by Stephanie Baran
Doctoral Student and Lecturer
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Social justice organizations, one would think, would be the last place one might find racism, sexism and ableism to mention a few, but we would be remiss if we did not give some critical attention to these organizations – most notably PETA. Sure, using the mantra of ‘sex sells’ will get the message out, on the news and in people’s faces, but at what cost? Is the goal of using women in positions of suffering in the place of animals really accomplishing the end? I ask this because perhaps in our own social life, seeing women placed in violent positions is actually not all that uncommon. One can just flip on the news and find a report about ciswomen or transwomen being catcalled, stalked, beaten and murdered for something as simple as saying no to a man. Also, by positing the ‘proper’ vegan as an ablebodied, cis, white, skinny woman – they erase so many other bodies and abilities as vegans and make vegan/vegetarianism an exclusive club versus and inclusive, safe space. Therefore, PETA’s attempt at an analogy fails because in present patriarchal society, women are meat.
PETA’s imagery create a visualized patriarchy, and does not act in a way that is revolutionary or countering to the established frame. PETA states their mission as “animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way” (peta.org). While this is their mission statement in relation to animals, they do some of these exact things to women. They must manufacture the consumption of sex to sell their products and also motivate people to support their mission. In order to reach the general consuming public, PETA must use the language of the dominant group: the established patriarchal white male gaze to sell social justice.
Doctoral Student and Lecturer
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Social justice organizations, one would think, would be the last place one might find racism, sexism and ableism to mention a few, but we would be remiss if we did not give some critical attention to these organizations – most notably PETA. Sure, using the mantra of ‘sex sells’ will get the message out, on the news and in people’s faces, but at what cost? Is the goal of using women in positions of suffering in the place of animals really accomplishing the end? I ask this because perhaps in our own social life, seeing women placed in violent positions is actually not all that uncommon. One can just flip on the news and find a report about ciswomen or transwomen being catcalled, stalked, beaten and murdered for something as simple as saying no to a man. Also, by positing the ‘proper’ vegan as an ablebodied, cis, white, skinny woman – they erase so many other bodies and abilities as vegans and make vegan/vegetarianism an exclusive club versus and inclusive, safe space. Therefore, PETA’s attempt at an analogy fails because in present patriarchal society, women are meat.
PETA’s imagery create a visualized patriarchy, and does not act in a way that is revolutionary or countering to the established frame. PETA states their mission as “animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way” (peta.org). While this is their mission statement in relation to animals, they do some of these exact things to women. They must manufacture the consumption of sex to sell their products and also motivate people to support their mission. In order to reach the general consuming public, PETA must use the language of the dominant group: the established patriarchal white male gaze to sell social justice.
Within PETA advertising, skinny, white women are the most utilized models. While black women and women of color are also photographed, they are often photographed for shoots that have an ‘exotified’ frame or are ‘jezebelish’ in tone. Men of color are featured in similar ads, except these photos are images of power, strength, but allude to animal-like qualities, which is problematic.
Also, many of PETA’s images feature <specifically> women in violent positions, strung up on meat hooks, enduring a foie gras simulation, and being photographed on a coroner’s table, etc. While PETA desires to use the suffering of women as stand-ins for the suffering of animals – these images are no different than perhaps your normalized horror film fare. Is the method of using women’s bodies in this manner really making the connection to animal cruelty for the viewing public?
PETA uses this same problematic message for advertisements about intelligence and other (dis)abilities. PETA uses bogus science
PETA uses this same problematic message for advertisements about intelligence and other (dis)abilities. PETA uses bogus science
to try and connect autism with dairy consumption and intelligence with meat consumption. These ads feature a healthy dose of fatphobia and use fat bodies as punching bags instead of simply using other advertising slogans that aren’t problematic. What this does is shame bodies and people for not meeting the socially created ideals of skinniness. These advertisements essentially erase fat vegans and vegetarians, because using PETA’s logic, if you were a vegan or non-meat eater, you would be skinny, which is just. not. true. A key point in the presentation of bodies, is that of course, being skinny or thin is not a problem - but lifting up some women, at the expense of pushing down others (those who are not seen as skinny) is not. Being body positive is not demonizing fat women or skinny women or any size woman in preference for another type of body – that would be the opposite.
Body positivity is connected to body policing, which PETA does their fair share. For example, in protest of using fur trim or fur in general, several of their ads utilize this no fur trim in reference to unsightly pubic hair. There are also unsubstantiated claims that dairy products cause acne and other socialized stigmas about the skin. With these advertisements, PETA does nothing revolutionary or countering the established frames by supporting these socialized ideals about beauty and ‘good’ skin.
Connected to the body policing of women, PETA also inserts its ideals of masculinity on men as well. For example, PETA uses a cis, heteronormative gaze to connect meat consumption with a lack of ability for them to have sex with <the very specified> women. Therefore, instead of advocating vegan/vegetarian lifestyles for the sake of the animal – PETA sells it as a masculinity boost. Included in the imagery of hyper-masculinity, are nodes to domestic violence. With their video, BWVAKTBOM or My Boyfriend Went Vegan And Knocked The Bottom Out Of Me, depicts a woman, walking down the street naked in a disheveled state, with a neck brace returning home to her boyfriend fixing a wall. Here, going vegan means increased strength, rougher sexual experiences and no questions about performance and masculinity. PETA does not question fragile masculinity – but supports it.
In contrast, ads featuring out gay/queer men are more in alignment with the way women and their body hair is policed. This is accomplished by putting a big no fur sign – to really drive the point home- about proper body maintenance. In fact, in this particular photo, this man is almost hairless. Therefore, these images highlight the perceived effeminate body ideals of gay men – which erase all types of gay men that can and do exist.
Connected to the body policing of women, PETA also inserts its ideals of masculinity on men as well. For example, PETA uses a cis, heteronormative gaze to connect meat consumption with a lack of ability for them to have sex with <the very specified> women. Therefore, instead of advocating vegan/vegetarian lifestyles for the sake of the animal – PETA sells it as a masculinity boost. Included in the imagery of hyper-masculinity, are nodes to domestic violence. With their video, BWVAKTBOM or My Boyfriend Went Vegan And Knocked The Bottom Out Of Me, depicts a woman, walking down the street naked in a disheveled state, with a neck brace returning home to her boyfriend fixing a wall. Here, going vegan means increased strength, rougher sexual experiences and no questions about performance and masculinity. PETA does not question fragile masculinity – but supports it.
In contrast, ads featuring out gay/queer men are more in alignment with the way women and their body hair is policed. This is accomplished by putting a big no fur sign – to really drive the point home- about proper body maintenance. In fact, in this particular photo, this man is almost hairless. Therefore, these images highlight the perceived effeminate body ideals of gay men – which erase all types of gay men that can and do exist.
While not all of PETA’s ads are misogynistic and violent, the fact that even one of these ads exist should give us pause. Therefore, while PETA claims to be ridding the world of oppression against animals, it uses women to frame that oppression. The problem with this analogy is that patriarchy does kill and does treat women as pieces of meat to be exotified. PETA does not reclaim ‘sexy’; counter hegemony, or anything of that nature. PETA plays to these issues that women are to be overtly sexualized and objectified because in our culture, that will give them some press. Given that the oppression and domination over women and their image, displaying women in shackles, beaten, and dismembered actually hurts women because these things actually happen. Therefore, the message that PETA tries to send is lost because patriarchy creates this system of oppression upon women in the same way that capitalism and factory farming create a system of oppression on animals.
RSS Feed
