supermarket’s exit. Our fair WASP is dressed head-to-toe in oversized accessories: softball-sized “pearl” earrings and necklace; a bracelet that might have been fashioned out of a mug from Central Perk; huge, Pee Wee Herman sunglasses; a purse the size of a backpack; a heart-shaped pendant nearly as big as her head. And…a large dog. A Great Dane, perhaps?

The large accessories are supposed to make her body look smaller and thinner when viewed next to their comical monstrosity. Why resort to such crazy antics, the commercial suggests, when you can just go on a semi-liquid Fiber One yogurt diet and slurp your way to an eating disorder?

Aside from the emphasis on thinness (incidentally, neither of the two women are what you’d call “fat,” yet the need for dieting is not questioned, but reinforced), there’s some pretty casual and nefarious speciesism at play here. The dog is likened to an object, a fashion accessory, a tool of sorts; something to be disposed of when no longer needed. He’s not treated as someone, but something. Earrings, necklace, bracelet, sunglasses, purse, pendant, dog: one of these things is not like the other.

The disposal of “pets,” by the by, is a pretty serious problem. Perhaps this commercial might seem like a harmless joke – but try explaining the punch line to the three to four millions cats and dogs killed in U.S. shelters each year.

Thankfully, the next offender isn’t speciesist, rather, it’s just plain stupid.

Here, a woman visits her friend at home, only to find said friend in the middle of a yoga workout. And an advanced one, at that: I’ve been doing yoga for several years, in the comfort of my own home. If pressed, I’d call myself an intermediate yogi: not a beginner, not advanced, just so-so. I don’t know whether the pose our Yoplait victim has twisted herself into is a “real” one, but it’s fairly impressive.

Anyhow, the friend comes bearing not one, but two containers of Yoplait yogurt – the one she’s snacking on, and an extra she just happens to have in her purse (!). When our yogi asks what she’s eating, the friend smugly explains that it’s Yoplait’s Yoplus yogurt, a “special blend” for “digestive health” (as if probiotics are unique to this one particular brand of yogurt – not!). The friend offers her the second, unopened container from her purse, at which point the yogi whines, “I can’t find my hand.”

The message: why waste your time exercising when you can just consume our product? (Nevermind that the yogi’s ass looks so toned that you could bounce a quarter off of it.) Yoplait one-ups Fiber One by promoting dieting to the exclusion of exercise.

Then again, at least Yoplait doesn’t encourage its audience to toss out their “pets” like yesterday’s fads once they’ve outlived their usefulness.

————————

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare commercial ad video video blogging dog canine pet companion animal animal companion yogurt yoplait fiber one probiotics dairy speciesism yoga exercise dieting sexism misogyny beauty fat thinness obesity

Man-on-the-street survey asks for new names for Hardee’s Biscuit Holes. Wait until you see what they come up with! Got a better name? Tell us at www.NameOurHoles.com and star in your own commercial.

To the extent that it focuses on male anatomy, this commercial is a welcome relief from the company’s traditional, misogynist fare:
 

But that’s not to suggest that the Biscuit Holes campaign evens the scoreboard. As I told my husband, the “misandry” will only begin to rival the misogyny* once Hardee’s starts lacing its commercials with gratuitous close-ups of bouncing, disembodied balls being dunked into coffee mugs or casting hairy-chested, mankini-wearing men in its softcore necrophilic fetish ads – for the sex, not the funny. So far, Hardee’s is all talk, no (live) action.

Given Hardee’s long (long!) history of exploiting women to hawk their wares, Ben Mayo Boddie’s objection to the Biscuit Holes campaign – and, as best I can tell, only to the Biscuit Holes campaign – is all kinds of offensive:

The Rocky Mount, N.C., franchisee of Hardee’s restaurants, the company’s largest franchisee, is blasting the burger chain’s newest advertising campaign and says it will not place the spots in any of the markets in which it operates eateries.

In a letter responding to complaints from the Parents Television Council, Ben Mayo Boddie, chairman of franchisee Boddie-Noell Enterprises, states: “Thank you for your recent letter complaining about the biscuit hole advertising. I agree with you 100 percent. Why in heavens name does Hardee’s Food Systems and Mendelsohn Zien Advertising want to put Hardee’s in a category that diminishes not only the product but the brand itself?”

Boddie has asked executives with the company that owns the Hardee’s brand, CKE Restaurants, to eliminate the spots in all markets.

