State of the Union

January 29, 2008

I didn’t watch the State of the Union Address. In fact, as soon as I saw Bush’s face on my television screen I wanted to vomit. At first I thought, maybe I’m preggers. Then I thought, maybe this raw food thing isn’t so great. Then I thought, must change channel now.

PETA State of the Union

But I did watch the PETA 2008 State of the Union Undress. It’s a striptease in both NSFW and safe for work modes. And this is why I posted all those pictures of naked menz yesterday and a few months ago. Before I give you the link to the striptease, here’s the transcript:

“Members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens, we are gathered here today for PETA’s second annual State of the Union Undress.

As more and more is revealed during the moments that we have together today, I know that many of you will find yourselves with some very hard — decisions to make.

In the time that has passed since PETA’s last State of the Union Undress, we have worked tirelessly to lay bare the cruelty of industrialized farming practices, to strip away the lame excuses given by fashion houses that continue to use fur, and to reveal the naked truth about those individuals who mercilessly abuse animals in the name of experimentation and entertainment.

We have performed our mammoth task with every tool available to us: From the discussions that led Smithfield, Burger King, and Wendy’s to give more space to the millions of pigs and chickens crammed into cages in their suppliers’ factories … to the outreach and education that led Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger, and Vivienne Westwood to remove the fur from their lines and convinced Denny’s to end its promotion of the Ringling Bros. circus … to the provocative demonstrations against KFC’s hideous abuse of chickens and Burberry’s heartless sale of fur that caused thousands of astonished men and women to stop in their tracks … and pay attention.

If the citizens of this country are truly going to distance themselves from an outdated, oppressive mentality of cruelty and violence against animals, we will be required first to cast aside our prejudice. Our blindness to injustice. Our fear of change. … And, occasionally … our underwear.

Now is the time to stop piling our plates with foods that were obtained at a price of terrible suffering … to start buying products that were created with care and compassion instead of cruel experiments on living beings … and to turn our backs forever on any such cheap entertainment that comes at so high a cost for animals.

And here and now, I ask you to join me in saying: From this day forth, I will be fur-free!

And I, for my part, will promise you that we will redouble our efforts … that we will continue our noble mission of ending exploitation and abuse of animals with determination and with great courage—and that we will allow nothing at all to hold us back from our goal. Thank you.”

So, I’m expecting the usual comments about PETA ads using female sexuality to objectify and demean women. And well, I partially agree with that. I’ve written about this topic before here, here and here. (You can kind of see my thoughts evolve).

My response is multifaceted:

PETA naked ads promote and sustain sexism and misogyny in the following ways:

Using the heterosexual male gaze that objectifies women.
Limiting diversity of body shape, color, age, ability and more.
Overuse of women’s bodies versus men’s.
Coupling of sexual stimulation with violence.

This can be rectified by:

Creating more diverse ads (diverse in terms of sex, body shape, color, age, ability, and photo angles, lens, etc.) thereby accentuating the subject rather than turning her into an object, and separating the images of animal violence from the images of objectified women, or
Stopping the naked ads.

I vote for number 1.

The rest of the fault lies in mainstream media and society in general and cannot be attributed to PETA. For example, the criticism that “PETA’s ads send the message to everybody (including women and little girls) that women’s voices do not warrant attention unless there’s T&A to go along with it. Subsequently, only idealized body types are ‘heard’” (source) should be aimed at those who respond to PETA ads because:

PETA doesn’t control how their messages are understood, interpreted, used, spread
The majority of PETA ads are NOT naked, sexualized ads. The majority feature nonhuman animals, not humans. And the majority of human ads are clothed.
PETA doesn’t control which ads media outlets pick-up. (If you blog and want to help promote PETA’s non-naked ads, do it. But whenever you complain about the naked ads, you’re promoting them, too. Controversy sells and PETA knows it, and so do writers and publishers.)

Lastly, any assumption that models who shed their clothes for PETA are exploited by PETA should be re-examined. Not everyone who gets naked and ‘uses their sexuality to promote a message’ is someone who’s been exploited. Plenty of sex workers don’t consider themselves exploited. They could be deluded, but I doubt it. If you disagree you should read and listen to voices of the people who you are supposedly trying to protect.

