There have been many posts criticizing PETA’s ad campaigns on Feministing, and really, it’s easy to see why. PETA consistently uses naked female bodies in its advertising, a tactic which seems to promote the objectification and sexualization of women as well as encourage the use of certain bodies (read: white, young, beautiful) in the media. Still, I wonder, in what ways do PETA’s campaigns subvert social norms and empower women?
I came to this question after reading an enlightening article, “Image events and PETA's anti fur campaign,” by Lesli Pace. In the piece, Pace dissects PETA’s *anti-fur campaign from a traditional feminist perspective (as Feministing has done time and again) and then from her own perspective. I won’t recap the traditional feminist perspective, because I think most know it, but here is a summary of her own thoughts on the matter:
a) that the women in anti-fur campaign ads exude pride and confidence by looking directly at the camera, and so are active subjects of the photos, as opposed to passive objects
b) that not all of the ads are sexual—some are silly, threatening, or cute—and that the message of the photo is kept within the context of the personality of the celebrity who is posing in it
c) that the discourse these ads generate on the stereotypes of beauty and sexuality help promote a questioning of social norms
d) that the ads function both within and without of the patriarchal system. (ie, this fur trim ad challenges how we make sense of the body by displaying a woman who doesn’t shave her genital region. While the ad criticizes her “fur trim,” it is still an example of the use of a nontraditional female body in the media. http://media.nowpublic.net/images/8f/c/8fcfacc831f72cfbe11abecfa7a4df52.jpg)
e) that the ads encourage us to sympathize with the idea of a body (human or animal) on display
I want to add two points to Pace’s argument:
1) that at least 25% of PETA’s anti-fur ads include men (see PETA’s website: http://www.peta.org/MC/printAds_clothing.asp).
2) that the models in the campaign are volunteers—most feminists scoff at this point but I think this it is important. Shouldn’t it matter that the women choose to portray themselves in a confident, and yes, sometimes sexual, way? If we take away their ability to choose how they present themselves, are we not objectifying them as well?
It is dangerous for us to keep using the women-as-victims lens each time we see an ad in the media—we should instead question, what is the woman’s role in this ad? And how could this ad be beneficial for women in society?
*Pace only analyzes the anti-fur campaign--I’m not sure if her ideas translate to PETA’s other campaigns.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: PETA: Not So Bad After All?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10360
There are some good points here.
One of my main problems every time a PETA ad comes up is that people assume that sexualization = bad. I think that's very short-sighted, and doesn't even try to take female sexuality into account.
And call me a terrible feminist, but I refuse to have a problem with something just because it's sexual. There are plenty of ads out there that piss me off and are actually degrading, and they usually have nothing to do with sex. Ads that seem to believe that PMS makes women into raging bitches, or that lesbians are worthy of mockery, or that fathers should make sure their teenage daughters don't ever date -- these are worth complaining about.
Exactly. I do think PETA has made some pretty degrading things (that girls-gone-wild esque video, for instance), but the assertive sexuality in these ads is not a bad thing. And when you look at their archive of anti-fur ads and see the range within the ads, it gets harder and harder to criticize them.
I guess I've never perceived any feminists as making the blanket assumption that sexualization=bad. That's a characterization of feminists that is almost always imposed from the outside by people who want to trivialize feminist positions, and we do ourselves a disservice to accept it.
When feminist critiques have been made of PETAs ads they usually focus on the negative history behind or the cultural attitudes that are involved in the ads. When PETA uses an image of a caged or chained woman, for example, they are exploiting the age-old meme that erotocizes victimization and power imbalances. This is exactly the kind of thing feminists should object to. And beyond that, using naked woman-flesh because it attracts attention to your cause is somewhat problematic in and of itself. Why does using naked woman-flesh attract so much attention, and is this the kind of thing that a responsible group should exploit? Would it attract the same kind of attention if you used naked man-flesh? If not, then the practice rests on a basic inequity.
I continue to give measured support to PETA in spite of the ads of theirs that are offensive because I think they're doing something really important, and I hate to throw the baby out with the bath water. But that doesn't mean we can't hold them accountable.
You're right, most feminists don't see sexuality as bad--just sexualization that leads to objectification. I was trying to say that maybe these ads aren't always the objectifying type of sexuality.
Still, I definitely agree that the ways PETA usually portrays naked women plays up power roles, victimization, animalization, etc. It's important to push for a different view of nudity--as in, how can nudity not be sexual? I think this ad of theirs might hint at that:http://www.furisdead.com/images/danitykane-ad-lg.jpg . The women (female pop group Danity Kane) are naked, but are not as explicitly sexual as some other women in PETA's campaigns.