Jenna Petroff, a spokeswoman for CKE Restaurants, says there are no current plans to drop the ads, which she says will be aired only after 9 p.m.

She said the franchisees are free to air or not air any ads in their markets at their discretion. She said CKE “ … adopts a creative approach to our advertising. It is intended to communicate the core message of our premium quality food to our target audience of young, hungry guys. We do not aim to exclude or offend any other group with our efforts, but merely to appeal and amuse a very specific audience. We understand that not everyone may view our advertising the same way and we respect all views.”

Newsflash, Boddie (oh, Boddie, your ripeness for puns, I adore it!): Hardee’s crossed that line many, many years ago. In fact, this seems to be Hardee’s sole branding strategy. Paris Hilton. Padma Lakshmi. The Girlfriend. The Fist Girl. The Hot Teacher with the Flat Buns. The Hot Chick on the Mechanical Bull. The Actual Chick with the Huge Breast(s). Shall I keep going?

And yet, it’s only when the focus turns to men’s naughty bits that you take offense. Up until now, you’ve apparently been more than happy to rake in the money, hand over fist, which has been “earned” in part through the exploitation of women’s actual bodies. Why is that, hmmm?

—————–

* My spell checking program’s recognition of “misogyny” and rejection of “misandry” delights me so! Not that some groups of men aren’t shat on, it’s just that you rarely hear the word used by anyone but woman-hating, delusions of persecution-harboring straight white Christian men. Plus, these men are usually covered by other terms, such as “racism,” “homophobia,” “transphobia,” “xenophobia,” etc.

So, meh.

—————–

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare carl’s jr. fast food padma Padma Lakshmi paris Paris Hilton commercial ad advertisement video video blogging youtube spoof meat sex gender objectification sexy meat sexism misogyny speciesism cow pig chicken top chef Western Bacon Cheeseburger Hardee’s Biscuit Holes testicles balls anus man on the street

(A word of warning: I’ve embedded seven – yes, seven! – videos below. While I don’t expect y’all to watch the uber-exploitative extended cuts, the other five are must sees.)

The commercial shows a scantily-clad (hiked skirt, plunging neckline, push-up bra) Padma strolling through an open air market, eying the fresh fruits and veggies with approval. The soundtrack is sensual, jazzy, worldly; the lyrics “’round the world” repeat on a loop. The viewer feels as though Padma could be anywhere: Istanbul, Paris, Barcelona.

And then, the voice over: “I’ve always had a love affair with food. I think I’ve tasted every flavor imaginable.”

Padma, seemingly arriving at her destination, plops down at the foot of an urban stoop, the distinctive white Carl’s Jr. bag in one hand. Suddenly, the atmosphere is very American – NYC, to be exact – and unappealingly so (read: inescapable American fast food chains).

Anyhow, Padma plops down, feet placed wide apart, so that the audience is treated to an almost-upskirt shot. Apparently we’re voyeurs now. (I didn’t sign up for this! I just wanted to watch 30 Rock in peace, dammit!)

“But there’s something about Western Bacon.”

Padma pulls a ridiculously large burger from her sack, and thrusts it into her mouth. She yanks a strip of “bacon” out from under the bun, and dangle-drops it into her mouth, all sexy-like. Probably Carl’s Jr. would like all the het dudes watching to imagine that she’s fellating it. The bacon. A pig corpse. Shudder.

“It reminds me of being in high school…”

Inexplicably, Padma hikes the skirt of her dress up to mid-thigh at this point. While, um, still scarfing the burger with her other hand. Sweet jeebus, who does that!?

“…sneaking out before dinner to savor that sweet, spicy sauce…”

Cue gratuitous tit shot.

Somewhat fortuitously (yeah right!), the aforementioned sweet and spicy sauce is now beginning to drip from the burger, down Padma’s hand and wrist. Naturally, she licks it off with an extended tongue – the likes of which I’ve only seen on my dog-kids, while attempting to dislodge peanut butter from the roofs of their mouths.

For some reason, both of Padma’s hands are now covered in sauce. Using her free hand, she smears some on her face. (And the het dudes say, “Show us the money!”)

“…and leaving no evidence behind.”

Padma separates another strip of pig flesh from the gooey mess in her hand, and pulls it into her mouth with a hyperactive tongue.

Ooops! Would you look at that! Some BBQ sauce has dribbled onto Padma’s freshly Naired leg! (Didn’t see that coming, nosiree!) Alas, Carl’s Jr. does not bother packing napkins (presumably for this very reason), so Padma wipes the sauce/ejaculate from her calf and licks it – nay, sucks it – from her finger. Subtle, Carl’s Jr. is not.

What looks to be a triple-”meat” sandwich appears on the screen, ready for its closeup.

Narrator dude chimes in: “The Carl’s Jr. Western Bacon Six Dollar Burger: More than just a piece of meat.”

Ironical, since neither Padma nor the pigs, cows and chickens featured in this commercial are treated like anything but “pieces of meat.”

There’s also an extended cut, which clocks in at 1:13, compared to the 33 second spot above. Mostly it’s more of the same, with a little added orgasmic imagery: Padma “pops” a pea (“Don’t worry, honey, it happens to everyone – even vegetables!”); Padma licks the burger (given the burger’s curves, this is strangely suggestive of cunnilingus; surely I can’t be the first person to notice!?); etc. Hey, I warned you.

Now, I could give you a feminist breakdown of how displaying women’s disembodied parts (i.e., breasts, thighs, legs, mouth, tongue, etc.) makes the sum of these parts (in this case, Padma) seem less human; explain the male gaze, and demonstrate how Padma is playing to it; and point out that the conflation of “meat” (which is the production of exploitation, abuse, violence and death) with sex is harmful to human and non-human animals alike.

(Lest Carl’s Jr. leave you with any doubts as to the motivation behind their casting decisions, here’s their official commentary on the Padma ad:

“When we found out Padma was such a fan of the Carl’s Jr. Western Bacon Cheeseburger, she was a natural fit to star in the television campaign for Hardee’s new Western Bacon Thickburger,” said Brad Haley, executive vice president of marketing for Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr. restaurants. “In many ways, she was the perfect choice for our ‘Young, Hungry, Guy’ customers because she’s beautiful, she’s a culinary expert, she’s beautiful, she’s very smart, and she’s beautiful. In the ads, she just tells the story of her long love affair with this classic burger, and she looks great doing it.”

Hey, Carl’s Jr.! You might want to reconsider that “not just a piece of meat” tag line, mkay? You’re Not. Fooling. Anyone.)

In all honesty, though, when I first caught this commercial on the teevee, all I could say to my husband (who, incidentally, does not go by the name “Felipe”) was, “Imagine how fucking ridiculous this would look with Guy Fieri.” (So chosen because he’s a fellow chef-turned-fast food industry shill.)

And then I realized: no fantasizing necessary!

Probably y’all remember the infamous Carl’s Jr. ad featuring an even less-dressed Paris Hilton, wherein she gobbles down a Spicy BBQ Burger while, um, washing a Mercedes (?) in ankle-crushing stilettos and a fetishistic black swimsuit?

Extended edition, for the masochistic:

Well, the “controversial” commercial was so “controversial” (read: viewed and discussed) that it spawned a number of spoofs, most of which feature men.

The most popular spoof, of course, was made by a hairy, oversized white guy (Hurley!), who gets mad props for replicating Hilton’s strappy bikini:

I say “of course” (it’s popular) because the skit doesn’t so much subversively poke fun at gender roles, as it invites the viewer to laugh at a fat guy who obviously has no business appearing in public while carrying all those fat rolls. In short, it’s not as feminist as it is fat-shaming.

Luckily, I also found two spoofs made by trim guys. On the downside, neither is wearing the Hilton bikini (though the first washboy is brave enough to appear in a “mankini,” and the second dons heels to hilarious effect).

Let’s see if the reversed gender roles are as silly when we compare apples to apples, shall we?

Unnamed Dude #1:

And Dude #2, the titular Felipe:

I don’t know about you, but I love Felipe in the summer…in heels, and with a Boca Burger, too.

And yet, I doubt an Emeril Lagasse Slip ‘n’ Slide / Carl’s Jr. milkshake ad is in the works.

——————-

Update, 7/21/10: And the Hoff gets into the act, with this spoof ad for his upcoming Comedy Central Roast. Awesomeness.
 

Sure, he’s probably mocking that drunken burger video as much as he is the Paris Hilton Hardee’s ad, but still. AWESOMENESS.

——————-

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare carl’s jr. fast food padma Padma Lakshmi paris Paris Hilton commercial ad advertisement video video blogging youtube spoof meat sex gender objectification sexy meat sexism misogyny speciesism cow pig chicken top chef Western Bacon Cheeseburger Spicy BBQ Burger Guy Fieri applebee’s Emeril Lagasse