You should listen to them when they say things like, ‘I love the business and want to stay in it. But I’m interested in helping women who don’t love it and want out. Let’s work together to help them get out. And let’s pitch in and help the women who want out of sweatshops or other oppressive conditions get out, too.’ Go here and here and here for starters.

(Oh, and if you want to play the ‘what they do affects how other people treat me’ card, try using that card on marriage, pregnancy, staying at home, cooking, make-up, or any other women’s issue and see how that card works out for you.)

And now, finally, because you’ve (hopefully) read all that, here is the link to the 2008 PETA State of the Union Undress. Sadly, it’s too similar to last year’s. PETA needs to kick this up a notch and at the very least offer a video of a man stripteasing. Please.

—

Note: this post was slightly edited on 1-30-08

Posted by Elaine Vigneault | Filed Under Feminism, Philosophy and Guidance, Politics, Sexuality, The World, veganism

« ‘Sin City’ Is A Marketing Slogan

Validated »

Comments

6 Responses to “State of the Union”

jovan byars on January 29th, 2008 11:26 pm
Thank you for linking to the Troll Bingo Card in the posting.

jovan byars’s last blog post..New troll bingo card
Ed on January 30th, 2008 3:49 pm
I definitely agree that there’s some gray in PETA’s campaign, but I think they get the focus and vitriol not because they have naked people in their ads, but because of the content of their message.

If you really think that PETA’s advertising is sexist, then please spend equal, if not more, time protesting the elements of the fashion industry which are more exploitative of both women and animals.
Elaine Vigneault on January 30th, 2008 4:17 pm
If you really think that PETA’s advertising is sexist, then please spend equal, if not more, time protesting the elements of the fashion industry which are more exploitative of both women and animals.

Excellent point.
Ryan on February 1st, 2008 1:42 pm
I blogged about this myself, both this year and last year. My main problem with PETA is not its sexism — while I think they do use sexist imagery, I agree with your analysis and proposed solution above — but rather with the actual effects their campaigns have. As I blogged:

But most importantly, PETA congratulates and gives awards to animal-using groups and people for improvements in animal welfare — improvements that serve to make consumers feel better about eating and otherwise using animals. People who may have felt bad when learning of cruelty to animals used in fast food see PETA congratulating the perpetrators when they stop, and therefore feel that the animals involved are now treated “humanely,” as if unnecessary killing can ever be a “humane” act. PETA increases demand for meat and animal products every time they campaign for a minor improvement in welfare and then make a public show if it is won. PETA tells people, by celebrating these animal exploiters as heroes, that it is acceptable to harm animals as long as you don’t harm them too much. And that’s a ludicrous message for an animal rights group to send.

I am in agreement with PETA in terms of stated goals, but I fear that by pursuing a welfare agenda in practice they divert resources that could be spent on vegan activism, to say nothing of their public stunts potentially trivializing an issue that is already considered trivial by their target audience. PETA is too timid in its actual actions — it often can’t even bring itself to tell people to “go vegan,” using the less scary term “vegetarian,” even though vegetarianism entails participating in the same exploitation of animals they claim to be against!

Ryan’s last blog post..It’s that time of year again…
Tracy on February 1st, 2008 7:55 pm
I didn’t like the Undress last year, but I watched it this year anyway. And still feel the same about it. I really don’t think it does anything to help animals. I did the same thing that most any guy is going to do (I’m a straight girl, by the way): I closed the window as soon as all of her clothes were off because I didn’t want to see images of suffering animals.

If Peta is going to do this next year, I’d rather see images of the animals (with voiceover) inserted during the striptease. And the inability for people to fast-forward, of course.
Elaine Vigneault on February 1st, 2008 11:47 pm
Tracy,
Thanks for commenting!

If Peta is going to do this next year, I’d rather see images of the animals (with voiceover) inserted during the striptease. And the inability for people to fast-forward, of course.

I think that’s really interesting that you want that. I don’t like it at all. I think it’s a dangerous combination. There are plenty of weirdos who aren’t affected by videos of abused animals. And the combo of violence towards animals with a sexual striptease could desensitize viewers to violence and objectification.

There is a good reason that caring people don’t like to watch the videos of tortured animals. There is a good reason we turn our heads away in disgust. And that reason isn’t simply denial. That reason is that watching violence has an effect on the viewer. I think combining that with sexual arousal is a very dangerous thing to do.