When mercenary mansplainers and faux-progressives grouse about being deprived of their eye candy entitlements - it's the 1970s all over again! Shulamith Firestone nailed it when she said: "Radical men may advocate certain freedoms for women when they overlap their own interest..." When Firestone 'went too far' in denouncing the specific forms of sexual oppression that her male comrades enjoyed as privileges for their own benefit, she was maligned for her scathing honesty.
There is much valid criticism of PETA's spurious monopoly and its claim that it is an *ethical* champion for animal rights.
Here's why many feminist thinkers - vegetarians and vegans, rescuers of abused and abandoned animals, supporters and donors to genuine animal wellbeing organizations, do NOT endorse PETA's tactical shenanigans.
[...]PETA has more or less dropped their initial pretense that they're simply cashing in on the sex appeal of attractive spokesmodels to draw attention to the cause of animal rights. The old "I'd rather be naked than wear fur" campaigns that I remember from my childhood were cute and harmless.From here.
PETA has since graduated to ads and PR stunts depicting women as corpses, or animal carcasses with the names of cuts of meat written on their bodies as if they're waiting to be butchered. In one charming and frequently recycled campaign, PETA recruited naked pregnant women to pose as pigs in cages.
Using sex appeal to sell social justice is as old as social justice movements, and not something to get upset about, per se. PETA has gotten into the business of selling degradation.
I’m a supporter of animal rights who eats a mostly vegetarian diet (I occasionally eat fish). I support organizations like the Humane Society and the SPCA, and I would support PETA if they didn’t make a habit of lying, misrepresenting scientific data, and using images of dehumanized scantily clad and nude women to get money and attention[...]From here.
The same was true for objectification. Both sexual ads and non-sexual ads objectified the women in them, but the sexual ads dehumanized the women in a way that resulted in decreased support. Objectified women were also judged as lacking credibility, but that alone didn’t account for a drop in support – only dehumanization did that.
The other interesting characteristic of this paper is that it is the first to show a link between the dehumanization of women and unethical behavior unrelated to gender and sex. Many feminists have made this point in the past, so it’s interesting to see a study that supports the assertion. I hope we see more research in the area, despite the fact that it will probably do little to convince the people at PETA or the men who constantly argue that the continued objectification of women is no cause for concern.
The purpose of PETA's odious misogynist publicity tactics is to provide a steady influx of funds for the organization.
Consider this. What if the bodies thus exposed and marked up with butcher's markings were those of men resembling Mike Duffy and Rob Ford - in all their gluttonous, bloated, boozy, purple-veined raddled girth?
Now that would surely repel the RibFest customers and put them off eating meat, at least in proximity to such protest.
Disgusting? Yes.
Degrading? Yes.
De-humanizing? Yes.
But unlike the ongoing use of comely, attractive female interns and volunteers as tasty tidbits, exploiting such men would not be conducive to raising more millions$$$ for PETA's well-larded coffers.
One last word:
