PETA commercial offensive

[Guest guest]

Anyone here from Green Bay? this person is, and this is their point of view :

 

 

GREEN BAY — This is an open letter to PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). In the past, I applauded organizations whose focus and efforts were directed at stopping inhumane treatment of animals, especially pets.

 

 

 

However, I am totally disgusted and morally outraged with your noisome "veggie love" commercial. Not only do you portray this food group in a virulent sexually arousing manner, but exploit women and degrade their bodies in the process.

Did PETA truly believe any positive feedback, financial support, or conversion of meat-lovers would be forthcoming after this scurrilous commercial? Who, exactly, was your target audience? Does anyone at PETA have children who watch TV?

Credit is due NBC for their perspicacious call to pull this ad from the Super Bowl knowing families would be incensed. After reading numerous online blogs, it appears you've managed to repulse and alienate PETA members and nonmembers alike. If the point of this commercial was to attract attention to your cause, you succeeded by drawing attention to PETA, a very perverse and bizarre organization. If the purpose was to promote a vegan-type lifestyle, your pornographic vegetables proved a failure.

Sherry Kralovetz-Puce

 

Peter vv

,_._,___

[Guest guest]

Peter, I have family in Green Bay, so you pulled me into this topic,

albeit late.

 

I think that some types of people get incensed easily over what they

consider " moral " issues, especially in the heartland of America. I

personally think that Americans are more than a tad prudish and

censor things that can seem a bit ridiculous in hindsight. It seems

to me that we could do with a little more sexually suggestive

innuendos in popular American culture if it would remove the pedestal

of moral superiority we tend to enjoy standing on all the time.

 

I also think that PETA knew darn well that the commercial wouldn't be

aired (they've had suggestive ads banned before), but they were also

keenly aware that all of the hype and moral outrage would give them

more airtime in the world forum--regardless of whether or not it was

aired on television.

 

I think it was brilliant and I laughed outloud when I viewed it--but

then again I'm a third-wave feminist with a stomach for wry and

biting humor. My conservative friends were " embarrassed " by it when

they viewed it on my Facebook page--but, they viewed the whole darn

thing before they reacted to it, so the message was delivered whether

they liked it or not. Even if they won't give up their hamburgers,

subconsciously they will now equate vegetarians with virility, and

that's not such a bad thing.

 

, Peter VV <swpgh01 wrote:

>

> Anyone here from Green Bay? this person is, and this is their point

of view :

> GREEN BAY †" This is an open letter to PETA (People for the

Ethical Treatment of Animals). In the past, I applauded organizations

whose focus and efforts were directed at stopping inhumane treatment

of animals, especially pets.

> However, I am totally disgusted and morally outraged with your

noisome " veggie love " commercial. Not only do you portray this food

group in a virulent sexually arousing manner, but exploit women and

degrade their bodies in the process.

> Did PETA truly believe any positive feedback, financial support, or

conversion of meat-lovers would be forthcoming after this scurrilous

commercial? Who, exactly, was your target audience? Does anyone at

PETA have children who watch TV?

> Credit is due NBC for their perspicacious call to pull this ad from

the Super Bowl knowing families would be incensed. After reading

numerous online blogs, it appears you've managed to repulse and

alienate PETA members and nonmembers alike. If the point of this

commercial was to attract attention to your cause, you succeeded by

drawing attention to PETA, a very perverse and bizarre organization.

If the purpose was to promote a vegan-type lifestyle, your

pornographic vegetables proved a failure.

> Sherry Kralovetz-Puce

>  

> Peter vv

> ,_._,___

>

[Guest guest]

From the OED

 

virile

 

• adjective 1 (of a man) having strength, energy, and a strong sex

drive. 2 vigorous, strong, and manly.

 

If vegans need to be seen as virile, I am presuming that there were

some men pretending to have sex with vegetables as well!?

 

Jo

 

 

, " whitty__ " <ravenwolf18 wrote:

>

> Peter, I have family in Green Bay, so you pulled me into this

topic,

> albeit late.

>

> I think that some types of people get incensed easily over what

they

> consider " moral " issues, especially in the heartland of America. I

> personally think that Americans are more than a tad prudish and

> censor things that can seem a bit ridiculous in hindsight. It

seems

> to me that we could do with a little more sexually suggestive

> innuendos in popular American culture if it would remove the

pedestal

> of moral superiority we tend to enjoy standing on all the time.

>

> I also think that PETA knew darn well that the commercial wouldn't

be

> aired (they've had suggestive ads banned before), but they were

also

> keenly aware that all of the hype and moral outrage would give them

> more airtime in the world forum--regardless of whether or not it

was

> aired on television.

>

> I think it was brilliant and I laughed outloud when I viewed it--

but

> then again I'm a third-wave feminist with a stomach for wry and

> biting humor. My conservative friends were " embarrassed " by it

when

> they viewed it on my Facebook page--but, they viewed the whole darn

> thing before they reacted to it, so the message was delivered

whether

> they liked it or not. Even if they won't give up their hamburgers,

> subconsciously they will now equate vegetarians with virility, and

> that's not such a bad thing.

>

> , Peter VV <swpgh01@> wrote:

> >

> > Anyone here from Green Bay? this person is, and this is their

point

> of view :

> > GREEN BAY †" This is an open letter to PETA (People for the

> Ethical Treatment of Animals). In the past, I applauded

organizations

> whose focus and efforts were directed at stopping inhumane

treatment

> of animals, especially pets.

> > However, I am totally disgusted and morally outraged with your

> noisome " veggie love " commercial. Not only do you portray this food

> group in a virulent sexually arousing manner, but exploit women and

> degrade their bodies in the process.

> > Did PETA truly believe any positive feedback, financial support,

or

> conversion of meat-lovers would be forthcoming after this

scurrilous

> commercial? Who, exactly, was your target audience? Does anyone at

> PETA have children who watch TV?

> > Credit is due NBC for their perspicacious call to pull this ad

from

> the Super Bowl knowing families would be incensed. After reading

> numerous online blogs, it appears you've managed to repulse and

> alienate PETA members and nonmembers alike. If the point of this

> commercial was to attract attention to your cause, you succeeded by

> drawing attention to PETA, a very perverse and bizarre

organization.

> If the purpose was to promote a vegan-type lifestyle, your

> pornographic vegetables proved a failure.

> > Sherry Kralovetz-Puce

> >  

> > Peter vv

> > ,_._,___

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Whitty

 

> subconsciously they will now equate vegetarians with virility, and

 

Except that if they found it offensive, they'll subconsciously associate

vegetarians with low moral standards and debauchery.... not sure that's

quite so good.

 

BB

Peter

[Guest guest]

Hi Whitty

 

> I think it was brilliant and I laughed outloud when I viewed it--but

> then again I'm a third-wave feminist

 

Interesting... most feminists find the objectification of women for male

pleasure to be objectionable rather than humorous!

 

BB

Peter

[Guest guest]

Sigh... I suppose I was simplifying it by assuming that men would be

influenced/affected the most by the sexuality in the commercial.

Shows my heterosexual bias. Thanks for pointing out that women might

also be interested...in which case I should have suggested that it

might not be bad for vegans to be seen as generally more sexy than the

norm.

 

, " heartwerk " <jo.heartwork

wrote:

>

> From the OED

>

> virile

>

> • adjective 1 (of a man) having strength, energy, and a strong sex

> drive. 2 vigorous, strong, and manly.

>

> If vegans need to be seen as virile, I am presuming that there were

> some men pretending to have sex with vegetables as well!?

>

> Jo

>

>

[Guest guest]

I found the PETA ad neither amusing nor offensive. I do find it

somewhat ill-advised, though. I have long found some of PETA's

tactics, for lack of a better word, to be not terribly smart. The

people that they are trying to reach simply find a lot of their ads

and behavior off-putting and offensive. This is a good example.

Another very recent example would be the KKK outfits that were worn by

some PETA demonstrators at the Westminster Kennel Club dog show on

opening night (Monday). I really can't think of any demographic that

wouldn't find that offensive. I understand that to get the attention

of both the media and everyday people you need to do something that is

eye-catching, but I don't think that to equate dog breeding with

Hitler's plans of having a master race (they were wearing KKK garb and

stating that the AKC is attempting to breed a master race of dogs) and

using visuals that evoke slavery and lynchings is going to do anything

but offend. Same thing with an ad that is as provocative as the

vegetarian ad in question. Again, I was neither amused nor offended.

As for the what NBC perceived as the explicit nature, well, I've seen

worse on network television shows. But again, the demographic PETA is

trying to reach through these ads is simply offended and put off.

