Valerie Rueda
Professor Rowley
English 1
02 June 2014
Selling Vegetarianism with Sexism
In one of PETA’s “Go Vegetarian” advertisements, it shows a beautiful blonde haired, blue eyed female celebrity with a very slender body. This said woman is naked and laying pool side covering her womanhood by crossing her arm over her chest and crossing her thigh to cover her bottom half. In the middle of the ad it says “ I am Alicia Silverstone and I am a VEGETARIAN.” The word vegetarian is in the center in a huge font that takes up a third of the advertisement. The ad is targeted toward both males and females, trying to persuade them to become vegetarians. The intention of the slogan, is using the celebrity and using her status and body to make others think that maybe they should become vegetarians like her. Obviously, the main point of the ad is to show off her body and the body of a vegetarian. Women are supposed to think that if they stop eating animal products, they will become skinny and have a nice body like Silverstone. Men are supposed to think I can get a hot girlfriend if I too become a vegetarian, with the expectation that all female vegetarians look like Silverstone. Although becoming a vegetarian is good for you and can improve you health, PETA should persuade others to become a vegetarian in a different way that does not sexualize women because it depicts that women should look a certain way and it is harmful to women’s self image.
In order to catch people’s attention and draw them in to become vegetarians, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is exploiting women in an oversexualized way. It seems like the exploitation of women and their bodies is the only way they can receive attention in today’s media. These types of advertisements effectively draw in men’s attention, but at the cost of using women as mere sex objects in order to do so. As if we need another major corporation using women for their sexuality in the media to get their points across. The ads are supposedly targeted to make people aware of vegetarianism and persuade them to become a vegetarian themselves. Becoming a vegetarian, however, has nothing to do with the concept of naked women, but PETA still does it anyway and it is repulsive. Should they exploit the female body in exchange for stopping the exploitation of animals? Seems like a poor trade off.
PETA’s advertisements seem to be completely contradictory, in the sense that they strip down a female’s body and use it to their advantage the way farmers strip down animals for their meat and use it to their advantage. It makes them one and the same and no different at all. In the news article, “Pamela Anderson PETA Ad Sexist,” posted in the Montreal Gazette, a National Post it reads “A Montreal civic agency told PETA this week that an ad featuring a nearly nude Pamela Anderson with her body labelled like a butcher's diagram is sexist and it won't be given a permit to unveil it in the city.” The advertisement was so sexist that it was not even deemed suitable to be allowed in public. With that said in this ad Pamela is at least wearing a barely-there bikini, whereas in other PETA advertisements, women are baring it all. PETA is losing their touch when it comes to effective advertising. Turning to these new methods of advertisements are now hurting women and adding more pressure on females about the societal standard of what a women's body is supposed to look like.
PETA certainly is using every female’s weakness to their advantage. In the media all we see is skinny, beautiful women telling the rest of the world that is what they should strive to look like. They are using that exact message, but twisting it around making it look like it is for a good cause. In the article, “The Carrot Some Vegans Deplore,” by Kara Jesella, she says that “feminists were early adopters of vegetarianism whom said that back in the ’70s, lots of women were saying, ‘I don’t want to be a piece of meat. I’m not going to eat a piece of meat.” PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, but where is the ethical treatment of women? Where in all this does it benefit animals at all? Rather, it is damaging women's view of themselves, using them as Jesella said as a “piece of meat” for men to drool over and women to envy. Gullible women that see this ad are going to fall for the false fallacy that if you become a vegetarian you will lose weight and become skinny and beautiful when in reality it is not that easy and that is not what is going to happen. They are playing on women's faults and it is working. It seems like guys might even fall for this trickery thinking that it will have all kinds of benefits if they too follow the trend, including getting beautiful, skinny nude women as girlfriends.
These advertisements are certainly doing more harm than good. PETA is supposed to stand up for animals and do good, but rather than doing so they are degrading women. It seems as if the advertisements are getting worse. As Rheana Murray said in The New York Daily News, “PETA . . . stopping abuse of animals ... but promoting it for women.” They may be trying to do good by animals, but at the cost of women's rights. What happened to the cute stickers that made people actually feel bad for animals without hurting anyone? PETA’s ethics have obviously changed and it is not for the better.
Works Cited
Jesella, Karra. “The Carrot Some Vegans Deplore” New York Times. 27 March 2008: Web 06 April 2014.
Murray, Rheana. “PETA’s ‘Boyfriend Went Vegan’ Ad Features Young Woman Who Appears To Have Been Abused” New York Daily
News. 14 February 2008: Web 06 April 2014.
National Post. “Pamela Anderson PETA Ad Sexist” Montreal Gazette. 15 July 2010: Web 06 April 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment