NONHUMAN ANIMAL APPEAL: AN ECOFEMINIST EXPLORATION
OF PETA’S BUSINESS MODEL
_______________
A Thesis
Presented to the
Faculty of
San Diego State University
_______________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
in
Women’s Studies
_______________
by
Marina Elizabeth Julius
Fall 2011
iii
Copyright © 2011
by
Marina Elizabeth Julius
All Rights Reserved
iv
ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS
Nonhuman Animal Appeal: An Ecofeminist Exploration of
PETA’S Business Model
by
Marina Elizabeth Julius
Master of Arts in Women’s Studies
San Diego State University, 2011
In an attempt to rally support for its causes, People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA) has built itself on a business model. Once a small animal rights activist
group, PETA’s practices are what made it evolve into a household name, helped it garner
financial support, and contributed to it attracting millions of supporters around the world.
Feminists have long contended that PETA’s tactics are homophobic, sexist, and racist. This
thesis responds to and builds on existing feminist critiques of PETA.
Despite accusations about its arguably problematic ad campaigns, PETA continues to
utilize the same strategies that have made it successful. This paper analyzes PETA’s
business practices and proposes that a new feminist organization establish itself using
PETA’s best business practices, while doing its best to avoid compromising its values.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER
1
INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1
2
HOMOPHOBIA AND COMPULSORY HETEROSEXUALITY .............................10
3
RACIALIZED PETA CAMPAIGNS ..........................................................................19
4
VIOLENCE IN PETA CAMPAIGNS .........................................................................33
5
ACCOUNTING FOR SUCCESS IN PETA’S BUSINESS MODEL .........................44
6
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................51
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................60
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
Figure 1. Actress and model Traci Bingham models for an All Animals Have the
Same Parts PETA vegetarian ad. ...................................................................................3
Figure 2. Screen caption from the Lettuce Ladies website. .....................................................15
Figure 3.Jenna Jameson (left) and Sasha Grey (right) posing for PETA’s Too Much
Sex Can be a Bad Thing campaign. .............................................................................16
Figure 4. NBA star and actor Dennis Rodman poses for PETA’s Ink Not Mink
campaign (left) as does NBA star Gilbert Arenas (right). ...........................................20
Figure 5. Celina Jaitly models for the Stop Cruelty to Elephants campaign. Source:
PETA India Online. (2010).Celina Jaitly stands up for elephants in captivity. ..........21
Figure 6. A woman models for PETA Wildtiere Gehören in Freiheit campaign. ...................22
Figure 7. A man models for PETA Wildtiere gehören in Freiheit campaign..........................25
Figure 8. An illustration ranking the races (left) and another illustration documenting
the belief that black people were closely related to simians (right). ............................27
Figure 9. A KKK or AKC: Spot the difference demonstration.. .............................................28
Figure 10. A screen caption of PETA’s Milk Gone Wild website. ..........................................34
Figure. 11. PETA’s Hooked on Meat? campaign. ...................................................................36
Figure 12. PETA’s print Get a Taste for Foie Gras ad (left) and PETA’s live foie gras
demonstration (right). ..................................................................................................37
Figure 13. PETA’s controversial hanging campaign. ..............................................................38
Figure 14. Two images displayed at The Holocaust on Your Plate exhibit. ...........................40
Figure 15. The Go-Gos We’d Rather Go-Go Naked Than Wear Fur campaign ad
(left) and Christy Turlington’s I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur ad
(Right). .........................................................................................................................45
Figure 16. PETA’s 2010 income statement. ............................................................................47
Figure 17. PETA’s revenue charts. ..........................................................................................50
Figure 18. A chart comparing financial details of animal interest organizations. ...................53
Figure 19. PETA’s financial balance sheet. .............................................................................53
Figure 20. NOW’s financial balance sheet. .............................................................................54
Figure 21. A chart comparing economic details of women’s interest organizations. ..............55
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My deepest gratitude goes out to Bonnie Kime Scott, Anne Donadey, and Peter
Atterton, for their guidance, patience, and constructive criticism. I would also like to express
my appreciation for the Women’s Studies Department at San Diego State University, for
fostering an academic environment that encourages students to discover what they are
passionate about and pursue it. Finally, I would like to thank all of my friends and family
members who have been a steady source of love and support.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Ingrid Newkirk and Alex Pacheco co-founded People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA) in March of 1980. The admittedly hot-tempered Newkirk describes herself
as being “like a child raised by wolves” (Cantor & Galkin, 2007). Newkirk’s often-absent
father’s moods were tempestuous and her mother was emotionally detached. The closest
companion Ingrid Newkirk had was the family dog (Cantor & Galkin, 2007). From an early
age, Newkirk volunteered by feeding stray nonhuman animals, making toys for orphans, and
gathering medical supplies for people living with leprosy. She eventually became a deputy
sheriff who successfully convicted people who abused animals, including laboratory
employees who tested on animals (Newkirk, 2011). Pacheco intended to become a priest
before he visited a friend who was employed at a slaughterhouse. Horrified by what he
witnessed, Pacheco abandoned his pursuit of the priesthood and instead devoted his life to
helping nonhuman animals (Guillermo, 1993). Pacheco went on to volunteer on an antiwhaling ship and co-found PETA with Newkirk (Guillermo, 1993).
PETA grew from an unknown animal rights group to an organization with 300
employees, 75 undercover investigations, and a name recognized by millions today. While
gathered in a two-room apartment (its first meeting location), PETA decided that its first goal
would be to rally public support (Beardsley & Galkin, 2008). PETA members created
homemade placards and made their debut demonstrating at a live chicken slaughterhouse
(Beardsley & Galkin, 2008). However, PETA’s first big victory arrived in 1984, when the
activists locked themselves up in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) building to protest
the horrific abuse of baboons by researchers (Matthews, 2007). Following the release of
tapes that documented the nauseating maltreatment and subsequent public outrage, NIH
refused to take any action. After days of PETA sitting in the governmental building, risking
the possibility of being arrested for trespassing, and garnering media attention, the head of
NIH, Margaret Heckler, requested evidence of the abuses, and PETA eagerly supplied the
tapes and medical expert critiques of NIH practices. Horrified by the videos, Heckler shut
2
down the laboratory, and PETA instantly became a media sensation. PETA quickly learned
that harassment, visual evidence of cruelty, and public support, would be necessary to
achieve its goals. Since 1981, PETA has conducted 75 undercover investigations that
employed the use of video cameras, still photography, and volunteers who suffered emotional
scarring to further the cause (Beardsley & Galkin, 2008). To this day, PETA relies on
volunteers who dedicate time and money. These volunteers are more passionate because
they are directly involved in activism.
Not long after the victory at NIH, PETA realized that it should target a specific
demographic. Dan Matthews recalled that Ingrid Newkirk hired him for his previous work
with a student animal rights club and his outgoing personality (Matthews, 2007). Matthews
was cued into what appealed to younger generations and tracked down music folk hero and
vegan, Steven Morrissey (Matthews, 2007). Though Morrissey was notorious for his
reclusive behavior, Matthews called his hotel room and requested an interview for an animal
rights magazine. Morrissey was happy to take part in a cause he felt passionate about that he
even volunteered to release an animal rights song for an album PETA was creating to help
nonhuman animals. It was not long after Morrissey’s support that other folk hero celebrities
volunteered to collaborate with PETA. Eventually, household name celebrities got on board
and soon young people became intrigued in much larger numbers.
PETA has been the object of scorn and praise from a public that usually possesses
strong opinions about the animal welfare organization. Feminists, in particular, have
harbored contempt for PETA because of its heavy reliance on oppressive images. Many
feminists argue that the onus of these campaigns falls on women who are featured either as
sexualized animals or brutalized beasts. Quite often, the models simultaneously appear
butchered and objectified (as illustrated in Figure 1).
One controversial PETA ad features model and actress Traci Bingham. Bingham
gazes back at the viewer with her bare skin exposed to the elements and a sly knowing smile
on her face. Her cream-colored flesh is divided into pieces and written upon by an unseen
artist or butcher. The skin comprises descriptive nouns for cuts of meat on each geometric
area with words like “shoulder,” “rib,” “loin,” and “round.” Though the vulnerable woman is
aware of her voyeur, she seems unconcerned that she is destined for slaughter and
3
Figure 1. Actress and model Traci Bingham
models for an All Animals Have the Same Parts
PETA vegetarian ad.
consumption. On the contrary, the expression on her face may lead a person to believe that
she is merely pleased to be admired by the consumer (Feminista & ShantiShacker, 2009).
The brunette in this advertisement is selling a combination of sex and violence. But
the very important question becomes, to whom is this commodity being sold? I would
suggest that the labeled “animal” is displayed for male consumers of meat—the target
demographic of PETA. Underneath this woman’s image, PETA asserts, “All animals have
the same parts.” This PETA ad draws on all of the tried-and-true sexist strategies used by
advertisers to entice consumers. Countless images of women are created for the male gaze.
The individuals featured in PETA’s ads are often thin and scantily clad White women who
are posed in such a way that they appeal to a heterosexual male audience. Women are
frequently displayed in parts whereas men’s faces are more likely to be featured. “Body
chopping” is the term for when a woman becomes parts rather than a whole human being,
dehumanizing and reducing her to the anatomy that is considered most valuable to the
advertiser (Adams, 2004). In many cases, the photographer and sponsor maintain that each
woman models of her own free will without actually analyzing what constitutes free will in a
patriarchal capitalist society.
PETA has incorporated the same marketing strategies as many corporations by
captivating audiences with famous spokespeople. The goals and techniques used by PETA
4
have been best described by vegetarian author Jonathan Safran Foer in his book, Eating
Animals:
They call their revolution “animal rights,” but the changes PETA has won for
farmed animals (their biggest concern), while numerous, are not victories for
animal rights so much as for animal welfare: fewer animals per cage, betterregulated slaughter, vaudeville-esque (or tasteless), but this over-the-top approach
has won modest improvements that most people would say don’t go far enough.
(Does anyone oppose better-regulated slaughter and less-cramped living and
transport conditions?) Ultimately, the controversy around PETA may have less to
do with the organization than with those of us who stand in judgment of it—that
is, with the unpleasant realization that “those PETA people” have stood up for the
values we have been too cowardly or forgetful to defend ourselves. (Foer, 2009)
Foer mentions PETA’s animal welfare approach, which is to say that they are against
cruelty and believe that nonhuman animals are deserving of ethical consideration, but they do
not oppose the use of nonhuman animals for purposes that benefit humans. People who
identify as animal rights activists oppose hierarchies and argue for legal and social rights.
Unlike animal welfarists, rightists do not believe that it is tolerable to use nonhuman animals
for human benefit (Beers, 2006). A criticism many animal rights activists have against
PETA and other animal welfarists is that working toward animal welfare may sound
practical, but instead it gives the illusion that certain types of nonhuman animal oppression is
acceptable. PETA may stand for animal rights but it employs morally flexible tactics
because it has found success in all of the little victories that have led to larger ones.
The brash and often tasteless PETA ads incorporate attention-grabbing tools that
appeal to individuals seeking more fame. Celebrities proudly attend PETA’s galas and
banquets, pose for pictures with its president and co-founder, Ingrid Newkirk, and donate
money to its various causes. There are few profitable companies in existence that receive the
same free publicity from prominent figures. 1 Similar to PETA, companies that publicize
animal products exhibit scantily clad women like Paris Hilton (Kiley, 2005) and Padma
Lakshmi (Thomson, 2009) consuming its meat-based foods. Celebrities like Alicia
Silverstone (Silverstone, 2009) and Pamela Anderson (PETA, 2011a) strip for PETA and
1
In an e-mail responding to my inquiry about how much celebrities are compensated for endorsing PETA,
Street Team Coordinator of PETA2, Joey Thorpe, responded, “The celebrities who work with ones us often are
the who contact us about doing an ad, interview, etc. together. They also do them for free—we do not pay
celebrities to work with us.” (E-mail response dated February 17, 2011).
5
sing its praises. Ultimately, these tactics fit in perfectly within the dominant heteronormative
framework.
For centuries animal rights activists have had a difficult time capturing the hearts and
minds of the public. Popular culture and media offer an increasingly promising medium for
campaigns seeking social change. With the expanded use of media outlets and forums to
discuss hot topics, the standard of what can be considered a relevant scholarly resource has
diversified. Though pop culture is not necessarily scholarly in and of itself, it is imperative
for academics to research blogs, films, television, and opinions from non-academics.
Instructional pedagogy is also evolving as the popularity of the Internet gains momentum and
those with access and knowledge of its working can publish their ideas and opinions.
Feminist and author Patricia Hill Collins argues for the use of non-academic sources in
academia because not doing so is inherently racist and classist (Collins, 2000). Collins
concludes, “Oppressed groups are frequently placed in the situation of being listened to only
if [they] frame [their] ideas in the language that is familiar to and comfortable for a dominant
group” (Collins, 2000). In this context, Collins is justifying academic essays that incorporate
statements made by African-Americans who contribute to intellectual discourse without
themselves having an academic background. Acknowledging “unscholarly” discourse
prevents further silencing and marginalization of oppressed groups.
Unfortunately for nonhuman animals, they must be spoken for and PETA promotes
its causes primarily in non-academic settings. Nonhuman animals are silenced because they
are mostly unable to communicate with people and as a result academics and non-academics
alike must speak in their place. It is vital to study and discuss all relevant unscholarly
discourse concerned with speciesism because animal rights (though not necessarily animal
welfare) is a relatively new topic of discussion with fewer available resources than the more
established movements.
“Speciesism” was coined in 1970 by psychologist and author Richard Ryder
(Dunayer, 2001), then later defined by animal rights author Peter Singer as “a prejudice or
attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of
members of other species” (Singer, 2002). Speciesism is so rampant amongst human beings
that many people do not even believe that speciesism is a valid term or concern. For
example, in his book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, radical intellectual Paulo Freire (Freire,
6
2000) tirelessly argues that society must unlearn privilege and oppression and replace the
current social structure with one lacking a hierarchy. Freire does not extend this belief to
nonhuman animals. He first argues that “humankind, as beings of praxis, differ from
animals, which are beings of pure activity” (Freire, 2000). Without presenting evidence,
Freire assumes that nonhuman animals are simply beings of pure activity, which he then uses
to make the argument that a being is deserving of oppression because he or she is a being of
pure activity. Freire continues by arguing, “It is absolutely essential that the oppressed
participate in the revolutionary process with an increasingly critical awareness of their role as
Subjects of the transformation” (Freire, 2000). The respected author contends that human
beings are unique in self-realization, and by default, deserving of consideration. Although he
is one of the most revered anti-racist, anti-sexist, and anti-classist members of the
intelligentsia, he refuses to acknowledge the relevance of nonhuman animal interests.