People that didn't find either tactic (the commercial or the

Westminster stunt) offensive are people that are already on board and

agree with them. They are trying to convince those that are meat

eaters or that support pure-bred dogs to go vegan and to only rescue

dogs and then make sure they are spayed/neutered. Such tactics aren't

going to sway those groups. Perhaps we are a nation of prudes (and i

would agree that in many ways we are), but PETA, if their goal is

educate the masses as to the benefits of a vegan diet/lifestyle, need

to understand that and act accordingly. Reach out to the nation's

inner-prudishness, and don't simply offend the majority of the United

States. Long-winded post short, by producing such ads and by staging

such protests, they are only doing themselves a disservice. The

groups they are trying to reach out to are put off and offended and

want nothing to do with them.

 

 

Missie Harhold

and Gracie the Ibizan Hound

and Jeanie the Greyhound

greyhounddog

 

“Because nothing worthwhile in this country has ever happened unless

somebody, somewhere stood up when it was hard; stood up when they were

told – no you can’t, and said yes we can.” Barack Obama

[Guest guest]

I don't agree. I think that even if they tell themselves it's immoral

and full of debauchery (why do I think of a faun chasing after nymphs

when I see that word?) they're still going to be drawn to the

suggestion of sexuality--whether they want to or not. The

most " moral " individuals in society have their secret vices and

desires when it comes to sex. It's media fodder all the time over

here in the U.S. It's a fundamental biological desire hotwired into

our very DNA. Whether we like it or not, subconciously or conciously,

the idea of sex draws people like moths to the flame. PETA uses this

weakness to hit home a message most wouldn't pay attention to under

other circumstances.

 

, " Peter " <metalscarab wrote:

>

> Hi Whitty

>

> > subconsciously they will now equate vegetarians with virility, and

>

> Except that if they found it offensive, they'll subconsciously

associate

> vegetarians with low moral standards and debauchery.... not sure

that's

> quite so good.

>

> BB

> Peter

>

[Guest guest]

Peter,

 

I think I prefaced my first comment by labeling myself as a third-wave

feminist; feminism isn't a cut-and-dried field any more. I find it

empowering that the women in the ad are uninhibited. I'm sure they're

also very well financially reimbursed for the few seconds they're on

film. I believe it's more subjective than anything--you bring to it

what you will.

 

I understand others have their own opinions, however, and I validate

them. Everyone just brings their own reality to the table.

 

Whitty

 

, " Peter " <metalscarab wrote:

>

> Hi Whitty

>

> > I think it was brilliant and I laughed outloud when I viewed it--

but

> > then again I'm a third-wave feminist

>

> Interesting... most feminists find the objectification of women for

male

> pleasure to be objectionable rather than humorous!

>

> BB

> Peter

>

[Guest guest]

Yeah, we don't want any associating vegetarians with hip hop artists! Blake On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 2:16 AM, Peter <metalscarab wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Whitty

 

> subconsciously they will now equate vegetarians with virility, and

 

Except that if they found it offensive, they'll subconsciously associate

vegetarians with low moral standards and debauchery.... not sure that's

quite so good.

 

BB

Peter

[Guest guest]

wow the term Object used twice in different forms in one sentance, well done my learned friend!

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

Peter <metalscarab Sent: Wednesday, 11 February, 2009 9:18:59 AMRe: Re: PETA commercial offensive

 

Hi Whitty> I think it was brilliant and I laughed outloud when I viewed it--but> then again I'm a third-wave feministInteresting. .. most feminists find the objectification of women for male pleasure to be objectionable rather than humorous!BBPeter

[Guest guest]

heh,heh

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

Blake Wilson <mbw Sent: Wednesday, 11 February, 2009 5:05:19 PMRe: Re: PETA commercial offensive

 

Yeah, we don't want any associating vegetarians with hip hop artists! Blake

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 2:16 AM, Peter <metalscarab@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Whitty

> subconsciously they will now equate vegetarians with virility, andExcept that if they found it offensive, they'll subconsciously associate vegetarians with low moral standards and debauchery.. .. not sure that's quite so good.BBPeter

[Guest guest]

I agree. I was trying to work out what a third-wave feminist is - or if it is actually anything to do with feminism. I believe we're on third-generation punk here - but it is nothing like punk - so maybe the same applies to the latest 'feminism'.

