|
Galen Sherwin,
President NOW |
Ingrid Newkirk,
President PETA |
|
|
To Whom It May Concern: I am outraged by the most recent advertisement by PETA featuring a woman's unshaven panty line with the tag line "Fur Trim: Unattractive". This is a gratuitous and insulting image that makes its point at the expense of women. As an organization that works for equality for women in all areas of society, the National Organization for Women is committed to countering negative and degrading images of women in the media and advertising industries. It is ironic that PETA, an organization that works so hard to counter what the mainstream media tells women about what they need to do to be considered beautiful (i.e., wear fur), would choose to do so with an image that reinforces beauty standards that are oppressive to women. This ad basically says that women's natural state is unattractive – hardly an original point, as that is what women are told in one form or another by countless ads for beauty products, accessories, and clothing lines. It also resorts to a crotch shot to make its point – a cheap shock tactic with a twist that ads insult to injury. Enough already! Why don't you try protecting animals without objectifying women? I think you'll find that this approach is much less likely to alienate those who would be inclined to support the work you do. |
Dear Ms. Sherwin: 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 would have been the only woman at the pool or the 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 style of unshaven leg hair and bushes being, most people, regardless of gender, like the groomed look better. It's not sexist, it's just a fact. A depiction of a woman's waxed legs or crotch isn't automatically exploitive. Do you order NOW to picket Bloomingdale's when you open the paper on any weekend and see the underwear ads? I'll bet not. In fact, if you're like the majority of women, you have probably thought "that's a nice push up bra" and cut out the sales ad for panties. If women didn't do and think those things, the stores would stop running the ads. They aren't for men. And what if they were? If you see a picture of a cool-looking man |
|
|
in BVDs, do the women in the NOW office all pitch a fit, or do the heterosexual staff linger over it? If you're a lesbian, substitute some hot chick for a guy and tell me the harm in enjoying the scenery. Do you not wear pantyhose because it creates an exploitive look? What about skirts? Or are you only threatened by the sight of women's "naughty bits" uses as a political statement? Frankly, I'd be amused to see Christian women "jigglin' for Jesus", or how about relief workers using their sexuality for their cause by showing their buttocks? Think of it: "Fannies Against Famine!"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 outraged father, brother, or boyfriend! |
||
|
OK here's my Two Sense sent to Ms. I am a vegan, animal rights activist and feminist and I must vote with Ms. Sherwin of NOW on this one (Fur Trim: Unattractive). Ingrid Newkirk is in dire need of a reality dose. There is a lot of dissidence within the animal rights community over PETA’s misguided sexist tactics. PETA’s detractors are not just furriers and hunters but radical animal rights’ activists who are disillusioned by PETA’s often stupefying campaigns. Their manic embracing of the status quo in female exploitation is depressing and cringe-inducing to anyone with half a brain. So where is Ingrid’s half? She says she’s a feminist – has she ever looked it up in the dictionary? She says "most people like the groomed look better – it’s a fact". Maybe it’s a fact in a sick culture where women by the thousands are being mutilated with breast implants. Maybe it’s a fact in a country where anorexic nude waifs are projected as the ideal woman (hence PETA’s chronic use of them) and young girls starve themselves to death. But it’s not a fact to me. She’d ‘be amused to see Christian women jigglin’ for Jesus, using sex as a weapon, but do we really want to keep that old war between the sexes going? In effect she is dumbing down the message, the implication being that people (men in particular) won’t pay attention unless you flash your boobs and shimmy out of your undies. Sadly, this only makes PETA look dumb and dumber. Maybe Ingrid is a feminist of some sort – but she’s jaded and hasn't tapped into her real feminine power. Her bigotry and lack of respect for people in general is apparent in many PETA ads and as a leader in a major social cause she should consider that she just might have a major blind spot on this one. The goal of these combined movements is to get beyond the tits/ass/cleavage/jiggle/legs/fur/claws to the spirit within and grant equal compassion and respect to all, whether they be Kate Moss or a 200 lb woman with a hairy pussy. |
Hmm...I dunno. Just for the record, I DO shave and
tidy up down dere.
Maybe I'm brainwashed, but when I see
a giant bush stroll by in the health club locker room I get kinda scared...
But wouldn't a world where you don't have to care about that pube hanging
out of the bathing suit be a grand one?