It is irrelevant to nonhuman animals whether or not their advocates are respected
scholars. PETA creates campaigns that focus on attracting non-academics and the majority
of people viewing PETA’s advertisements are not scholars publishing their critiques in
academic journals. Thus, the average person’s point of view must be considered to assess the
efficacy and reception of PETA’s ad campaigns. Additionally, PETA has “framed ideas in
the language that is familiar to and comfortable for a dominant group,” the dominant group in
this case being human beings with the most privilege. This situation is unique in that it is
absolutely necessary for the dominant group to speak for the oppressed to prevent further
exploitation. One of the problems with oppressors speaking for the oppressed is that the
messages sometimes contain privileged assertions that undermine the overall mission to end
marginalization. In particular, in targeting the most privileged members of society, PETA
chooses to feature oppressive images of marginalized people. This alienates people who
might otherwise be allies and muddies the message PETA is attempting to convey.
The prominent feminist animal rights theorists tend to take a care ethic approach.
Ecofeminist author Josephine Donovan asserts that “women animal rights theorists seem,
indeed, to have developed more of a sense of emotional bonding with animals as the basis for
their theory than is evident in the male literature” (Donovan, 2003). Like ecofeminist vegan
author Carol Adams, Donovan rejects the hyperrational approach that many male animal
rights authors take and instead argues that nonhuman animals are deserving of rights not
7
because “they are like us,” but because they can suffer (Donovan, 2003). Cultural feminists
include ecofeminist authors and theorists Carolyn Merchant, Ynestra King, and Susan
Griffin. Cultural feminists argue, “The domination of nature, rooted in postmedieval
Western, male psychology, is the underlying cause of the mistreatment of animals as well as
of the exploitation of women and the environment” (Donovan, 2003). Rather than approach
animal rights from the viewpoint that nonhuman animals are like humans, several cultural
feminists posit that nonhuman animals are autonomous beings. Keeping that in mind,
Donovan believes, “We should not kill, eat, torture, and exploit animals because they do not
want to be so treated, and we know that. If we listen, we can hear them” (Donovan, 2003).
In this thesis, I attempt to analyze the hypermasculine, racist, and violent elements of
animal rights campaigns, all of which intersect with sexism. My work joins with and
responds to existing feminist studies in the field of animal rights and ethics. Chapter one,
concerning homophobia and compulsory heterosexuality, utilizes Marti Kheel’s article
regarding hunting and masculinity, “License to Kill: An Ecofeminist Critique of Hunters’
Discourse” (Kheel, 1995). In this chapter I analyze the culture surrounding hunting, which
includes masculinity, homophobia, and unabashedly sexist terminology. I compare the
compulsory heterosexuality embedded in hunting to the compulsory heterosexuality
ingrained in PETA’s campaigns. By exploring the problems caused by compulsory
heterosexuality, I argue that PETA is causing harm to many marginalized groups, including
nonhuman animals. Chapter two, concerning race, builds on bell hooks’ arguments in her
book Killing Rage: Ending Racism (Hooks, 1995),as well as Collins’ assertions in her book
Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment
(Collins, 2000). I examine the racist themes present in PETA’s campaigns and deduce that
they alienate the target demographic and undermine the objective. Chapter three, which
focuses on violence in PETA ads, discusses Joan Dunayer’s focus on oppressive language in
her book Animal Equality: Language and Liberation (Dunayer, 2001). PETA attempts to
reach out to marginalized groups by appealing to their personal experiences of oppression
and how they relate to the suffering of nonhuman animals. I respond to PETA equating
human and nonhuman animal oppression with Linda Burnham’s article “Race and Gender:
The Limits of Analogy” (Burnham, 1994). Regrettably, PETA creates outrage when
comparing human and nonhuman animal suffering and PETA does itself and nonhuman
8
animals a disservice by frequently infuriating the public. More importantly, PETA does not
focus enough on the significance of language and its powerful role in oppression. Chapter
four concentrates on all of the things that PETA does right: Raising money, attracting
attention to its causes, and drawing supporters. In this chapter I use PETA’s imagery,
graphs, and charts to illustrate the success PETA has experienced by building itself on a
business model. Finally, I describe in my conclusion how feminists can form a powerful and
large movement by building a new activist group that utilizes PETA’s most effective tactics,
while being careful to keep in line with feminist ethics.
This thesis focuses on an array of campaigns, including Lettuce Ladies, AKC or
KKK: Spot the Difference, Ink Not Mink, Boycott the Circus, Wildtiere gehören in Freiheit,
and Milk Gone Wild. I explore how marketing veganism to heterosexual, White men has
gradually become a significant strategy for PETA. Though there is overlap involved in all of
these visual strategies, I discuss them in separate chapters of the thesis, focusing primarily on
one type of oppression in each. Several of these campaigns contain intersectional problems
that are explored in depth throughout the thesis (PETA, 2011a). The chapters each include
PETA’s campaigns, target demographic, and the marginalized groups hurt by the ads. The
campaigns are paired with the oppressed groups that can be measured quantitatively as most
directly negatively affected by the ads. For instance, racism is harmful to most people, but
the PETA images selected to discuss it incorporate women and men of color. It is necessary
to discuss the intersectional oppression of women of color and how they are portrayed within
the racist PETA ads. For the sake of organization and clarity, the campaigns and the larger
issues they present are discussed in separate chapters, and the intersectional issues are
explored in the appropriate section. This thesis attempts to explore each oppressed group
separately, while also keeping in mind that it would be remiss not to acknowledge how they
are related.
This thesis asserts that PETA is winning several battles in the fight for animal rights
but is ultimately forgetting that by framing its campaigns within patriarchal standards, it is
simply maintaining oppression to all beings. Each chapter reveals that PETA does not do
enough to change the language that allows hierarchy to exist among all beings. Regardless of
PETA’s oversight, I will outline how PETA has found success by building itself on a
business model. Finally, I propose that PETA’s most effective tactics be utilized by a
9
potential women’s rights group so that feminists may build a larger following and raise more
money to help their causes, while also avoiding PETA’s mistakes.
10
CHAPTER 2
HOMOPHOBIA AND COMPULSORY
HETEROSEXUALITY
PETA boasts that it not only has nonhuman animal interests in mind, but that it also
supports and is supported by many in the gay community as well. Despite this, PETA
presents its campaigns and arguments in the framework of patriarchal dialogue so that it can
reassure men that they will not lose male privilege by supporting animal rights. By proving
to PETA that its campaigns are harmful to the gay community, women, and ultimately
nonhuman animals, PETA might be convinced to change its tactics.
PETA relies on what Adrienne Rich refers to as compulsory heterosexuality—the
argument that “heterosexuality not only describes sexual desires, practices and orientations
but is a political institution. The enforcement of heterosexuality for women as a means of
assuring the male rights of physical, economic and emotional access is a central component
of gender inequality” (Pascoe, 2007). Activists with privilege who challenge the existing
hierarchy risk being ostracized by other privileged people. Operating from a privileged
heterosexual politic, men can scorn others who join political movements, and consider PETA
apart from such identities. As long as the heterosexual male audience is catered to, men are
not made to feel as though they are taking part in a political movement and thereby risking
their place as accepted members of the dominant group. Men might reason that by joining a
group that subscribes to patriarchal standards, they will have access to women.
In his book, Committed: A Rabble-Rouser’s Memoir, Senior Vice President of PETA,
Dan Matthews (2007) responds to the complaint that the majority of nude models in PETA’s
campaign are women. After taking a slight jab at the “plain” feminist asking about the
allegedly sexist ad campaign, Matthews argues, “It’s difficult to recruit men for this sort of
thing; women are often the only ones with the cojones to put themselves on the line for their
beliefs” (Matthews, 2007). It is interesting to note that Matthews utilizes a Spanish word for
male genitalia to explain what women demonstrate and men supposedly do not. It is also his
11
assumption that nudity is simply a matter of courage rather than the conscious and
subconscious pressure to fit within a patriarchal culture’s standards for women.
Matthews continues to explain the overwhelming quantity of nude women in PETA’s
campaign:
I’ve had this discussion with Gloria Steinem and she said that as long as we
regularly include men in the campaign, she doesn’t have a problem with it. The
thing is, they never get nearly as much attention as the women do, probably
because most of the news editors are men. But don’t confuse sexy with sexist. I
think that a lot of us North Americans can’t shake our Puritanical roots and are
embarrassed about sex and our bodies. I used to feel like this, though it may have
been because I was fat before I became a vegetarian or because being gay causes
all sorts of shame. It’s actually quite liberating to protest naked, and most people
tell us that they love seeing the natural human form used to promote a cause
rather than a product. (Matthews, 2007)
Even assuming that Matthews quotes her accurately, he makes the erroneous
assumption that Gloria Steinem has the authority to speak for all feminists and that an upper
class White heterosexual woman is the only face of feminism. For the record, Steinem was
criticized for asserting, “Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life”
(Steinem, 2008). Either unaware of or apathetic to Steinem’s privileged comment, Matthews
cites her acceptance of PETA’s tactics as evidence that feminists should follow her lead.
Then again, Matthews acknowledges that the choice of nude women is the result of
heterosexual men selecting their bodies for display. Matthews explains that although many
men remove clothing for the live demonstrations, it is the news editors who ultimately
choose what images to feature in their stories, and the editors are predominately men. In
short, PETA argues that its campaigns are not sexist, but that the news editors are at fault
because they cater to the patriarchal culture.
On the other hand, Matthews demonstrates how difficult it is to grab people’s
attention for a cause. Without a doubt, when various companies and activists are attempting
to capture the public’s focus, it is a challenge to stand out. According to Matthews, “Most
people don’t want a message; they’d rather be entertained than educated” (Matthews, 2007).
When Matthews staged a demonstration on Harvard’s campus, he brought two women in
nothing more than underwear (Matthews, 2007). The three lie down together on a mattress
crying out against fur to the gathering masses. Eager to gain a larger audience, the two
women sit up and start a pillow fight, which Matthews describes as a scene from the
12
pornographic film series, Girls Gone Wild (Matthews, 2007). They eventually garner enough
attention to be interviewed by the Boston Globe, The Harvard Crimson, and several other
media outlets (Ury, 2004). Matthews conveys the message that it might make them look
ridiculous, but PETA members must do everything in their power to get in the media
spotlight so that more people will visit their website and eventually become as concerned
about animals as they are.
To contrast the massive attention gained by their pillow fighting nudity, Matthews
describes how he staged another demonstration on the same spot at a later date (Matthews,
2007). Instead of baring skin, the activists held up gory signs with photographs of abused
and dead animals. Though they attempted to hand out pamphlets, Matthews described the
following:
Most quickly averted their gaze, strode faster and refused to take a leaflet. It’s not
that they were unsympathetic, they just didn’t want their hectic day darkened with
grim reality. There were no bystanders with camera phones, no photographers
from the Associated Press, and not even very many students. Whereas the absurd
mattress melee was not just the talk of the town but caught the eye of literally
millions of people across the country and around the world who saw it on the
news, this respectable approach didn’t even reach a few dozen individuals in
person (Matthews, 2007).
Matthews’ various attempts to garner attention for this cause demonstrate his point
that PETA must do seemingly outrageous and ridiculous things to get people to listen. As
PETA spokesperson Lindsay Rajt puts it, “Unlike our opposition, the wealthy meat industry,
PETA has to rely on getting free advertising through media coverage of our campaigns and
demonstrations. Experience has taught us that provocative and controversial campaigns make
all the difference" (George, 2000). Sex sells and women’s bodies are nothing new to the
advertising world; PETA is simply jumping onto the capitalist bandwagon. For the most
part, advertisers must connect with their audience and work within the realm of socially
accepted race and gender roles. This advertising standard poses a challenge for groups
marketing vegetarianism to men.
To avoid the harassment that culminates from assumed homosexuality and
femininity, men are encouraged to kill animals and consume meat. For example, in The
Simpsons episode entitled, “Homer’s Phobia,” the Simpson family is introduced to John, an
animated salesman at “Cockamamies” (Hauge & Anderson, 1997). Actor John Waters, who
provides the voice for John, eventually reveals that he is gay. Though Homer initially liked
13
John, he suddenly fears that Bart will become gay by spending time with him and mirroring
his behavior. To ensure Bart’s masculinity and heterosexuality, Homer takes Bart out
hunting. Though the message of the episode is that homosexuality is not contagious, it also
draws the parallel between hunting and masculinity (Hauge & Anderson, 1997).
In her article, “License to Kill: An Ecofeminist Critique of Hunters’ Discourse,”
Marti Kheel addresses the sexual overtones and homophobia incorporated in hunters’
dialogue (Kheel, 1995). Kheel argues that “for many writers, the activity of hunting is not
only essential for the attainment of full manhood, it is integral to the development of one’s
status as a full human being” (Adams & Donovan, 1995). There exists a pervasive
patriarchal belief that a boy becomes a man once he has had sex with a woman. It is not
uncommon for men to use the names of nonhuman animals to describe women. Further, the
act of pursuing a woman sexually is often described in hunting terms. For instance, men
“chase chicks,” “go on the prowl for pussy,” and “hunt cougars.” Men therefore relegate
women to the status of a nonhuman animal that a man must hunt down and conquer, which
serves to maintain a violent speciesist and sexist culture. Kheel acknowledges, “Although
many hunters downplay the actual moment of the kill, most concede that it is an integral part
of the hunt. Just as the male orgasm typically is seen as the denouement to the act of sex, so
too, the death of the animal is seen as the narrative resolution of the hunt” (Adams &
Donovan, 1995).
In his book, Brutal: Manhood and the Exploitation of Animals, Brian Luke explains
the history and significance of killing to masculinity. Luke argues, “The question is not so
much why women oppose animal exploitation as why men support it” (Luke, 2007). Luke
explores the book by big game hunter Blor Blixen, The Man Whom Women Loved, and the
argument that success in the hunt will be rewarded by female sexual attention (Luke, 2007).
A successful hunter could be viewed as an intimidating and strong provider (Luke, 2007).
The man is therefore hunting both game and woman, making the direct connections between
heterosexuality, violence, and sex. Kheel noted that in 1991, 92% of hunters were men, and
only 1% of women in the United States claimed to enjoy hunting (Kheel, 1995). Kheel
points out that hunting is often viewed as “a way of developing character, and in particular,
male character” (Kheel, 1995). Teddy Roosevelt discussed how hunting “cultivates that
vigorous manliness for the lack of which in a nation, as in an individual, the possession of no
14
other qualities can possibly atone” (Kheel, 1995). The sexist language that hunters use
facilitates maintaining a hierarchy that puts women on the same level as nonhuman animals,
which is perceived as lower than that of a male human (Kheel, 1995). PETA co-opts
hunters’ language so that it can seduce men into trying vegetarianism by assuring them that
just because they shun meat, they are not any less masculine and heterosexual.
The fear that a man might be accused of not being masculine enough is very common
in the media. One only has to turn on South Park, a television show that is immensely
popular among young people, and especially males. In the South Park episode, “Fun with
Veal,” (Parker, 2002) Stan witnesses the inhumane treatment of calves in a barn and decides
to rescue them. During the 200-hour standoff in Stan’s room, his friend Kyle spots a group
of hippies standing outside. Angrily he cries out to Stan, “Those gaywads are on our side?”
Cartman mocks Stan and warns him, "If you don't eat meat, you become a pussy." After only
eating apples for an extended period of time, Stan becomes weak and breaks out in boils.
When he is taken to the hospital, the doctor declares that he has “Vaginitis,” which is a
condition caused by depriving oneself of meat. The doctor then declares, "If he had stopped
eating meat completely, he would've turned into one giant pussy" (Parker, 2002).
The episode espouses that becoming a vegetarian is associated with femininity and
sickness. Stan almost dies as a result of his vegetarianism, and death would have taken the
form of becoming female genitalia. The only way for Stan to remain alive and male is for
him to consume animal products. If he fails to consume animals, Stan will become entirely
female, and to become a woman is to die. Kheel argues that men are forced to disengage
from mother figures and live in opposition to Mother Nature (Kheel, 1995). Therefore, men
feel alienated from nature, and attempt to connect with it by hunting (Kheel, 1995). Kheel
opines that “the celebration of killing and eating as an act of love is always at the animal’s
expense. A truly equal exchange would require ecstatic celebration wherein hunters are
killed and eaten as well” (Kheel, 1995). At no point does Kheel identify what Carol Adams
often brings up: When vegan and non-vegan food are discussed, men are usually the
consumer and women are usually the consumed (Adams, 2004).
PETA continues to use the image of the consumed woman by perpetuating the idea
that men are defined by what they eat, becoming more or less manly depending on what they
put in their bodies. In the name of its Lettuce Ladies website, PETA quite literally identifies
15
women as items to be eaten (http://www.lettuceladies.com/). PETA provides us with the
“make out tour,” that includes a picture of two women in underwear making out with each
other, Playboy Playmates wearing nothing more than lettuce, and a variety of other sexuallybased images of women that assure heterosexual men that vegetarianism is sexy (as shown in
Figure 2). Though PETA purports to support the gay community, the website does not
outwardly cater to gay men. Lesbianism, on the other hand, remains acceptable because of
its “place in heterosexual male fantasy, not necessarily because of some enlightened
approach to same-sex relationships” (Pascoe, 2007).
Figure 2. Screen caption from the Lettuce Ladies website.
In response to PETA ads, Carol Adams argues:
Every time PETA uses female sexuality, it accomplishes two things: it reminds
us of the kind of voice that women are allowed to have, which is their bodies. And
it reminds us how difficult it is to see that animals are worthy of our care, because
PETA can't even use animals themselves to represent their need to be liberated.
And I would say, the reason people can't see domesticated animals as individuals
is because they've been associated with femaleness. (George, 2008)
16
PETA spokesperson, Rajt, counters Adams by stating, “Women freely choose to
participate in its campaigns, unlike the animals it's lobbying for, who don't get to choose their
fate. We feel that all people should be free to use their minds and bodies as political
instruments to help those who have no voice (George, 2008). If it is implied that animal
rights cannot get extensive attention without the use of women’s bodies, and women are
made aware that their sexuality is a vital part of the movement, then there is a tremendous
amount of guilt and responsibility that uniquely targets women activists to be publicly
sexualized. Women animal rights activists are getting the message that it is essential for
vegan women to be sexualized, because otherwise animals will be murdered. Given that,
PETA is attempting to lure male porn viewers with images of their favorite adult stars.
PETA has also teamed up with porn actors Sasha Grey, Ron Jeremy (Dabitch, 2005), and
Jenna Jameson, in a campaign named, Too Much Sex Can Be a Bad Thing (as illustrated in
Figure 3).
Figure 3.Jenna Jameson (left) and Sasha Grey (right)
posing for PETA’s Too Much Sex Can be a Bad Thing
campaign. Source: Castina. (2008). Nude Jenna Jameson
PETA ad picture: ‘Sometimes too much sex can be a bad
thing’. Retrieved from http://www.popcrunch.com/nudejenna-jameson-peta-ad-picture-sometimes-too-much-sexcan-be-a-bad-thing/
The porn-star dominated Too Much Sex Can be a Bad Thing ads encourage people to
spay and neuter cats and dogs. To battle the belief that neutering is emasculating, PETA
takes advantage of an industry dominated by heterosexual males—porn. While both women
and men watch porn, the genre overwhelmingly caters to men’s desires. By teaming up with
17
pornography stars, PETA almost guarantees that men will hesitate in claiming that the animal
rights group is not masculine. If a man expresses a disinterest or distaste in porn, others
might reason that it is because he is gay, and therefore deserving of ridicule.
Kheel argues that it is the actions of the group and not the mindset that determines
whether an action is ethical or not (Kheel, 1995). Ingrid Newkirk has not remained silent
about remarks accusing PETA of being sexist:
Sure. We do play the game from within the system. That is what we have chosen
to do. However, nudity per se isn’t offensive to us. I have a picture of a naked
woman celebrating her mastectomy on my desk. She’s beautiful with one breast.
Beauty doesn’t require nudity or Society’s (biological) idea of perfection, but
there’s also nothing wrong, in my book, with the “perfect” human body being
used to sell an idea. I resent the idea of some women assuming the role of father,
brother, boyfriend, and telling me and other women to put our clothes back on,
cover up and behave. If I want to strip for fun, to use my body as a political tool,
whatever, it is my business…All the women and men in our “Naked” ads are
volunteers, no one makes them do what they do, and if it competes with selling
fur coats and makes people think you can be sexy, which, face it, is the goal of
many consumers, great. (Deckha, 2008)
For Newkirk, it is not sexist to work within a patriarchal framework and use images
that appeal to heterosexual men. Unfortunately, neither Kheel nor Newkirk identifies that it
is language that preserves a hierarchy among humans and nonhuman animals. Carol Adams
asked, “Could metaphor itself be the undergarment to the garb of oppression?” (Adams,
1990). This othering language necessary wherever a hierarchy is present, is what ultimately
separates humans from one another, and nonhuman animals from humans. Animal ethics
author David Sztybel indirectly defines “othering” by indicating, “Discriminatory oppression
involves a willingness to harm a given class of being, on the basis that those individuals are
different in some specified way…[and] that discriminatory oppression involves harm—
however specified—on the basis of an allegedly irrelevant criterion” (Sztybel, 2006). PETA
presents its images in such a way that it conveys to men that even if they no longer dominate
animals, they will continue to be superior to women. However, if women and animals are
compared to one another in these ads and men continue to believe that they will maintain
their rightful place in the social hierarchy, then they will continue to have dominance over
nonhuman animals as well. In the end, PETA cannot see the forest for the trees. While
PETA is making strides in improving the lives of animals, the ultimate goal should be
permanently ending the oppression of animals. If PETA were to look more closely at its
18
selection of words and images used in its campaigns, it would likely choose to focus its
campaigns more on language and its contribution to hierarchy.
Significantly, PETA proudly features gay and lesbian celebrities who have voiced
their support of animal rights. In its January 2011 e-mail to members, PETA listed “six
reasons why PETA’s gay” (PETA, 2011b) Its decision to align itself with the gay
community is predicated upon the premise that “animals don’t care whether people are
GLBTQ or none of the above—they just need us to help them” (PETA, 2011b). Given that
PETA regards itself as a gay-friendly organization, feminists would be wise to work with
prominent gay and lesbian activists to point out that PETA’s tactics rely on homophobia and
heteronormativity. Though PETA appears to be comfortable alienating feminists, it prides
itself on gay and lesbian support. The combined pressure of the feminist and gay
communities could possibly initiate a change in direction the PETA ads take. More
importantly, PETA must be made aware of the flaws in the campaigns it produces and how
they contribute to the oppression of nonhuman animals.
19
CHAPTER 3
RACIALIZED PETA CAMPAIGNS
PETA aspires to attract the attention of young men, and more recently, young people
of color. However, in the hopes of gaining their approval, PETA plays on old stereotypes
about people of color. These illogical strategies possibly stem from the animal rights activist
organization’s all-White leadership.
PETA has gained recent notoriety with its Ink Not Mink campaign. Because many
men are hesitant to appear vulnerable or feminine by posing nude, they are able to retain their
masculinity by exposing their tattoos. In these photographs, several athletes and musicians
stare angrily into the camera with their arms crossed. All of the photographs have the words
“Ink Not Mink” typed in the caption. Although there are quite a few women who have
posed for the Ink Not Mink photographs, they often expose more of their skin than the male
models do, while simultaneously looking into the camera seductively rather than
aggressively. Approximately half of the models in the Ink Not Mink operation are Black
men, most of whom expose more skin than the White men in the ads. Though Maneesha
Deckha argues that including Black men in PETA ads is a sign of progress (Deckha, 2008),
the actual ads often portray Black models in stereotypical ways.
The Ink Not Mink campaign is unique because it is the only PETA strategy in which
the majority of the models are men. And although the Ink Not Mink campaign expands
PETA’s target demographic, it does not alienate White men by altering the way Black men
are portrayed in visual media. The majority of the men in these images appear intimidating,
angry, and nude (as depicted in Figure 4). And despite being portrayed similarly, the White
male PETA models are often found in other campaigns where they are fully clothed and do
not appear aggressive.
20
Figure 4. NBA star and actor Dennis Rodman poses for PETA’s Ink Not Mink
campaign (left) as does NBA star Gilbert Arenas (right). Source: PETA2. (2011).
Dennis Rodman says, ‘Ink Not Mink’. Retrieved from
http://www.peta2.com/outthere/o-rodman.asp. Source: Pereira, R. (2010). Gilbert
Arenas strips for PETA’s ‘Ink Not Mink’. Retrieved from
http://bumpshack.com/2010/01/07/gilbert-arenas-strips-for-petas-ink-not-minkphotos/
Similarly, the Boycott the Circus PETA campaign centers on the cruelty of circuses
and zoos, and features nude men and women painted as leopards and tigers. One man
featured in the same ad campaign is an uninjured and fully-clothed Bollywood star, Rahul
Khanna (Vegetarian Star, 2010). The only other male model for this campaign is the shackled
Thai actor, Patrick Ribbsaeter. The words in the ad read, “Wild Animals Do Not Belong in
Chains” (PETA Asia Pacific, 2010). The wild animal in this case is a Thai man. By and
large, though, the models featured are overwhelmingly women of color. In one PETA ad, a
woman sits forlorn in chains. Behind the abused Bollywood actress, Celina Jaitley, are two
men holding spears ready to pierce her skin. The undeniably problematic image portrays the
light-skinned woman animal hybrid captured and defeated by hunters, who appear as darkskinned, uncivilized, and violent savages. Although the viewer is supposed to sympathize
with the degraded woman, it is the captors who are most degraded (as portrayed in Figure 5)
(PETA India Online, 2010).
21
Figure 5. Celina Jaitly models for the Stop Cruelty to
Elephants campaign. Source: PETA India Online.
(2010).Celina Jaitly stands up for elephants in captivity.
Retrieved from
http://www.petaindia.com/features/celina-jaitly.aspx
Nearly absent from the Boycott the Circus campaign are White men, and though it is
a challenge to find White men in the American anti-circus campaign, there exists a
photograph from a live PETA demonstration featuring two White men protesting circuses
while standing next to a sitting woman who, but for a pair of black panties, is nude. In
contrast, both men are fully clothed and not depicted as nonhuman animals. Though these
men are in positions of power when compared to the nude woman, they are not portrayed as
dangerous or frightening, unlike the Black male model. Further, the White men are not
characterized as sexual; the nude woman is the captive animal to be observed, while the men
remain human and separate from their fellow protestor (Reimink, 2009).
The German division of PETA produced an equally questionable campaign against
zoos in its Wildtiere gehören in Freiheit campaign, which translates into English as Exotic
Animals Belong in Liberty. There are startling differences between the way White “animals”
and Black “animals” are represented in these ads. For example, a White woman’s face is
buried in straw, her skin painted in zebra stripes while gashes are visible on her leg and neck.
She is on her stomach, her legs parted slightly, and her buttocks are up in the air. The
photograph exudes both anonymous sexuality and violence. By remaining anonymous, the
image of any White woman could be projected upon her. If the woman’s face were part of
22
the picture, the White woman would be entirely nonhuman animal and not purely a symbolic
animal (Rehbeck, 2009). Like the White woman, the White male painted as a turtle is also
hiding his face. His shell is partially cracked and bloody and there is nothing sexual about
his pose. Both the White woman zebra and the White male turtle exhibit vulnerability by not
facing their captor. Similar to the White woman model, this faceless representation allows
the audience to identify with the White man painted as a turtle (Rehbeck, 2009). By
encouraging the viewer to project his or her own image onto the models, PETA sets the
default race as White.
The Black woman in the Wildtiere gehören in Freiheit campaign is painted in leopard
spots and her face is turned toward the camera while her eyes flash a flirtatious come hither
look at her voyeur. Both of her breasts are visible, as are her slightly parted legs that reveal
the faintest appearance of a scratch. She is on all fours and her buttocks are high in the air.
If not for the negligible amount of blood in the picture, one might assume that it was a
pornographic picture (as illustrated in Figure 6) (Rehbeck, 2009).
Figure 6. A woman models for PETA Wildtiere
Gehören in Freiheit campaign.
Patricia Hill Collins argues that Black women are expected to accept and internalize
this sexualized image (Collins, 2000). In the German PETA’s zoo ad, the Black woman is
painted as a hypersexual animal. In The Sexual Politics of Meat, Carol Adams quotes Scott
McNall describing this type of image: “Pornographic ‘rear-entry’ photographs tell us women
are animals because they are the same as dogs—bitches in heat who can’t control
themselves” (Adams, 1990). Adams expands on McNall’s statement by arguing, “One of the
23
mythologies of a rapist culture is that women not only ask for rape, they also enjoy it; that
they are continually seeking out the butcher’s knife. Similarly, advertisements and popular
culture tell us that animals like Charlie the Tuna and Al Capp’s Shmoo wish to be eaten. The
implication is that women and animals willingly participate in the process that renders them
absent” (Adams, 1990). By featuring an image of a wounded yet hypersexualized Black
woman, PETA effectively undermines its own message. This picture of the oversexed Black
woman is a common theme in music, movies, and historical texts. Feminist scholar bell
hooks argues that Black women are some of the least valued members of American society
(Hooks, 1981). Black women are labeled by men of all colors as “bad,” and are unable to
find Black or White male allies because “neither group feels that she deserves protection”
(Hooks, 1981). Moreover, hooks proceeds to describe a study that indicates that the majority
of Black men view Black women as “objects to be exploited,” often labeling them as “that
bitch” and “that whore” (Hooks, 1981). The disdain for Black women stands in stark
contrast to the historically pervasive sentiment that White women must be protected from
Black men (Campt, 2003).