As for the question why PETA uses naked female flesh...well, that's what sells and that is what people are attracted to, for the sole purpose of being human. For the record, PETA has used naked men in their ads, both in sexual and nonsexual poses. (ie:http://www.peta.org/MC/ads/Steve-O_Rather_Go_Naked.jpg and http://www.peta.org/mc/ads/ad-kristoff.pdf)
Naked woman-flesh attracts people because it is naked woman-flesh. People are wired to be interested in sex. Of course, we could fight it if we wanted to, but why would we want to? It's normal and healthy.
In a gender-equal society, there wouldn't be less sexual advertising. If anything, there would be more, because advertisers would be more aware of female sexuality, and start objectifying men as well.
That's incredibly naive. None of this happens in a cultural vacuum, and our culture is saturated with gender norms in which obejctifying the female body is accepted and erotocized. And if the only reason advertisers use naked woman-flesh is because we're hard-wired to be interested in sex (which is obviously true) then why is it predominantly women who are used, and often in demeaning poses and situations? Are we also "hard-wired" to be turned on by the humiliation of others? Please.
I think the operative word here is "use."
Degradation is a normal part of human sexuality. You can argue that it comes from patriarchal society -- and I'm sure at least some of it does -- but the fact is that it's here and you can't get rid of it by wishing it away. If spanking turns you on now, chances are it's going to turn you on forever, and denying that is unhealthy. As long as you're conscious of the difference between reality and fantasy, it's harmless.
Women are used because male sexuality is mainstream. Women's desires aren't a huge part of the culture. Also, sexualized women appeal to a broader range of people. I read about a study where they found that men are turned on by nudity, regardless of the context, whereas women are turned on by sexuality. A lot of PETA ads appeal to both of these.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again: I don't believe that anybody should try to deny that certain things turn them on. I don't believe they should feel guilty or that it's unhealthy. But that does not mean that we can't be critical of the culture that shapes female sexuality in this way. Degradation is not necessarily a normal part of human sexuality, and throwing up your hands and claiming that women are just "naturally" going to equate degradation, mistreatment, violence, and humiliation with sexual desire is a great way to service the patriarchy. Whenever women's bodies are being "used" as nothing more than a means to an some end, you're going to have feminists objecting to it, and rightfully so.
Whatever you think about degradation and sexuality, it's not uncommon. The ads are tapping into this. And you can argue that the ads are also causing it, so it's a cycle. Vicious? Maybe.
If you want to stop people from connecting degradation with sex, you're never, ever going to succeed. The only way you might make a dent is by stopping people from spanking their kids.
I wrote a post about this a while back.
http://community.feministing.com/2008/09/sexist-vs-sexy.html
I guess your determination to see my point in the way that's convenient for you really prevents us from having a meaningful conversation about this, so I'm just gonna let it go.
My interest in the eroticization of violence and degradation is not focused on changing individual people's sexual desires or attitudes. As I've said before, this is a systemic issue, and the way to change attitudes and practices that are harmful to women is to change the cultural context in which they occur. I'm not trying to change your sexual preferences or anyone else's, but I think for some reason that's hard for you to accept. Feminism can and has already changed many cultural attitudes and practices that were harmful to women, so I think it's bizarre for you to claim that this is something that just can't be changed. Attitudes toward sex and sexuality are culturally and historically contingent, thus they can and do change. This is a historical fact, and it's extremely counterproductive to feminist goals to deny it.
My main problem is that their aim is not to reduce sales of fur, but to get PeTA some free publicity. They never bother to find out how much they actually influenced consumers, but instead have an orgasm over seeing their names in the paper again - if they were really interested in animal rights, this would not be how they followed up an advertising campaign.
But those groups who do care about the suffering of animals and have tracked how PeTA adverts affect people are pretty unanimous in declaring them worthless.
Exploiting sexuality to promote animal rights would be one thing, but does anyone really approve of exploiting sexuality to make sure that some narcissists get their fix? Especially when the narcissists aren't the ones getting naked?
Good point--can you point me to some of those people/groups who have written about the ineffectiveness of the advertisements?
I totally respect their right to choose this.
I do not respect PETA's choice to use the mostly female naked body is the best way to sell a non-sexual, non-gender-based ideal. It condescending to the women who are viewing the advertising, that their conversion is less important than mens, it's harmful because it continues to sell unattainable beauty ideals (Of course those women are confident! they're the beauty standard). PETA's choice to do nothing but use the female body, regardless of whether it's voluntary or not, is a bad choice.
a) Except that PETA uses male bodies and nonsexual female bodies as well (see:http://www.peta.org/mc/ads/ad-kristoff.pdf, http://www.peta.org/mc/ads/charlizead.pdf)
b) Not all the women in the advertisements are the beauty standard (see:http://www.peta.org/pdfs/ADbea.pdf, http://www.peta.org/MC/Billboards_ads_images/Todd_Oldham_Kathy_Najimy_ad.jpg ) (Though that is a good point, I hadn't thought of it.)
I hate PETA for reasons that go way beyond their use of naked women.
I'd be interested to hear about them.