 

BBJo

 

 

-

Peter

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 9:18 AM

Re: Re: PETA commercial offensive

 

 

Hi Whitty> I think it was brilliant and I laughed outloud when I viewed it--but> then again I'm a third-wave feministInteresting... most feminists find the objectification of women for male pleasure to be objectionable rather than humorous!BBPeter

[Guest guest]

Were there men in this advert and if there were, were they also scantily clad and behaving in a sexual manner?

 

If the answer to the above is 'no' then I would point out that the advertisement is sexist.

 

Jo

 

 

-

whitty__

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 4:01 PM

Re: PETA commercial offensive

 

 

I don't agree. I think that even if they tell themselves it's immoral and full of debauchery (why do I think of a faun chasing after nymphs when I see that word?) they're still going to be drawn to the suggestion of sexuality--whether they want to or not. The most "moral" individuals in society have their secret vices and desires when it comes to sex. It's media fodder all the time over here in the U.S. It's a fundamental biological desire hotwired into our very DNA. Whether we like it or not, subconciously or conciously, the idea of sex draws people like moths to the flame. PETA uses this weakness to hit home a message most wouldn't pay attention to under other circumstances. , "Peter" <metalscarab wrote:>> Hi Whitty> > > subconsciously they will now equate vegetarians with virility, and> > Except that if they found it offensive, they'll subconsciously associate > vegetarians with low moral standards and debauchery.... not sure that's > quite so good.> > BB> Peter>

[Guest guest]

I wasn't actually pointing out that women would be interested. In fact, I had not given the homosexual side a thought. It just seems to me that if it is showing only one sex behaving in a sexual way it is sexist.

 

Jo

 

 

-

whitty__

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 3:51 PM

Re: PETA commercial offensive

 

 

Sigh... I suppose I was simplifying it by assuming that men would be influenced/affected the most by the sexuality in the commercial. Shows my heterosexual bias. Thanks for pointing out that women might also be interested...in which case I should have suggested that it might not be bad for vegans to be seen as generally more sexy than the norm. , "heartwerk" <jo.heartwork wrote:>> From the OED> > virile> > • adjective 1 (of a man) having strength, energy, and a strong sex > drive. 2 vigorous, strong, and manly. > > If vegans need to be seen as virile, I am presuming that there were > some men pretending to have sex with vegetables as well!?> > Jo> >

[Guest guest]

Why do you feel empowered? Do you not feel empowered in your normal life without having to be stimulated by a weird advert? Surely they should be doing the advert because they are vegans who think that the advert will help to convert people to veganism, or am I just too idealistic?

 

I still say that, in this country at least, PETA is looked on as a ridiculous group, and have no credibility at all. I don;t think they will gain that credibility and respect unless they change their tactics. There must be ways of attracting attention without alienating a lot of people who do not like that sort of public display of sexuality.

 

Jo

 

 

-

whitty__

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 4:11 PM

Re: PETA commercial offensive

 

 

Peter,I think I prefaced my first comment by labeling myself as a third-wave feminist; feminism isn't a cut-and-dried field any more. I find it empowering that the women in the ad are uninhibited. I'm sure they're also very well financially reimbursed for the few seconds they're on film. I believe it's more subjective than anything--you bring to it what you will.I understand others have their own opinions, however, and I validate them. Everyone just brings their own reality to the table.Whitty , "Peter" <metalscarab wrote:>> Hi Whitty> > > I think it was brilliant and I laughed outloud when I viewed it--but> > then again I'm a third-wave feminist> > Interesting... most feminists find the objectification of women for male > pleasure to be objectionable rather than humorous!> > BB> Peter>

[Guest guest]

Whitty,

Please dont feel you are being criticised or being morally questioned by any responses on here, we all love each other realy,

Hugs all round?

We are all different, and we all have opinions, usually different, is any one more valid than anyone elses? I dont think so.

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

whitty__ <ravenwolf18 Sent: Wednesday, 11 February, 2009 4:11:11 PM Re: PETA commercial offensive

 

Peter,I think I prefaced my first comment by labeling myself as a third-wave feminist; feminism isn't a cut-and-dried field any more. I find it empowering that the women in the ad are uninhibited. I'm sure they're also very well financially reimbursed for the few seconds they're on film. I believe it's more subjective than anything--you bring to it what you will.I understand others have their own opinions, however, and I validate them. Everyone just brings their own reality to the table.Whitty@gro ups.com, "Peter" <metalscarab@ ...> wrote:>> Hi Whitty> > > I think it was brilliant and I laughed outloud when I viewed it--but> > then again I'm a third-wave feminist> > Interesting. .. most

feminists find the objectification of women for male > pleasure to be objectionable rather than humorous!> > BB> Peter>

[Guest guest]

Oh, no worries, I don't feel criticized. It's important to be exposed

to different ideas. Even if I were criticized, it's always important

to keep an open mind and a sense of humor about oneself. Criticism I

can take; it's when people make it personal or are just outright mean

that I get my knickers in a knot. No such sensation here though,

subconsciously or otherwise.

 

, Peter VV <swpgh01 wrote:

>

> Whitty,

> Please dont feel you are being criticised or being morally

questioned by any responses on here, we all love each other realy,

> Hugs all round?

> We are all different, and we all have opinions, usually different,

is any one more valid than anyone elses? I dont think so.

>  

> Peter vv

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Third-wave feminism has roots in the post-punk culture of the 80s, but

isn't associated exclusively with punk. It would take too many posts

to go into all of the nuances, but it is most definitely a real

feminist movement here in the U.S.--much to the chagrin of some of the

second-wave feminists. Not sure if it's made it over the Atlantic.

Have you seen the television series " Sex in the City " ? The main

characters would definitely qualify as third-wave feminists.

Anyhoo...

 

, " jo.heartwork " <jo.heartwork

wrote:

>

> I agree. I was trying to work out what a third-wave feminist is -

or if it is actually anything to do with feminism. I believe we're on

third-generation punk here - but it is nothing like punk - so maybe

the same applies to the latest 'feminism'.

>

> BB

> Jo

[Guest guest]

While some of PETA's stunts may not be in the best taste, granted,

they do a good job of grabbing the headlines. I remember them in the

90s as an information-providing organization that left the shock-

value up to the photographs of slaughterhouses they provided. There

are dozens of high profile groups that do the same thing today. I

think that they fulfill a niche, regardless of what people think of

them.

 

While PETA is out shocking the masses in general, they are successful

in converting people to the cause. I hear just as many animal

activists where I live tell me they became active because of seeing

something from PETA as I do people who dislike PETA or who think they

give the movement a bad image. Whatever you think of them, they do

get results: http://www.peta.org/about/numbers.asp , especially among

young people (Their PETA2 campaign is rather cute and on the cutting

edge) and those looking for information online.

 

PETA's like the flamboyant black sheep relative in everyone's family:

you hope they don't show up to the family reunion...but then again,

you kind of hope they do just to see what will happen.

 

Whitty

 

, NATASHA HARHOLD <greyhounddog

wrote:

>

> I found the PETA ad neither amusing nor offensive. I do find it

> somewhat ill-advised, though. I have long found some of PETA's

> tactics, for lack of a better word, to be not terribly smart. The

> people that they are trying to reach simply find a lot of their

ads

> and behavior off-putting and offensive. This is a good example.

> Another very recent example would be the KKK outfits that were worn

by

> some PETA demonstrators at the Westminster Kennel Club dog show on

> opening night (Monday). I really can't think of any demographic

that

> wouldn't find that offensive. I understand that to get the

attention

> of both the media and everyday people you need to do something that

is

> eye-catching, but I don't think that to equate dog breeding with

> Hitler's plans of having a master race (they were wearing KKK garb

and

> stating that the AKC is attempting to breed a master race of dogs)

and

> using visuals that evoke slavery and lynchings is going to do

anything

> but offend. Same thing with an ad that is as provocative as the

> vegetarian ad in question. Again, I was neither amused nor

offended.

> As for the what NBC perceived as the explicit nature, well, I've

seen

> worse on network television shows. But again, the demographic PETA

is

> trying to reach through these ads is simply offended and put off.

> People that didn't find either tactic (the commercial or the

> Westminster stunt) offensive are people that are already on board

and

> agree with them. They are trying to convince those that are meat

> eaters or that support pure-bred dogs to go vegan and to only

rescue

> dogs and then make sure they are spayed/neutered. Such tactics

aren't

> going to sway those groups. Perhaps we are a nation of prudes (and

i

> would agree that in many ways we are), but PETA, if their goal is

> educate the masses as to the benefits of a vegan diet/lifestyle,

need

> to understand that and act accordingly. Reach out to the nation's

> inner-prudishness, and don't simply offend the majority of the

United

> States. Long-winded post short, by producing such ads and by

staging

> such protests, they are only doing themselves a disservice. The

> groups they are trying to reach out to are put off and offended

and

> want nothing to do with them.

>

>

> Missie Harhold

> and Gracie the Ibizan Hound

> and Jeanie the Greyhound

> greyhounddog

>

> " Because nothing worthwhile in this country has ever happened

unless

> somebody, somewhere stood up when it was hard; stood up when they

were

> told – no you can't, and said yes we can. " Barack Obama

>

[Guest guest]

So Jo you speak for the entire UK on all things PETA? Is there poll to back up your statement, or are you basing thison your experiences and conversations with other people? As Pauline Kael (film critic for the New York Times) once wrote, disbelieving the outcome of the

Nixon-McGovern election of 1972, " Nixon can't have won; no one I know

voted for him. " Blake On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:48 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why do you feel empowered? Do you not feel empowered in your normal life without having to be stimulated by a weird advert? Surely they should be doing the advert because they are vegans who think that the advert will help to convert people to veganism, or am I just too idealistic?

 

I still say that, in this country at least, PETA is looked on as a ridiculous group, and have no credibility at all. I don;t think they will gain that credibility and respect unless they change their tactics. There must be ways of attracting attention without alienating a lot of people who do not like that sort of public display of sexuality.

 

Jo

 

 

-

 

whitty__

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 4:11 PM

Re: PETA commercial offensive

 

 

Peter,I think I prefaced my first comment by labeling myself as a third-wave feminist; feminism isn't a cut-and-dried field any more. I find it empowering that the women in the ad are uninhibited. I'm sure they're also very well financially reimbursed for the few seconds they're on film. I believe it's more subjective than anything--you bring to it what you will.I understand others have their own opinions, however, and I validate them. Everyone just brings their own reality to the table.Whitty , " Peter " <metalscarab wrote:>> Hi Whitty> > > I think it was brilliant and I laughed outloud when I viewed it--but> > then again I'm a third-wave feminist> > Interesting... most feminists find the objectification of women for male > pleasure to be objectionable rather than humorous!> > BB> Peter>

[Guest guest]

Hi Blake

 

On people I speak to, people I know, people I have email

conversations with, either within the vegan/vegetarian groups, or

not. I wouldn't be bothered to find out if there were any polls or

anything as it is of so little importance. If you want to find

out,please feel free.

 

Jo

 

, Blake Wilson <mbw wrote:

>

> So Jo you speak for the entire UK on all things PETA? Is there poll

to back

> up your statement, or are you basing this

> on your experiences and conversations with other people?

>

> As Pauline Kael (film critic for the New York Times) once wrote,

> disbelieving the outcome of the Nixon-McGovern election of

1972, " Nixon

> can't have won; no one I know voted for him. "

>

> Blake

>

> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:48 PM, jo.heartwork

<jo.heartworkwrote:

>

> > Why do you feel empowered? Do you not feel empowered in your

normal

> > life without having to be stimulated by a weird advert? Surely

they should

> > be doing the advert because they are vegans who think that the

advert will

> > help to convert people to veganism, or am I just too idealistic?

> >

> > I still say that, in this country at least, PETA is looked on as a

> > ridiculous group, and have no credibility at all. I don;t think

they will

> > gain that credibility and respect unless they change their

tactics. There

> > must be ways of attracting attention without alienating a lot of

people who

> > do not like that sort of public display of sexuality.

> >

> > Jo

> >

> >

> > -

> > ** whitty__ <ravenwolf18

> > *To:*

> > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2009 4:11 PM

> > *Subject:* Re: PETA commercial offensive

> >

> > Peter,

> >

> > I think I prefaced my first comment by labeling myself as a third-

wave

> > feminist; feminism isn't a cut-and-dried field any more. I find it

> > empowering that the women in the ad are uninhibited. I'm sure

they're

> > also very well financially reimbursed for the few seconds they're

on

> > film. I believe it's more subjective than anything--you bring to

it

> > what you will.

> >

> > I understand others have their own opinions, however, and I

validate

> > them. Everyone just brings their own reality to the table.

> >

> > Whitty

> >

> > <%

40>, " Peter "

> > <metalscarab@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Hi Whitty

> > >

> > > > I think it was brilliant and I laughed outloud when I viewed

it--

> > but

> > > > then again I'm a third-wave feminist

> > >

> > > Interesting... most feminists find the objectification of women

for

> > male

> > > pleasure to be objectionable rather than humorous!

> > >

> > > BB

> > > Peter

> > >

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

It's strange how a movement uses the same name as a previous movement

and yet has very little of the same ideals. That is not a criticism,

just an observation. I often wonder why the new groups don't use

entirely different names to suit their ideals.

 

Jo

 

, " whitty__ " <ravenwolf18 wrote:

>

> Third-wave feminism has roots in the post-punk culture of the 80s,

but

> isn't associated exclusively with punk. It would take too many

posts

> to go into all of the nuances, but it is most definitely a real

> feminist movement here in the U.S.--much to the chagrin of some of

the

> second-wave feminists. Not sure if it's made it over the

Atlantic.

> Have you seen the television series " Sex in the City " ? The main

> characters would definitely qualify as third-wave feminists.

> Anyhoo...

>

> , " jo.heartwork " <jo.heartwork@>

> wrote:

> >

> > I agree. I was trying to work out what a third-wave feminist is -

 

> or if it is actually anything to do with feminism. I believe we're

on

> third-generation punk here - but it is nothing like punk - so maybe

> the same applies to the latest 'feminism'.

> >

> > BB

> > Jo

>

[Guest guest]



Hi Peter

 

Thank you. I'm grateful for your Objective opinion ;-)

 

BB

Peter

 

-

Peter VV

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:19 PM

Re: Re: PETA commercial offensive

 

 

 

wow the term Object used twice in different forms in one sentance, well done my learned friend!

 

Peter vv

 

 

 

 

Peter <metalscarab Sent: Wednesday, 11 February, 2009 9:18:59 AMRe: Re: PETA commercial offensive

 

Hi Whitty> I think it was brilliant and I laughed outloud when I viewed it--but> then again I'm a third-wave feministInteresting. .. most feminists find the objectification of women for male pleasure to be objectionable rather than humorous!BBPeter

[Guest guest]

Hi Whitty

 

The point of feminism is to recognise women and men on an equal footing. The

reason it is " feminism " rather than " equalitism " is because we still live in

a society where women are treated as second class. Such treatment has always

been accepted by some women, but the fact that they accept it does not make

it acceptable.

 

If PETA used scantily clad men having sex with vegetables, alongside the

women, then the feminist argument would work just fine. However, while PETA

continue to use a sexist base for their advertising and continue to demean

women and treat them as sexual objects purely for the titilation of men, it

is not possible to support them from a feminist standpoint.

 

I find it quite odd that you use the term " third wave feminsim " to support

sexism. Third wave feminism is usually linked to aspects of queer theory and

transgender concepts. A core element of it is rejection of heteronormative

gender dualities.... by using women only in the advertisement, PETA are

perpetuating the very stereotypes that third wave feminism seeks to

challenge and remove from society.

 

Perhaps you're more of a " fourth wave feminist " ?

 

BB

Peter

 

-

" whitty__ " <ravenwolf18

 

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 4:11 PM

Re: PETA commercial offensive

 

 

> Peter,

>

> I think I prefaced my first comment by labeling myself as a third-wave

> feminist; feminism isn't a cut-and-dried field any more. I find it

> empowering that the women in the ad are uninhibited. I'm sure they're

> also very well financially reimbursed for the few seconds they're on

> film. I believe it's more subjective than anything--you bring to it

> what you will.

>

> I understand others have their own opinions, however, and I validate

> them. Everyone just brings their own reality to the table.

>

> Whitty

>

> , " Peter " <metalscarab wrote:

>>

>> Hi Whitty

>>

>> > I think it was brilliant and I laughed outloud when I viewed it--

> but

>> > then again I'm a third-wave feminist

>>

>> Interesting... most feminists find the objectification of women for

> male

>> pleasure to be objectionable rather than humorous!

>>

>> BB

>> Peter

>>

>

>

>

>

> ---

>

> To send an email to

> -! Groups Links

>

>

>