Author and associate professor of Women’s Studies at Duke University, Tina Campt,
wrote a detailed account of the destructive relationship between White and Afro-Germans in
her article “Converging Specters of an Other Within Race and Gender in Prewar AfroGerman History” (Campt, 2003). Campt documented the White German obsession with
interracial unions and the threat they believed miscegenation posed to the purity of the White
race:
The availability of White female bodies offered what was seen as an important
alternative to the dangerous temptations of non-White, indigenous female
sexuality. Indigenous women’s bodies were figured as vessels and conduits for
transporting pollution and contamination into the German national body. It was
the sexual lures they presented to German male colonists that were seen to
produce the mixed race progeny which destabilized the equation of Germanness
with Whiteness and violated the imaginary boundary separating the German
national body—a body constituted as pure and White—from the Others from
which it attempted to distinguish itself. (Campt, 2003)
Germany and the United States share a similar history of degrading Black women by
painting a stereotypical portrait of the diseased and sexually insatiable Black temptresses.
German political leader Colonial Secretary Solf served as an accurate representation of the
typical anti-miscegenation activist. In 1912, Solf spoke out against the imagined threat of
24
“racial endangerment…for the future of the White race” (Campt, 2003). Drawing on the
violent and adverse response White Americans exhibited following the emancipation of
Black women and men, Solf warned White Germans of what he believed racial parity
caused:
Solf appealed to the emotions of the representatives, urging them to allow
themselves to be led by their “instincts”…He continued to raise the stakes on this
issue, emphasizing the particular danger racial mixture posed to (White) German
women. Here the German national body is a raced body made vulnerable through
the female body as the conduit of racial pollution: “Do you want these girls [those
sent by the Colonial Society (deutschen Kolonialgesellschaft)] to return with
Herreros, Hottentots and bastards? […] Consider these facts, consider them
according to your instincts as Germans and as White men! The entire German
nation will thank you, if you consider nothing else than this: we are Germans, we
are White and we want to stay White. […] Do you want our race to be
bastardized?” (Campt, 2003)
Solf conjures up the image of an uncivilized sexually deviant Black woman set on
becoming impregnated by White men so as to produce “bastard” mixed-race children.
Patricia Hill Collins describes hypersexualization in her book Black Feminist Thought:
Within intersecting oppressions, Black women’s allegedly deviant sexuality
becomes constructed around jezebel’s sexual desires. Jezebel may be a “pretty
baby,” but her actions as a “hot momma” indicate that she just can’t get enough.
Because jezebel or the hoochie is constructed as a woman whose sexual appetites
are at best inappropriate and, at worst, insatiable, it becomes a short step to
imagine her as a “freak.” And if she is a freak, her sexual partners become
similarly stigmatized.” For example, the hypermasculinity often attributed to
Black men reflects beliefs about Black men’s excessive sexual appetite.
Ironically, jezebel’s excessive sexual appetite masculinizes her because she
desires sex just as a man does. (Collins, 2000)
Devaluing Black women plays a hand in the degradation of Black men. There is only
one Black man in this German PETA campaign, and its simplicity is the most startling aspect
of his picture. Unlike the two White models and the one Black woman model, the Black
male model does not look bloodied or afraid, nor is he painted as a distinctive animal.
Instead, he has his mouth aggressively open and is baring his teeth at his captor. The caged
man is grabbing the enclosure with one hand, while his foot and other hand remain out of the
pen. The small amount of paint on his skin could be mistaken for shadows or tribal paint.
The locked up “beast” that we are supposed to be afraid of can easily be identified entirely as
a Black male human (PETA Germany, 2011). Carol Adams points out that “for many
Whites, the idea of Black freedom threatened the social stability” (Adams, 2004). This
25
sentiment is echoed very clearly in PETA’s portrayal of a caged Black man (as shown in
Figure 7).
Figure 7. A man models for PETA Wildtiere gehören in Freiheit campaign.
This man is the singular embodiment of what Angela Davis describes as the Black
rapist. Davis explains, “In the history of the United States, the fraudulent rape charge stands
out as one of the most formidable artifices invented by racism. The myth of the Black rapist
has been methodically conjured up whenever recurrent waves of violence and terror against
the Black community have required convincing justifications (Davis, 1981). Following
WWI and rapidly escalating during WWII, Germany perpetuated the myth that Black men
were to be feared and White German women must be protected from their sexually
aggressive nature. In 1921, racist German propaganda claimed that Black men no longer
exhibited fearful respect for White women because of the increase in racial parity:
Now the negro, who inhabits Africa and parts of the rest of the world in countless
millions and generally stands on a lower rung of the evolutionary ladder, is not
only being brought to Europe, not only being used in battle in a White country; he
is also systematically being trained to desire that which was formerly unreachable
for him—the White woman! He is being urged and driven to besmirch
defenseless women and girls with his tuberculous and syphilitic stench, wrench
them into his stinking apish arms and abuse them in the most unthinkable ways!
He is being taught that […] he can do anything his animal instincts even remotely
demand, without the slightest restraint, he even finds support for this from the
‘victors’. (Campt, 2003)
26
The Black male rapist serves as a distraction from all the rapes White men have
committed all throughout history and presently, often against women of color. The myth of
the Black male rapist fosters an environment where White men feel justified in lynching
Black men, or in Nazi-controlled Germany’s case, it played a large part in the forced
sterilizations performed on mixed race children (Campt, 2003). White women become the
belongings that White men must protect against Black men:
The White female body became a dangerously porous conduit of the violation of
this boundary [mixed marriage]. In several articles the White German woman
was presented as the channel of this threat, portrayed as both a whore and a victim
and, as such, as both an active and passive conduit of Black male sexuality. The
latter in turn was demonized as, among other things, infectious, instinctual,
uncivilized and most notably, insatiable and uncontrollable. At the same time,
Black men were also seen as irresistible seducers of White women, who were
supposedly unable to resist their exotic colonial desire for Black male sexuality.
(Campt, 2003)
By likening Black men to naturally primitive hypersexual animals, White men
continue to retain their place as the protectors and possessors of White women and retain
their position as the dominant race and sex.
As it stands, one is supposed to assume that the Black man in the PETA ad is furious
and attempting to force his way out of the cage, thus resembling the stereotype that Black
people are a primitive race. Though Blacks and Whites are portrayed as animals, only the
Black “animals” have human faces, are sexually charged, and are dangerous. These images
are especially problematic because there exists a long history of White people justifying their
oppressive actions by comparing Black people to nonhuman animals. The Third Reich
dominated the discourse surrounding the Black body and sexuality, thereby establishing
White Germans as the “civilized Kulturvolk” and Afro-Germans as “uncivilized or primitive
Naturvolk characterized by savagery, unbridled passions, appetites and instincts” (Campt,
2003). Kulturvolk translates to “cultured or civilized people,” and naturvolk literally
translates to “nature people,” although it is defined in German to English dictionaries as
“primitive people.” The Nazis were careful to distance themselves as much as possible from
nature and painted anyone and anything not White as inferior. Campt accurately asserts that
“ultimately racial parity posed the most significant danger to White German men in the threat
it posed to their masculinity…the threat posed by racial parity was the emasculation of the
White German male. In the logical national body politics, it appears that this masculine
27
potency could only be maintained through inequality” (Campt, 2003). Nature is not inferior,
nor is it separate from human beings, even if they would like to believe in their own
superiority over all entities to which they do not relate. There exists a long-standing and
disturbing history of oppressors justifying their tyranny by describing those they oppress as
closer to nature and animal-like, and therefore deserving of maltreatment (as illustrated in
Figure 8). Despite an otherwise thorough description of the treatment of Afro-Germans in
Germany during WWI and WWII, Campt does not discuss the prevailing racist depictions of
Afro-Germans today. Until nature and nonhuman animals are no longer considered inferior,
oppressors will continue to draw comparisons between those they oppress and all
“uncivilized” life forms. To solve this problem, human beings must learn to value nonhuman
animals and nature. Sadly, PETA sabotages its message by making use of the same visuals
employed by oppressors to defend their place as subjugators. To make a greater impact,
avoid perpetuating racism, and prevent alienating marginalized people, PETA should feature
White men as the abused and exploited nonhuman animals.
Figure 8. An illustration ranking the races (left) and
another illustration documenting the belief that black
people were closely related to simians (right). Source:
Cannick, J. (2008). Gather around, it’s time to play “name
that bigot.” Retrieved from
http://www.jasmynecannick.com/blog/?p=1735. Source:
Fillip, S. (2009). Dehumanization and Human Rights.
Retrieved from
http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/dehumaniz
ation-and-human-rights/
28
Unfortunately, PETA appeals to privileged people by allowing them to retain their
dominant status in the vast majority of its ads. PETA’s 2009 anti-American Kennel Club
(AKC) campaign was exclusively White, while simultaneously racially charged. The
Westminster Kennel Club was greeted by the sight of several White people cloaked in white
KKK robes and hoods, handing out flyers accusing the AKC of being “BFF” (Best Friends
Forever) with the Klan (as pictured in Figure 9).
Figure 9. A KKK or AKC: Spot the difference
demonstration. Source: Associated Press. (2009). PETA
uses KKK imagery at dog show protest. Retrieved from
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/29104505
PETA claims that the spectacle was meant to demonstrate that the AKC was
attempting to create a “master race” and that the breeding techniques were harmful to the
health of dogs. The activists involved in the KKK campaign were either unaware of the
harmful triggering that such an image could cause to people of color, or worse, they intended
to plant fear and anger in minorities. PETA.org hosts a commercial featuring a KKK
member interrupting an AKC meeting, comparing his fight for a pure race to the AKC’s
desire for a “master pedigree.” The commercial concludes with the words, “All dogs are
created equal, fight breedism” (PETA Online, 2009). Considering PETA’s extensive history
of purposely upsetting the public, it is plausible that the activists intended to create an
emotional reaction in every person confronted with its KKK or AKC: Spot the Difference
campaign. It is impossible to conclude whether the racially triggering campaign was
evidence of ignorance common in people with White privilege or purposeful aggressive
29
racism by the all-White participants. In both instances, large groups of people were exposed
to an image that carries with it a history of inciting terror in minorities. To claim that all of
the participants and the creators of this campaign were simply unaware of the distress that
this race-specific image could create in people of color is unrealistic.
PETA’s common responses to accusations of racism and sexism usually center on the
assumption that people are imagining bigotry where it does not exist and that the depictions
of women and people of color are prevalent throughout society and are therefore acceptable.
In her book Killing Rage: Ending Racism, bell hooks states, “overt racist discrimination is
not as fashionable as it once was and that is why everyone can pretend racism does not exist”
(Hooks, 1995). She goes on to argue that racism continues to exist because “denial is in fact
a cornerstone of white European culture…if we all pretend racism does not exist, that we do
not know what it is or how to change it—it never has to go away” (Hooks, 1995). Though
PETA might be sincere in its belief that the AKC’s practices are equivalent to those of the
KKK, it ought to have considered that the audiences that would be most upset by the
similarity between the AKC and the KKK would be people of color. As one might expect,
dressing up in robes and hoods would likely deter people of color from approaching the
protesters to obtain a pamphlet. The people taking the brochures are more likely to have
White privilege and not carry fear or total revulsion of KKK members. Those with enough
privilege to approach Klan members are less likely to be disturbed by eugenics than people
without White privilege. Even though someone with White privilege could feel disturbed by
Klan members and eugenics, they would not experience the image of the Klan in the same
way as someone born into a marginalized group. By not maintaining active and vocal
minorities on board, PETA loses its ad campaign’s effectiveness and alienates its audience. 2
Like with its German circus campaign, PETA has undermined its own objective.
PETA’s leaders are predominantly White, and this has the potential to foster an
atmosphere that lacks racial awareness and possibly condones and perpetuates racism.
Though not all White people are necessarily racist, they do possess White privilege, and that
privilege often carries with it ignorance, both willful and subconscious, of issues that people
2
PETA claims that they worked with Jewish people when they created the Holocaust on Your Plate
campaign. They have not, however, claimed that they consult with people from any other marginalized groups.
30
of color face. This lack of awareness sustains an environment of discrimination and hate,
predicated upon skin color. Ultimately, PETA aspires to connect with its audience in the
hope that they will join the cause. At the same time, many of the board members are unable
to look beyond their own experiences as privileged people. To achieve its goal, PETA must
avoid incorporating historically racist portrayals of people of color. Otherwise, they simply
earn contempt from a furious public disgusted by the imagery. Though PETA is currently
courting young, heterosexual White males, the logical strategy would be to appeal to
marginalized individuals who might better understand what it is like to be oppressed.
Remarkably, few people have pointed out that PETA knowingly or unknowingly
draws attention to conditions that exist, not just in cases of animal abuse or speciesism, but
also due to sexism, racism, and classism. Feminist author Shamara Riley describes, “In the
U.S., poor people of color are disproportionately likely to be the victims of pollution, as toxic
waste is being consciously directed at our communities.” Riley cites a report that indicates
“race as the most significant variable in differentiating communities with such sites from
those without them. Partly as a result of living with toxic waste in disproportionate numbers,
African-Americans have higher rates of cancer, birth defects, and lead poisoning than the
United States population as a whole.” Riley concludes, “The social constructions of race,
gender, class, and nonhuman nature in mainstream Western thought are interconnected by an
ideology of domination” (Riley, 1993) and “if the planet as a whole is to survive, we must all
begin to see ourselves as interconnected with nonhuman nature and with one another” (Riley,
1993). The meat, dairy, and egg industries are notorious for placing profit before consumer
health (Markus, 2005). Foer describes the growth hormones and antibiotics used in factory
farm animals that are consumed by humans:
From 1935 to 1995, the average weight of “broilers’ increased by 65 percent,
while their time-to-market dropped 60 percent and their feed requirements
dropped 57 percent…These changes in chicken genetics were not one change
among others: they dictated how the birds could be raised. With these new
alterations, drugs, and confinement were being used not only to increase
profitability, but because the birds could no longer be “healthy” or often even
survive without them. Even worse, these genetically grotesque birds didn’t come
to occupy only one portion of the industry—they now are practically the only
chickens being raised for consumption. (Foer, 2009)
Studies have demonstrated that socio-economic class is directly related to dietary
habits, with people who earn less money eating unhealthful foods (Auchincloss, Riolo,
31
Brown, Cook & Diez Roux, 2011). The factory farm food may cost less to produce and
purchase, but dietary-related illnesses disproportionately impact lower income households.
PETA is working toward convincing people to take up a vegan diet, and as such, is fighting
against an industry that inordinately harms the lowest earners in the United States, women of
color. 3 Lamentably, PETA continues to turn off potential allies with its racist and sexist
campaigns.
If PETA wants to avoid alienating minorities, the most advantageous action PETA
could take is to employ individuals whose responsibility it is to create campaigns that appeal
to marginalized people, as well as review ads for cultural insensitivity before they are
released. The employees should possess a strong background in anti-marginalization
activism, and PETA must take their advice seriously and act on it. Currently, most board
members are White, and out of eight PETA staff members featured on its website, five
appear to be White. These new voices could carry with them the potential to bring new
strategies to the table, and make other members aware of their problematic behavior. Though
it is certainly not the responsibility of the oppressed to teach the privileged, many businesses
employ similar types of consultants. While it would be idealistic for PETA to appoint
marginalized people to positions of power, experiencing and being aware of oppression does
not necessarily make a person willing to work against the status quo. 4 Some marginalized
people internalize oppression, which might make them unwilling to challenge people in
power, while other employees avoid protesting practices for fear of losing their jobs.
Additionally, PETA leadership may simply choose to ignore consultants and other board
members. Though PETA has been reluctant to react positively to criticism, it has apologized
and retracted two campaigns following protests from influential African-American and
Jewish organizations. 5 Although PETA took action after it was criticized by anti-racist
3
According to the White House’s report “Women in America, Indicators of Social and Economic WellBeing,” Hispanic and Black women earn considerably less than White women.
4
Following public outrage sparked by the Holocaust on Your Plate campaign, Newkirk claimed , “The
PETA staff who proposed that we do it were Jewish, and the patronage for the entire endeavor was Jewish. We
were careful to use Jewish authors and scholars and quotes from Holocaust victims and survivors.” This quote
will be explored in my chapter about violence in PETA campaigns. Newkirk’s statement confirms that hiring
marginalized consultants does not necessarily determine a campaign’s political correctness.
5
The powerful organizations in question will be discussed in the chapter relating to violence.
32
groups, it still needs to work harder to avoid criticism in the future. Further, it is crucial that
PETA work toward changing the language and the pervasive attitude that maintains a
hierarchy among all beings.
33
CHAPTER 4
VIOLENCE IN PETA CAMPAIGNS
Some of the most memorable and provocative PETA ads incorporate violent images,
overwhelmingly of bloodied women. Though PETA employs this imagery to evoke horror,
people are bombarded with brutality so often that they have become immune to simulated
violent images against women. PETA also incorporated images of atrocities committed
against Blacks and Jews, in the hopes of gaining sympathy from marginalized people and
their privileged allies. Ironically, this strategy backfired, and the campaigns resulted in
outrage from the NAACP and the Anti-Defamation League.
Sex work, the consumption of meat, and the consumption of women as products,
often intersect. In France there exists a brothel known as maisons d’abattage, which
translates to “houses of slaughter” (Adams, 2004). Six or seven women, many of them
sexual slaves, service between 80 and 120 men per night. Carol Adams describes the
various ways women are referred to in the sex trade:
A young prostitute is known as fresh meat; an older prostitute, dead meat. At one
point, mutton meant prostitute, as in Shakespeare’s reference in Measure for
Measure: “The duke…would eat mutton on Fridays.” Mutton dressed as lamb is
a derogatory comment about a woman who is attempting to dress and appear
younger than she is. (Adams, 2004)
Not surprisingly, PETA juxtaposes the sexualization of women and violence on its
website, www.milkgonewild.com. The video on PETA’s website features a collage of
photos with models, all of whom are White. An animated human areola bounces across the
screen and encourages the viewer to “Click on the Nipple for some T&A.” The first of the
three Milk Gone Wild videos begins with a cameraman in a club asking reluctant women if he
can see what is under their shirts. The first couple of women refuse, but eventually the
cameraman convinces a few women wearing tight blouses to raise the tiny garments to
expose breasts that have been altered to match the appearance of udders. As the women raise
their shirts, men begin cheering and screaming, while a few men drink the breast milk that
the women squeeze out through the udders. As the last woman shakes her udders, the all-
34
White crowd screams, “Milk Gone Wild!” The video immediately cuts to images of sick
cows in dairy farms and slaughterhouses. The viewer’s mind has suddenly jumped from
women’s breasts to cows’ throats being slit. A person who could have been aroused by the
former might continue to feel turned on during the latter, associating women with sex and
slaughter. The second video is an “Uncensored” extension of the first. This time, the large
crowd includes an Asian woman and one Black man amidst the sea of White. Like the first
film, the models raise their blouses while surrounded by a cheering crowd of men.
Unlike the first two movies, the third one does not take place in a club. Instead, the
clip features a group of White models and one Asian model washing cars for male customers.
While some women roll around on the cars and coyly flirt with the drivers, others raise their
shirts and squirt milk from their udders into an eager White man’s mouth. Another older
White man smiles as several women wrap their arms around him. The women attract a large
group of young White men, some of whom lick their udders and drink their milk (see Figure
10).
Figure 10. A screen caption of PETA’s Milk Gone Wild website.
35
The three Milk Gone Wild videos are supposed to resemble Joe Francis’ Girls Gone
Wild films. For baring their breasts and performing various sexual acts, women are paid in
Girls Gone Wild shirts, panties, or a hat. In her Los Angeles Times article, journalist Claire
Hoffman set out to release a profile of Francis and Girls Gone Wild. Hoffman uncovers the
sordid Francis empire and reveals the details of Francis’ misogyny directed against her and
other women. Young heterosexual males are Girls Gone Wild’s target demographic, and the
majority of the women in the Girls Gone Wild videos are blonde, White, thin and inebriated.
The Girls Gone Wild imitators are attempting to attract the young White male audience, even
if it means modeling themselves after an empire built by a notorious misogynist who has
twice been accused of rape (Hoffman, 2006).
In Ariel Levy’s book, Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch
Culture, 6 the author follows around the crew of Girls Gone Wild, making observations along
the way. She describes how cameramen are paid extra to film women Francis defines as
“tens…100 to 110 pounds, big boobs, blonde, blue eyes, ideally no piercing or tattoos”
(Levy, 2005). Unsurprisingly, the women Francis regards as beautiful are thin and White.
No doubt, Francis is also appealing to an audience that upholds the White standard of beauty
as finite and unchangeable. PETA is mimicking Francis’ franchise with the intent of gaining
acceptance from the most privileged of individuals. But unlike Girls Gone Wild, Milk Gone
Wild does not provide any actual nudity on its website. Instead, Milk Gone Wild comes
across as a ridiculous parody of Girls Gone Wild that lacks the titillation to which young,
White heterosexual men feel entitled.
Girls Gone Wild and Milk Gone Wild both feature brutal clips tied into their sexual
films. Whereas Milk Gone Wild follows up its sexual imagery with violence against cows,
Girls Gone Wild provides audiences with the opportunity to purchase the video that provided
Joe Francis with his first million dollars. On the Girls Gone Wild website, one can obtain
Banned from Television, “a hideous compilation featuring a public execution, a great white
shark attack, a horrifying train accident, and an explicit undercover video from a sex club
6
“Pig” is the common vernacular to describe a sexist person, most commonly, a man. This is
unfortunate, as it debases the highly intelligent and social nonhuman animal. Employing the names of animals
to suggest deplorable behavior in people furthers the acceptance a culture maintains when it comes to degrading
nonhuman animals.
36
bust” (Levy, 2005). Violent images captivate audiences, especially when they are of women,
and even more so if someone is sexually assaulting them. Because people pay to witness
violence against women on screen, it is curious that PETA features those images in an
attempt to dissuade people from consuming animal products. Though PETA’s Hooked on
Meat? campaign has not received as much attention as its other crusades, its violent imagery
makes it one of the group’s most memorable (as demonstrated in Figure 11).
Figure. 11. PETA’s Hooked on Meat? campaign. Source: Adams, C. J. (2004). The
pornography of meat. New York, NY: The Continuum International Publishing Group.
One of PETA’s ads causes audiences to visualize the barbaric practice used to create
foie gras. In one photograph, an elegant White woman is tied to a chair in front of a dinner
table while a well-dressed faceless White man chokes her with one hand and forces a feeding
tube down her throat with his other. The blonde model is wearing a black dress and diamond
necklace, classifying her as upper class (as depicted in Figure 12). Because foie gras is an
expensive delicacy, the two models were carefully chosen to appeal to wealthy consumers
and elicit anger from people with less money. The ad broadcasts, “Get a Taste for Foie Gras.
Foie gras is produced by force-feeding terrified ducks until their livers become painfully
diseased and engorged. Please call 311 to urge your alderman to keep the cruel product
banned in Chicago” (PETA, 2007). A live protest features the same image of a well-dressed
White woman tied to a chair at a dinner table. She too is being force-fed by what appears to
37
Figure 12. PETA’s print Get a Taste for Foie Gras ad (left) and PETA’s
live foie gras demonstration (right).
be a White butler. To her right stands a White man holding a sign protesting the
consumption of foie gras. Once again, the White male is the privileged source of violence,
whereas the White woman is the victim who needs saving (as displayed in Figure 12)
(Midlands Vegan Campaigns, 2007). Taken at face value, it appears as though the White
women are being used to attract the attention of the wealthy and coincide with the sentiment
that men must rescue upper-class White women. When analyzed more closely, it is obvious
that in both of the Get a Taste for Foie Gras images described, the women are
simultaneously the consumers and the consumed. Viewers of the campaigns might assume
that the wealthy victims are consumers of foie gras and are being taught a lesson by their
White male captors. The violent punishment of upper-class women appeals primarily to
misogynists and individuals who do not possess as much money as people who can afford to
eat foie gras.
Many women encounter intersectional violence, as do men in marginalized groups.
Unlike her response to criticism regarding PETA’s sexist campaigns, 7 Newkirk has not
7
In response to the Fur Trim Unattractive ad, President of NOW-NYC, Galen Sherwin,
wrote of her outrage where she protested the objectification of women and the
discouragement of them in their natural state. Ingrid Newkirk replied to Sherwin by writing
to Ms. Magazine: “I was dismayed to read your snotty letter about our panty ads. I would be
surprised if you don’t shave your legs or under your arms. I’ll also bet that if you have ever
worn a bikini you’ve made sure not to have hairs poking out the side of it. If you didn’t, you
38
claimed that the racist campaigns are simply a reflection of the accepted cultural values.
Following pressure from the NAACP, Newkirk pulled the Are Animals the New Slaves?
campaign (see Figure 13). Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center's
Intelligence Project, called the campaign "disgusting." He argued that the problem with the
campaign is that "Black people in America have had quite enough of being compared to
animals without PETA joining in" (Jaquith, 2005).
Figure 13. PETA’s controversial hanging campaign. Source:
PETA. (2011c). Hanging. Retrieved from
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3009/2774537238_3b75cb121f.j
pg
would have been the only woman at the pool or beach not to be so particular. PETA’s ad
speaks to something the overwhelming majority of women worry about—grooming. Since
we left the 60’s [sic] style of unshaven leg hair and bushes behind, most people, regardless of
gender, like the groomed look better. It’s not sexist; it’s just fact. A depiction of a woman’s
waxed legs or crotch isn’t automatically exploitive…Please stop this knee-jerk reactionary
rubbish. There are a ton of women out here, including longtime feminists like me, who don’t
appreciate being “spoken for” in this repressive way. We can use our bodies for pleasure,
profit, and politics if we want. Please stop playing the role of an outraged father, brother or
boyfriend!” Newkirk condemns feminists for allegedly taking on male roles by questioning
PETA’s tactics, thereby accusing them of horizontal hostility. She argues that it is not sexist
to perpetuate sexism because gender roles are simply a “fact.” Simply put, nothing can be
sexist because it merely exists within an unchanging patriarchal framework. Suffice it to say,
Newkirk’s erroneous culturally relativistic argument is inaccurate, because if cultural
acceptance indicates that certain behavior is justifiable, then consuming animals and animal
products would theoretically be defensible because a vast majority of people are not
vegetarians or vegans. Additionally, conforming to patriarchal standards does not make the
enforcement and encouragement of them any less sexist.
39
Similarly, the Anti-Defamation League pressured Newkirk to pull the Holocaust on
your Plate campaign. Newkirk initially responded to the outrage from the Jewish community
by saying, “Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will
die this year in slaughterhouses” (Shafran, 2005). The response did little to quell the angry
feedback from the public, and Newkirk eventually issued the following apology:
Hard as it may be to understand for those who were deeply upset by this
campaign, I was bowled over by the negative reception by many in the Jewish
community. It was both unintended and unexpected. The PETA staff who
proposed that we do it were Jewish, and the patronage for the entire endeavor was
Jewish. We were careful to use Jewish authors and scholars and quotes from
Holocaust victims and survivors ... We believe that we humans can and should
use our distinctive capacities to reduce suffering in the world ... Our mission is a
profoundly human one at its heart, yet we know that we have caused pain. This
was never our intention, and we are deeply sorry. We hope that you can
understand that although we embarked on the "Holocaust on Your Plate" project
with misconceptions about what its impact would be, we always try to act with
integrity, with the goal of improving the lives of those who suffer. We hope those
we upset will find it in their hearts to work toward the goal of a kinder world for
all, regardless of species (Newkirk, 2005).
It should be noted that although Newkirk apologized for causing pain, she did not
apologize for the comparison of the treatment of animals to slavery or the Holocaust.
David Sztybel outlined a thirty-nine-point comparison between the treatment of
nonhuman animals and the Holocaust in his article “Can the Treatment of Animals be
Compared to the Holocaust?” (Sztybel, 2006). Sztybel introduces his article by referencing
PETA’s Holocaust on your Plate exhibit and the controversy it sparked (as exhibited in
Figure 14). According to Sztybel, the word “Holocaust” initially meant “a Hebrew sacrifice
in which the entire animal was given to Yahweh [God] to be consumed with fire” and “in a
twist of history, then, a form of animal exploitation became a metaphor for what happened to
the Jews at the hands of the Nazis. It is asked if the Holocaust can be compared with animal
exploitation, even though the very term involves such a comparison, albeit metaphorically”
(Sztybel, 2006).
Those who expressed outrage at the Holocaust on Your Plate campaign might have
been surprised to learn that PETA representative Mark Prescott lost several of his family
members who were murdered during the Holocaust. Prescott argued, “The very same
mindset that made the Holocaust possible—that we can do anything we want to those we
decide are ‘different or inferior’—is what allows us to commit atrocities against animals
40
Figure 14. Two images displayed at The Holocaust on Your Plate exhibit.
every single day” (Anonymous, 2003). Prescott was attempting to explain to critics that just
because one values all living beings equally, it does not necessarily indicate a lack of respect
for humans. Simply put, nonhuman animals feel pain on the same level as human beings,
and they deserve our compassion. Comparing humans to nonhuman animals should not be
considered degrading, because nonhuman animals are not inherently inferior to humans.
Feminist author Elizabeth Fisher argued that “the domestication of women followed the
initiation of animal keeping…and it was then that men began to control women’s
reproductive capacity, enforcing chastity and sexual repression…The violation of animals
expedited the violation of human beings” (Patterson, 2002). It is imperative that people
understand that as long as we can justify ignoring the suffering of one group, we can easily
dismiss the suffering of another.
In his book Eternal Treblinka, animal rights author Charles Patterson detailed his
agreement with Prescott’s statement. Patterson argued:
The most calamitous and fragile of all creatures is man, and yet the most
arrogant…Is it possible to imagine anything so ridiculous as that this pitiful,
miserable creature, who is not even master of himself, should call itself master
and lord of the universe? It is apparent that it is not by a true judgment, but by
foolish pride and stubbornness, that we set ourselves before other animals and
sequester ourselves from their condition and society (Patterson, 2002).
Patterson understands that PETA faces a significant challenge in conveying its message to
human beings who distance themselves as much as possible from nonhuman animals.
What Patterson does not address are the problems that arise when drawing
comparisons between oppressions. Feminist activist Linda Burnham discusses these issues in
her article “Race and Gender: The Limits of Analogy” (Burnham, 1994). Burnham addresses
the similarities between sexism and racism, joined in subordination to White men. She also
41
examines the problematic ways White feminists make comparisons between oppressions. In
her article, Burnham details how analogy functions:
The level of abstraction at which analogy “works” is that wherein: (a) gendered
subjects are stripped of other qualities (such as race, class, nationality, and sexual
orientation) in the realm of gender relations; (b) racialized subjects are devoid of
other qualities in the realm of race relations; and (c) the two realms do not
overlap. (Burnham, 1994)
PETA literally strips its human subjects, which removes one habit humans keep that
nonhuman animals do not—wearing clothing. PETA’s famous tagline is “All animals have
the same parts.” However, most of the parts belong to marginalized people.
Feminist scholar Catharine Stimpson disapproved of White women comparing their
struggle to Blacks:
The analogy exploits the passion, ambition, and vigor of the black movement. It
perpetuates the depressing habit white people have of first defining the black
experience and then of making it their own. Intellectually sloppy, it implies that
both black and white women can be seriously discussed as amorphous, classless,
blobby masses. (Burnham, 1994).
Unlike Burnham’s disapproval of the Black movement being compared to the largely
White feminist movement of the 1970s, PETA’s campaigns are created by nonhuman
animals’ de facto oppressors. PETA has no choice but to define the nonhuman animal
experience. Marginalized people are upset by the comparisons PETA makes between their
struggles and the problems nonhuman animals face, but it is not the nonhuman animals
making the analogies. Sztybel makes a convincing argument for the comparison between the
atrocities committed against Jews, Blacks, and nonhuman animals. The larger issue is that
PETA’s privileged staff is marketing its cause by appealing to the most privileged members
of society. If it wants to convince the public to end the subjugation of nonhuman animals,
PETA must feature people that are not already equated with nonhuman animals. The
negative response PETA has received from many in Jewish and Black communities sends a
clear message that marginalized people do not need or want to be reminded of their
oppression. In fact, many believe that the comparison trivializes the history of violence that
Jews and Blacks experienced. To avoid alienating potential allies and present a more
alarming campaign, PETA should feature White men as the oppressed nonhuman animals.
In doing so, PETA would take the oppressors outside of their comfort zone and put
themselves in the place of the suffering being.
42
Many animal rights activists come from an entirely different mindset than those who
do not identify as supporters of animal welfare or rights. So how does PETA get its message
across without censoring itself? Many people do not believe that factory farming and animal
abuse are equivalent to human rights abuses and genocide. Individuals also blind themselves
from acknowledging where the meat they eat and animals they wear were produced. Scholar
Coral Lansbury supported this accusation of purposeful ignorance when she claimed, “It has
been said that a visit to an abattoir would make a vegetarian of the most convinced carnivore
among us” (Adams, 1990). In most of its campaigns, PETA makes an attempt to get its
audience to relate to nonhuman animals. Because human beings are accustomed to regarding
themselves as special and superior to nonhuman animals, it is nearly impossible for PETA to
avoid offending its target audience. To insist that activists censor their messages to placate
those with human privilege is as unreasonable as straight, White males demanding that
feminists refrain from making certain statements because they find them upsetting. That
being said, the ultimate goal for many (though not all) animal rights activists is to convince
the public that animals should be treated with kindness and not consumed in any way, shape,
or form. Keeping that in mind, it might be more practical for animal rights activists to appeal
to large audiences with campaigns that are slightly more agreeable than PETA’s.
Many ecofeminists contend that the key to overcoming oppression is challenging the
language that preserves patriarchal domination of all marginalized beings. In Animal
Equality: Language and Liberation, Joan Dunayer argues that the way we discuss animals is
often self-serving so that humans are made to feel superior. Dunayer notes, “Segregating
humans from all other species legitimizes a human monopoly on moral and legal rights.
When we say ‘animals and humans,’ we deny that we too are animals” (Dunayer, 2001). She
expands her argument to contend that the dichotomy between “humans” and “nonhuman
animals” can be widened to include “man” and “woman.” By “functioning like a proper
name, Man personifies our species as an adult male. Through its male imagery, mankind too
excludes women from humankind. The sexism of pseudogeneric man and mankind works by
way of speciesism. Their power to lower women’s status rests on the premise that those
outside our species don’t merit equal consideration and respect” (Dunayer, 2001). It is
essential that animal rights activists convince people that “different” does not mean superior.
Although PETA has consistently worked toward making people see themselves as animals, it
43
has not built itself on Dunayer’s assertion that oppression stems from language (Dunayer,
2001). That being said, Dunayer’s linguistic methods are excellent for an individual’s daily
use and in academic publications, but not nearly as exciting during a rally. Incredibly,
PETA’s extensive website does not include a single page dedicated to overcoming
speciesism by changing how we communicate about nonhuman animals. Considering how
significant language is when searching for the source of oppression, PETA should make
Dunayer’s platform a central part of its campaign, or at least feature the importance of
language on its website.
Although language is central to ending oppression, ecofeminists concerned with
animal rights must always come back to Audre Lorde’s famous quote: “For the master’s tools
will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his
own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change” (Danis, 1981).
Though Lorde was specifically pointing out the problems with feminist theory dominated by
privileged White women, the proclamation may be expanded to ecofeminist challenges.
PETA consistently undermines its goals by utilizing patriarchal tactics (the master’s tools) in
its ad campaigns. PETA does not seem to comprehend that those with the most privilege
have no desire to give it up. Instead of primarily reaching out to people in society with the
most privilege, PETA should focus its attention on appealing to those most harmed by
oppression. Otherwise, PETA will win several battles, but ultimately lose the war.
44
CHAPTER 5
ACCOUNTING FOR SUCCESS IN PETA’S
BUSINESS MODEL
Though PETA’s ads are undeniably provocative, and public response to the
campaigns is not always positive, there is no denying that the animal rights activists have
garnered financial support and a large following in a relatively short amount of time. Unlike
many activist groups before it, PETA built itself on what has proven to be a successful
capitalist business model, and as a result, has proven to be effective at furthering its agenda.
Upstart activist groups should consider establishing themselves by utilizing PETA’s most
effective practices, while avoiding its mistakes.
Despite its early missteps for equality, PETA’s campaigns quickly received enormous
attention and gained even more celebrity support and money. Whether it is a charity or a
profit-based business, a company needs money. Most charitable institutions rely on
compassionate donations from individuals and businesses, and they usually employ the same
methods as other nonprofit organizations. PETA discovered that it could build financial
support rapidly by utilizing the same tactics as big businesses, and in doing so, achieved a
unique kind of fame and fortune. PETA’s beginnings were humble, and its goals were
unpopular. PETA maintains that it stands for animal rights, but works toward nonhuman
animal liberation by approaching activism from an animal welfare perspective. On its
website, PETA advertises that nonhuman animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on,
use for entertainment, abuse, or exploit (PETA, 2011d). Although PETA targets several
areas of what it identifies as animal abuse, PETA chooses to focus mainly on factory farms,
laboratories, the clothing trade, and the entertainment industry (PETA, 2011d). To be sure,
PETA faces a challenge in both gaining attention and winning the hearts and minds of a
public that overwhelmingly views nonhuman animals as commodities solely for human
interest and profit.
PETA’s first ad campaign launched in 1991 when the all-female rock band The GoGos stood naked behind a banner that announced “We’d Rather Go-Go Naked Than Wear
45
Fur!” (as shown in Figure 15) (Pace, 2005). Shortly after the release of the Go-Gos poster,
supermodel Christy Turlington posed nude in an ad that declared “I’d Rather Go Naked Than
Wear Fur” (as displayed in Figure 15) (Pace, 2005). The I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear
Fur campaign instantly grabbed the public’s attention, and PETA became a household name.
PETA’s anti-fur crusade is possibly its most famous as well as being overwhelmingly
gendered. In his book Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement,
author and animal rights activist Gary Francione argues that PETA’s sexist and racist
imagery has increased over time. Francione notes:
The fur campaign has from the outset been tainted by sexism. The trapping or
ranching of animals for fur is certainly barbaric and immoral, but fur is no more
or less morally obnoxious than leather or wool. The primary difference is that
furs are worn by women, and wool and leather, although also worn by women, are
worn by virtually all men. Fur became an early target of the animal rights
movement, and from the outset the imagery was, not unexpectedly, sexist…Using
sexist imagery or assaults on women to make [the point that the fur industry is
indefensible] is extremely problematic not only because it is violent but because
men wearing their expensive wool suits need not worry about animal rights
advocates harassing them (Francione, 1996).
Figure 15. The Go-Gos We’d Rather Go-Go Naked Than Wear Fur campaign ad
(left) and Christy Turlington’s I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur ad (Right).
Source: Blogger. (2011). The Go-Gos. Retrieved from
http://bp0.blogger.com/_2TsKIxRkY6s/SCo9ypbmTPI/AAAAAAAAAEw/pODVvA
A0yF0/s1600-h/gogo07.jpg. Source: Asian Offbeat. (2011). Christy Turlington.
Retrieved from http://www.asianoffbeat.com/CrazyPictures/Christy_TurlingtonPeta-Poster.jpg
46
By primarily targeting women, PETA unintentionally perpetuated a hierarchy
amongst animals considered most deserving of compassion. Further, by kicking off its ad
campaigns with the I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur crusade, PETA preserved the
prevalent misogynistic dialogue, thereby appealing to a male-dominated audience. Similar to
its Get a Taste for Foie Gras campaign, several of PETA’s anti-fur ads feature violent
rhetoric and images of upper-class women. In doing so, PETA entices people who are
looking for a platform to vocalize hate under the guise of concern for nonhuman animals.
Ultimately, PETA maintained and continues to maintain the cultural structure that allows
nonhuman animals to be oppressed.
Although PETA’s sit-ins and protests draw an enormous amount of media attention, it
is the ad campaigns that facilitate the most discussions about the animal rights organization.
PETA utilizes these advertisements to attract young supporters, who then take part in the
numerous protests and rallies. Unlike businesses that pay celebrities to endorse products,
famous actors, models, and musicians approach PETA and volunteer to model for its
campaigns. Not only do the ads benefit PETA, but the celebrities also receive free publicity
that is passed along directly to their biggest fans—young people. Though many celebrities
publicly support animal rights causes, PETA targets young people, and often works with
famous people whom younger generations admire. It is PETA’s overwhelmingly youthful
following that sets it apart from other nonprofits. The business decision for PETA to target
kids, teens, and individuals in their twenties was brilliant on several levels. Though younger
people do not have much money, they do possess time, they feverishly exude passion, and
they are less likely to carry the same responsibilities as adults who have steady jobs, children,
and spouses they must consider when making decisions. There is the added bonus that by
focusing on the younger generation of activists, over time those young activists and
audiences become aware and agree with PETA; the young will soon have jobs, money, and
influence over the issues PETA points to, and they and their children will certainly be aware
of PETA’s message. For instance, vegan comedian and talk show host Ellen DeGeneres
enlisted PETA member and teen musician Justin Bieber to offer his hair to be auctioned off
so that the proceeds could be donated to an animal rescue organization. The winning bid for
47
a clip of Bieber’s hair went for $40,668 (The Dish is Vegetarian, 2011). PETA has already
influenced one generation and we need look no further than Bieber Fever 8 to see the next
generation’s influence. While many adults become jaded and less idealistic, I contend that
many if not most will continue to support their idealistic past in some fashion—such as
encouraging their children to carry on their beliefs.
PETA currently employs 300 people, and Ingrid Newkirk is only compensated
$37,701, which accounts for just 0.10% of PETA’s expenses (Charity Navigator, 2010). In
2010, PETA, a nonprofit that had only been in existence for 30 years, raised $35,282,146,
and only spent $521,392 on administrative expenses (see Figure 16).
Figure 16. PETA’s 2010 income statement. Source: Charity Navigator. (2010).
Income statement. Retrieved from http://www.charitynavigator.org/
8
“Bieber Fever” is a term for the overwhelming fan response to Justin Bieber. More information may be
found on http://bieberfever.com/.
48
PETA has been under investigation by the FBI for years (Treehugger, 2009), and the
IRS has audited the nonprofit twice. Each time, PETA has been given a clean bill of health
by the IRS (Beardsley & Galkin, 2008). Because PETA employs so few people, and time is
money, it depends on volunteers who can save it funds. Unlike younger people, adults are
more likely to be employed full-time, have children, and be married. All of these
responsibilities do not allow for most adults to work for PETA without being compensated.
Further, young people want to intern for PETA because it appears exciting, an internship
looks good on a resume, and most of the images PETA releases feature attractive people
whom potential interns would want to meet. These internships appeal to people who are
passionate about animal rights and who then meet other dedicated individuals. Many young
people retain an idealistic worldview and the sense that they can make a difference in the
world. Along with this idealism and exposure to other impassioned people, volunteers
become more motivated, and often work even more feverishly for PETA. If the volunteers
do not directly raise money, they at least work toward spreading the word, encouraging their
audience to change their lifestyles, and attracting other people to sign up to volunteer with
PETA. Young people also have fewer ties to the community, which is essential to PETA, as
its members often risk arrest during protests. The ties to the community adults hold include
having mortgages to pay, working full time, raising children, and having significant others to
consider when making important decisions. These responsibilities make adults more hesitant
to break the law, chance damaging their reputations, and possibly negatively impact
important people in their lives.
Along with its support in the United States, PETA has expanded to the UK, France,
Germany, the Netherlands, India, and the Asia-Pacific. When PETA needed media attention
in Tokyo, but could not afford an expensive PR firm, it collected all of the contact
information for Tokyo’s media outlets, and faxed each of them a news alert that a nude
protest would be taking place. PETA contacted “renegade kids from [a] Japanese group” to
translate the news alert at no cost, and in addition, the translators stripped for the protest
(Matthews, 2007). Once again, PETA relied on free services offered by young people to
garner attention.
On the other hand, PETA still wants to appeal to adults who are more likely than
young volunteers to be endowed with money. Golden Girls actress Bea Arthur was a winner
49
of several PETA Humanitarian Awards, as well as an honorary PETA director. The
passionate animal rights advocate motivated her co-stars, Rue McClanahan and Betty White,
to film PETA anti-fur PSAs, as well as inspired the writers to create an anti-fur episode of
Golden Girls (Matthews, 2009). Television star and comedian Bill Maher serves as a PETA
board member (Beardsley & Galkin, 2008), and actor and vegetarian Alec Baldwin
contributed his famously sophisticated voice for its documentary Meet Your Meat (Beardsley
& Galkin, 2008). People often perceive PETA’s antics as over the top and farcical, but these
highly respected and big name personalities leave the impression that PETA is also for
mature audiences.
The Internet is an additional free service that PETA takes full advantage of, which not
only makes it easy for people to educate themselves about the issues PETA stands for, but
also teaches supporters how to raise money. PETA delivers daily e-mails, and boasts a large
following on its Facebook and Myspace pages. On the PETA website, activists are
encouraged to purchase gift memberships, make memorial gifts, include PETA in estates,
make a gift of property, and conduct a workplace campaign (PETA, 2011e). PETA also
features a page where businesses learn how to advertise on PETA’s website once a donation
has been made (PETA, 2011f). PETA advertises products that overwhelmingly appeal to
young people, and even manages a PETA Mall that sells an immense selection of PETA
products, as well as items sold by businesses that donate to PETA (PETA Mall, 2011a).
Further, PETA advertises a PETA Member Advantage Program that offers discounts on
travel packages, cruises, and hotels (PETA Mall, 2011b). Clearly, PETA’s strongest tactic is
that it operates like a for-profit business (as illustrated in Figure 17).
Just 30 years ago, the first thing that came to mind when someone said PETA was a
certain kind of bread. Today, when someone says PETA, people immediately think of
animal rights activists. No matter how people feel about PETA, it is undeniable that the
activist group is a brand that knows how to raise money and attract attention. Following
PETA’s lead and targeting young people has created a ripple effect in the animal welfare
world, and has ultimately changed how charitable groups operate forever. However, until
PETA changes how it markets itself within a patriarchal framework, it will not solve the
problem that should be prioritized—obliterating existing hierarchies by altering the way we
talk about all beings.
50
Figure 17. PETA’s revenue charts. Source: Charity Navigator. (2010). Income
statement. Retrieved from http://www.charitynavigator.org/
51
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
Feminist groups have taken issue with PETA’s campaigns because of its arguably
discriminatory approach toward marginalized people. Despite its questionable antics, PETA
is successful and feminists can learn from the organization. It would behoove feminists to
generate a fresh organization modeled on PETA’s best practices, while taking care to
preserve feminist ethics.
Over the years, the United States women’s movement has made tremendous legal
strides. In less than 100 years, women’s rights activists have succeeded in getting women the
right to vote, pushed hard enough for Roe v. Wade to be passed, and encouraged politicians
to enact the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act, otherwise known as Title IX.
Girls owe the rights they enjoy to feminists that worked so hard for them, and to the activists
who continue to strive for equality.
Despite these noteworthy feminist achievements, several authors have documented
the backlash against feminism, most famously chronicled by Susan Faludi (1991) in her book
Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women. Although Americans are electing
more women into political office than ever before, conservative politicians are stripping
away women’s rights at an alarming rate. So why is it that so many girls and women are
reluctant to call themselves feminists, even going so far as to align themselves with an
arguably misogynistic culture? Most importantly, how do feminist activists appeal to people
who do not identify as feminists?
I propose that feminists assemble a massive and powerful feminist organization based
on PETA’s best practices, while being careful to maintain feminist ethics, even if it would be
more profitable to disregard some of them. This new feminist activist group must initially
focus on a common cause, circulate ad campaigns that clearly identify the objectives,
assemble recognizable leaders and supporters to rally for the mission, reach out to young
people who may not have been exposed to feminism before, earn capital, and encourage
older generations of feminists to lead newer generations toward carrying on feminist
ideology and activism.
52
Alex Pacheco claimed that “the only way to get through to America is to do it the
same way the politicians and business people do it…by being politically savvy and business
savvy, using all the modern techniques of selling a concept and selling a philosophy.” 9 As it
stands, mainstream feminism approaches capitalism and business models with caution.
Indeed, many feminists regard capitalism as a significant source of oppression. That being
the case, a new feminist organization should not necessarily utilize PETA’s exact business
model, but instead should concentrate on the nonhuman animal activist group’s most
effective practices.
More recently, PETA has subverted large corporations by purchasing company stock
(Crumb, 2010). For the past seven years, PETA has purchased shares belonging to
approximately 80 companies. In doing so, PETA established itself as an influential
shareholder that has the authority to converse directly with fellow stockholders and company
leadership. Fostering change through cooperation with diametrically opposite entities is a
moderate approach to activism that is both practical and effective. On the other hand, coopting the strategies of the oppressors may be sending the message that PETA is simply
sustaining “dominant value hierarchies that place both women and animals in oppressed
servitude to hegemonic capitalist profit” (Danis, 2007). Without question, PETA should
reform some of its tactics and ecofeminists might consider constructing a new activist
organization that addresses PETA’s mistakes in an attempt to put a stop to speciesism and
nonhuman animal oppression.
Despite the controversy surrounding PETA, animal rights activism nets enormous
profits (see Figure 18).
In 2008, The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals’ (ASPCA)
net assets alone totaled $119,207,201. In 2007, PETA’s net assets totaled $16,164,783,
which then rose to $16,854,869 in 2008, and steadily increased to $17,726,875 in 2009 (as
demonstrated in Figure 19). Although the ASPCA attracts considerably more in donations, it
was established in 1866, nearly 115 years before PETA. In the many years it has existed, the
9
Ibid.
53
Figure 18. A chart comparing financial details of animal interest organizations.
Source: Charity Navigator. (2010). Income statement. Retrieved from
http://www.charitynavigator.org/
Figure 19. PETA’s financial balance sheet. Source: Charity Navigator. (2010). Income
statement. Retrieved from http://www.charitynavigator.org/
ASPCA has advertised, expanded, established its reputation, and garnered support from
individuals and companies that donate to it regularly. Even though the ASPCA currently
earns more that PETA, what is equally impressive is PETA’s prominence and ability to
attract money in the short amount of time it has existed.
54
In contrast, the National Organization for Women Foundation’s net assets were
$1,717,912 in 2006, and as indicated in Figure 20, have been on a decline for the last three
years. Despite being founded 14 years before PETA (NOW Website, 2011), NOW’s net
assets are millions less and it possesses approximately 1.5 million fewer members than
PETA.
Figure 20. NOW’s financial balance sheet. Source: NOW Website. (2011). National
organization for women: Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from
http://www.now.org/organization/faq.html#member
Even the National Women’s Law Center, the largest earner among women’s interest
groups, in 2008 published its net assets as totaling $23,201,386 (see Figure 21).
Granted, creating a powerful ecofeminist campaign dedicated to animal rights would be
worth pursuing. In truth, several subcategories of feminism already exist, and as illustrated
in Figures 18-21, feminists, as a whole, need money and recognition much more than the
animal rights movement.
Despite the dedication of active and influential feminists, the movement itself is
suffering from public resistance, especially from young people. In their article, “The New
Feminist Movement,” feminist authors Verta Taylor and Nancy Whittier express that
“feminist protest is less visible than it was during the heyday of the women’s movement”
(Taylor & Whittier, 1997). Indeed, bell hooks surmised, “Most young black females learn to
be suspicious and critical of feminist thinking long before they have any clear understanding
of its theory and politics” (Hooks, 1997). Quoting the popular actor and rapper Ice-T, bell
hooks reflects on his opinion: “I don’t believe the conflict with feminists is between feminists
and men. I think the real controversy is between feminists and other feminists” (Hooks,
1997). Truth be told, Ice-T is not exactly a figure people associate with feminism. Prior to
his starring role on the popular television series “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit,” Ice-T
was a pimp who narrated a deeply misogynistic pornographic film entitled “Pimpin’ 101.”
55
Figure 21. A chart comparing economic details of women’s interest organizations.
Source: NOW Website. (2011). National organization for women: Frequently asked
questions. Retrieved from http://www.now.org/organization/faq.html#member
Ice-T implies that the real obstacle feminists face is the scattered nature of the movement.
Instead of latching onto a common cause championed by a consortium of activists, many
feminists work toward numerous causes in multitudinous splinter groups. Even though it is
well known that feminists continue to work toward several causes, the feminist movement
itself is subtle and nuanced compared to how it was once publicly regarded.
PETA speaks for nonhuman animals, which means that there are no concerns that
nonhuman animals will complain that their cause is being ignored. A new women’s rights
group, on the other hand, must choose a cause that responds to intersectional concerns.
Additionally, this issue must continue to be a problem indefinitely so that the group is not
disbanded, its reputation grows, money remains in its possession, and older generations can
invite younger generations to join in the cause. With women in America becoming a
majority of the workforce, feminists have an opportunity to seize power. It is for all of the
aforementioned reasons that this new feminist group should focus on money—specifically
why women are paid less than men and why jobs associated with marginalized people are
devalued. Like PETA, this new group would not interfere with already existing feminist
56
activists, nor would it suggest that other causes are less important. Ultimately, the more
focused the campaign, the more income can be filtered toward creating prominent ads.
The second-wave feminist movement commanded attention by utilizing attention
grabbing and emotionally charged protests. This era produced well-know feminist leaders
such as Angela Davis, Betty Friedan, and Gloria Steinem. Second-wave feminist causes and
famous activists were not only recognized by people in the feminist community, but also by
individuals who were not already a part of the women’s rights movement. These champions
for equal rights have inspired generations of women to take control of their lives and subvert
the patriarchy. Sadly, many people have not been so kind when reflecting on the third-wave
feminist movement. Kate Carraway, a columnist and senior writer at Eye Weekly, berated
the third-wave feminist movement:
The most crucial indicator of an emerging and useful post-feminism is the total
lack of specifically feminist heroes. This decade has offered no celebrity
feminists: no Steinem, no Sontag, no Paglia. The best feminist writers have
become more ghettoized than ever in the 2000s (in lefty mags; in alienating booklength polemics; in universities): the most visible and vocal woman thinker is
grossie Ann Coulter, with Female Chauvinist Pigs writer Ariel Levy, a quiet,
distant second. What we have now are non-specific feminist heroes. Margaret
Cho and Sarah Silverman do comedy that’s as gutteral [sic] as their male
counterparts’ and as revealing of their personal insecurities. Tina Fey uses her 30
Rock character to act out a quasi-pathetic, baby-crazed life-moron with lettuce in
her hair, but she also is the show, among the most absurd and funny on TV.
(Carraway, 2009)
Although Carraway’s language is problematic and the choices in women she defines
as “celebrity feminists” is, to put it mildly, debatable, she articulates a complaint that many
people have expressed about third-wave feminism. Unlike the feminist movement, PETA is
comprised of several recognizable activists. PETA is endowed with the impassioned support
of luminaries, and it also has the advantage of possessing one of the most recognizable and
notorious activist leaders. Even though Ingrid Newkirk’s tactics cause outrage, she
nevertheless stands as a powerful figure working toward animal rights.
Significantly, PETA’s many supporters do everything in their power to reach out to
audiences that may otherwise never be exposed to animal rights. In an interview with
Mother Jones Magazine, Gloria Steinem berated the feminist movement for what she
believes are its alienating practices:
57
These poor women in academia have to talk this silly language that nobody can
understand in order to be accepted, they think…But I recognize the fact that we
have this ridiculous system of tenure, that the whole thrust of academia is one that
values education, in my opinion, in inverse ratio to its usefulness—and what you
write in inverse relationship to its understandability…One way we can solve it is
to get a better exchange going between activism and academia, so that the
academics are putting their glorious intellectual powers to work on researching
real problems. (Gorney, 2011)
Steinem has been a long-time vocal opponent of impenetrable academic language that
she argues is unhelpful in that it turns people off to feminism. PETA, on the other hand,
distributes pamphlets, stickers, and various types of propaganda that communicates its causes
in the most accessible of terms. The items PETA hands out are clear about the messages the
activists are attempting to convey, aesthetically appealing, entertaining, and most
importantly, addressing its messages to what it believes are all audiences. Even so, PETA
frames many of its ideas in oppressive language, all the while falsely assuming that the
discourse is not problematic. A new feminist group must take PETA’s inclusive approach,
while avoiding its missteps.
The feminist artist collective, Guerrilla Girls, conveys its messages by distributing
humorous, as well as memorable stickers, books, billboards, and posters that protest
discrimination. Posted on the Frequently Asked Questions section of its website, the
Guerrilla Girls stipulate, “As a small, anonymous group, we are usually not open to new
members” (Guerrilla Girls, 2010). It is certainly the Guerrilla Girls’ prerogative to deny
admission to its group, but in doing so, the activists communicate that they value anonymity
more than outreach. Unlike the Guerrilla Girls, PETA attempts to publicize as many faces as
possible to appear more inviting. Though the Guerrilla Girls portray an edgy side of
feminism, PETA focuses its energy on giving the impression that it is all-inclusive, which
has resulted in garnering tremendous support.
Currently, feminism lacks a large-scale publicity machine that reaches out to the
public. Even though several blogs and magazines espouse feminist ideology, the audience it
attracts is generally other feminists. To even find an advertisement that features celebrities
who implore people to work toward feminist causes, a person must actively search for The
Feminist Majority Foundation’s This is What a Feminist Looks Like video on its own website
and on YouTube. By contrast, PETA2’s street activists, controversial ads, and pop culture
references all branch out to new audiences. To reach out in the way that PETA has, a new
58
feminist group must advertise, which is not always cheap. Fortunately, Internet campaigns
cost nothing and attract the target demographic. The networking website Facebook allows
members to “like” and become “fans” of specific products and causes. On the group’s pages,
fans are directed to the company’s websites, updated when meetings or protests are being
held, and directed as to how and where supporters can send money. Currently, PETA boasts
over 1.3 million fans on Facebook, while NOW has slightly over 1,300 fans. 10 Both NOW
and a new feminist group should take advantage of Facebook to raise money, organize
rallies, and attract volunteers.
All of this support ultimately leads to attracting money. Although success cannot be
measured in earnings alone, profits enable organizations to spend on advertising campaigns
and reach out to a larger audience. Ideally, this income will be directed toward more
advertising, which in turns attracts more supporters. All along, a portion of this money
should be put aside so that the new feminist group may expand to include more feminist
causes. As Figures 18-21 indicate, money is essential for growth, and the modern feminist
movement has the potential to progress substantially by raising funds in the way that PETA
has by applying its practices.
At present, the third-wave feminist movement has been characterized by many nonfeminists and some feminists as primarily academic with few prominent or famous leaders.
Critics lament that unlike the second-wave feminist movement, the third-wave feminist
movement does not prioritize reaching out to the segment of the population that does not
already identify as feminist. Taylor and Whittier postulate:
The women’s movement of the late 1980’s and 90’s is in abeyance…movements
adopt abeyance structures in order to survive in hostile political climates.
Movements in abeyance are in a “holding pattern,” during which activists from an
earlier period maintain the ideology and structural base of the movement, but few
new recruits join. A movement in abeyance is primarily oriented toward
maintaining itself rather than confronting the established order directly. (Taylor &
Whittier, 1997)
Indeed, many of the faces of feminism today were active campaigners during the
second-wave feminist movement. Gloria Steinem continues to publish and speak publicly
about feminism. In her article “Helping Ourselves to Revolution,” Steinem proposes that
10
Facebook fan numbers for PETA and NOW were collected on February 28, 2011.
59
feminists create “a nationwide system of small groups of women who support each other
personally and act politically” (Steinem, 1997). The creation of a new feminist activist group
that utilizes PETA’s best practices would not stifle or discourage the work of already existing
feminist organizations, nor would it get in the way of new ones. The new feminist
organization would, however, enlist the experience and wisdom that long-time women’s
rights activists could provide. While there is strength in numbers, a feminist movement that
utilizes some of PETA’s tactics has the potential to be more effective when those individual
numbers unify and engage new audiences.
60
REFERENCES
Adams, C. J. (1990). The sexual politics of meat. New York, NY: The Continuum International
Publishing Group.
Adams, C. J. (2004). The pornography of meat. New York, NY: The Continuum International
Publishing Group.
Adams, J., & Donovan, J. D. (1995). Animals & women. Durham: Duke University Press.
Anonymous. (2003). Group blasts PETA ‘Holocaust’ project. Retrieved from
http://articles.cnn.com/2003-02-28/us/peta.holocaust_1_animal-rights-peta-web-siteholocaust-survivor?_s=PM:US
Asian Offbeat. (2011). Christy Turlington. Retrieved from
http://www.asianoffbeat.com/CrazyPictures/Christy_Turlington-Peta-Poster.jpg
Associated Press. (2009). PETA uses KKK imagery at dog show protest. Retrieved from
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/29104505
Auchincloss, A., Riolo, R., Brown, D., Cook, J., & Diez Roux, A. (2011). An agent-based model
of income inequalities in diet in the context of residential segregation. American Journal
of Preventive Medicine, 40(3), 303-311.
Beardsley, M (Producer), & Galkin, M. (Director). (2008). I am an animal:The story of Ingrid
Newkirk and PETA. Los Angeles: HBO.
Beers, D. (2006). For the prevention of cruelty: The history and legacy of animal rights activism
in the United States. Athens: Swallow Press.
Blogger. (2011). The Go-Gos. Retrieved from
http://bp0.blogger.com/_2TsKIxRkY6s/SCo9ypbmTPI/AAAAAAAAAEw/pODVvAA0
yF0/s1600-h/gogo07.jpg
Burnham, L. (1994). Race and gender: Limits of analogy. In E. Tobach & B. Rosoff (Eds.),
Challenging racism and sexism, alternatives to genetic explanations (pp. 133-152). New
York, NY: The Feminist Press.
Campt, T. (2003). Converging specters of an other within race and gender in prewar AfroGerman history. Callaloo, 26(2), 322-341.
Cannick, J. (2008). Gather around, it’s time to play “name that bigot.” Retrieved from
http://www.jasmynecannick.com/blog/?p=1735
Cantor, S. (Producer), & Galkin, M. (Director). (2007). I am an animal: The story of Ingrid
Newkirk and PETA [Motion Picture]. United States of America: Time Warner.
Carraway, K. (2009). Feminism didn’t really work. Oopsie! Retrieved from
http://www.eyeweekly.com/loveandsex/article/79987
61
Castina. (2008). Nude Jenna Jameson PETA ad picture: ‘Sometimes too much sex can be a bad
thing’. Retrieved from http://www.popcrunch.com/nude-jenna-jameson-peta-ad-picturesometimes-too-much-sex-can-be-a-bad-thing/
Charity Navigator. (2010). Income statement. Retrieved from http://www.charitynavigator.org/
Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of
empowerment. New York, NY: Routledge.
Crumb, M. (2010). PETA buying stock to gain influence in boardrooms. Retrieved from
http://www.cnsnews.com/node/66504
Dabitch. (2005). Ron Jeremy warns that too much sex can be a bad thing. Retrieved on from
http://adland.tv/content/ron-jeremy-warns-too-much-sex-can-be-bad-thing
Danis, K. M. (2007). Dismembering the animal rights movement: PETA and the consumption of
women’s bodies (Master’s thesis). Available from Dissertations and Theses database.
(UMI No. 1441793).
Davis, A. Y. (1981). Women, race &class. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Deckha, M. (2008). Disturbing images: PETA and the feminist ethics of animal advocacy. Ethics
& the Environment, 13(2), 35-76.
Donovan, J. (2003). Animal rights and feminist theory. In S. Armstrong & R. Botzler (Eds.), The
animal ethics reader (pp. 45-49). New York, NY: Routledge.
Dunayer, J. (2001). Animal equality: Language and liberation. Derwood, MA: Ryce Publishing.
Faludi, S. (1991). Backlash: The undeclared war against American women. New York, NY:
Anchor Books.
Feminista, & ShantiShacker. (2009). PETA. Retrieved from
http://thegenderblenderblog.wordpress.com/?s=Traci+Bingham
Fillip, S. (2009). Dehumanization and human rights. Retrieved from
http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/dehumanization-and-human-rights/
Foer, J. S. (2009). Eating animals. New York, NY: Hatchette Book Group.
Francione, G. (1996). Rain without thunder: The ideology of the animal rights movement.
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: The Continuum International
Publishing Group.
George, K. P. (2000). Animal, vegetable, or woman? A feminist critique of ethical
vegetarianism. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.
George, L. (2008). Go veg! Get girls! Maclean’s 121(10), 52-53.
Gorney, C. G. (2011). Mother Jones. Retrieved from
http://motherjones.com/politics/1995/11/gloria
Guerilla Girls. (2010). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from
http://www.guerrillagirls.com/interview/faq.shtml
62
Guillermo, K. S. (1993). Monkey business. Washington, D.C.: National Press Books.
Hauge, R. (Writer), & Anderson, M. (Director). (1997). Homer’s Phobia [Television Series
Episode]. Groening, M. (Producer), The Simpsons. United States: 20th Century Fox.
Hooks, B. (1981). Ain’t I a woman: Black women and feminism. Boston, MA: South End Press.
Hooks, B. (1995). Killing rage: Ending racism. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.
Hooks, B. (1997). Black students who reject feminism. In F. Richardson, V. Taylor, & N.
Whittier (Eds.), Feminist frontiers IV (pp. 546-547). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
Companies.
Hoffman, C. (2006). Joe Francis: Baby, give me a kiss. Retrieved from
http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/magazine/la-tmgonewild32aug06,0,5620406.story
Jaquith, M. (2005). PETA reconsiders ads. Retrieved from http://txfx.net/2005/08/13/petareconsiders-ads/
Kheel, M. (1995). License to kill: An ecofeminist critique of Hunters’ Discourse. In C. J. Adams
& J. D. Donovan (Eds.), Animals & women (pp. 85-125). Durham, UK: Duke University
Press.
Kiley, D. (2005). Business Week Online. Retrieved from
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/brandnewday/archives/2005/05/carls_jr_paris.
html
Levy, A. (2005). Female chauvinist pigs: Women and the rise of raunch culture. New York, NY:
Free Press.
Luke, B. (2007). Brutal: Manhood and the exploitation of animals. Chicago, IL: University of
Illinois Press.
Markus, E. (2005). Meat market: Animals, ethics and money. Minneapolis, MN: Brio Press.
Matthews, D. (2007). Committed. New York, NY: Atria Books.
Matthews, D. (2009). Honorary PETA director, Bea Arthur passes on. Retreived from
http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2009/04/25/honorary-peta-director-bea-arthurpasses-on.aspx
Midlands Vegan Campaigns. (2007). Force feeding stunt exposes selfridges. Retrieved from
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/382092.html
Newkirk, I. (2005). PETA apologizes for Holocaust comparisons. Retrieved from
http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/25964/peta-apologizes-for-holocaust-comparisons/
NOW Website. (2011). National organization for women: Frequently asked questions. Retrieved
from http://www.now.org/organization/faq.html#member
Pace, L. (2005). Image events and PETA’s anti fur campaign. Women and Language, 28(2), 3341.
Parker, T. (Writer & Director). (2002). Fun with veal [Television Series Episode]. T. Parker
(Producer), South Park. United States: Comedy Central.
63
Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press
Pereira, R. (2010). Gilbert Arenas strips for PETA’s ‘Ink Not Mink’. Retrieved from
http://bumpshack.com/2010/01/07/gilbert-arenas-strips-for-petas-ink-not-mink-photos/
Patterson, C. (2002) Eternal Treblinka: Our treatment of animals and the holocaust. New York,
NY: Lantern Books.
PETA. (2007). Get a taste for foie gras. Retrieved from
http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2007/12/07/Get-a-Taste-for-Foie-Gras.aspx
PETA. (2011a). Cruelty doesn’t fly. Retrieved from
http://features.peta.org/CrueltyDoesntFly/default.asp
PETA. (2011b). Six reasons why PETA’s gay. Retrieved from
http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2011/01/12/six-reasons-why-peta-sgay.aspx?c=weekly_enews
PETA. (2011c). Hanging. Retrieved from
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3009/2774537238_3b75cb121f.jpg
PETA. (2011d). Uncompromising stands on animal rights. Retrieved from
http://www.peta.org/about/why-peta/default.aspx
PETA. (2011e). More ways to support PETA. Retrieved from http://www.peta.org/donate/waysto-support-peta/default.aspx
PETA. (2011f). PETA business friends: About this program. Retrieved from
http://www.peta.org/donate/ways-to-support-peta/about-PETA-business-friends.aspx
PETA2. (2011). Dennis Rodman says, ‘Ink Not Mink’. Retrieved from
http://www.peta2.com/outthere/o-rodman.asp
PETA Asia Pacific. (2010). Wild animals don’t belong in chains. Retrieved from
http://www.petaasiapacific.com/images/1200_patrick_ribbsaeter_ele.jpg
PETA Germany. (2011). Wilde Tiere gehoren nicht hitner Gitter. Retrieved from
http://www.peta.de/img/mdb/mola_72.jpg
PETA India Online. (2010).Celina Jaitly stands up for elephants in captivity. Retrieved from
http://www.petaindia.com/features/celina-jaitly.aspx
PETA Mall. (2011a). PETA Mall. Retrieved from http://www.petamall.com/
PETA Mall. (2011b). PETA member advantage program. Retrieved from
http://www.petamall.com/PLPShop.asp?RecordID=490
PETA Online. (2009). PETA’s guide to the ABCs. Retrieved from
http://features.peta.org/GuidetoABCs/index.asp
Rehbeck, M. (2008). Digital TV, MTV and VIVA for PETA. Retrieved from
http://www.adsneeze.com/public-interest/digital-tv-mtv-viva-peta
64
Reimink, T. (2009). PETA’s plans for horse-carriage protests, fish empathy center highlight a
busy animal-rights week. Retrieved from http://www.mlive.com/news/grandrapids/index.ssf/2009/06/petas_plans_for_horsecarriage.html
Riley, S. (1993). Ecology is a sistah’s issue too. In C. J. Adams (Ed.), Ecofeminism and the
sacred (pp. 191-291). New York, NY: The Continuum Publishing Company.
Steinem, G. (1997). Helping ourselves to revolution. In L. Richardson, V. Taylor, & N. Whittier
(Eds.), Feminist frontiers IV (pp. 554-555). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Steinem, G. (2008). Women are never front-runner. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html?_r=2
Shafran, A. (2005). This time PETA’s guilty of missing the point. Retrieved from
http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/26024/this-time-peta-s-guilty-of-missing-the-point/
Silverstone, A. (2009). The kind diet: A simple guide to feeling great, losing weight, and saving
the planet. New York, NY: Rodale.
Singer, P. (2002). Animal liberation. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
Sztybel, D. (2006). Can the treatment of animals be compared to the holocaust? Ethics & the
Environment, 11(1), 97-140.
Taylor, V., & Whittier, N. (1997). The new feminist movement. In L. Richardson, V. Taylor, &
N. Whittier (Eds.), Feminist frontiers IV (pp. 558). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
The Dish is Vegetarian. (2011). Ellen auctions off Justin Bieber's hair for animal rescue charity.
Retrieved from http://www.thisdishisvegetarian.com/2011/03/1370ellen-auctions-offjustin-biebers.html
Thomson, K. (2009). Huffington Post Online. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/26/padma-lakshmi-gets-dirty_n_179627.html
Treehugger. (2009). USDA classifies PETA as a terrorist threat. Retrieved from
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/peta-classified-terroristthreat.php?campaign=th_rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campai
gn=Feed%3A+treehuggersite+%28Treehugger%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
Ury, F. (2004). PETA protest ends in 6 arrests: Undergrad among nude anti-fur protestors
arrested in Square. Retrieved from http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2004/3/2/petaprotest-ends-in-6-arrests/
Vegetarian Star (2010). Sasha Grey PETA Ad—‘Too much sex can be a bad thing’. Retrieved
from http://vegetarianstar.com/2010/01/08/sasha-grey-peta-ad-too-much-sex-can-be-abad-thing-photo/