A Sexist PETA Ad?
Sexist Britain
Is sport sexist ?
Sexist Violence on Rise in Pakistan
PETA and Nudity
The animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or more popular known by its acornym PETA, has never been one to shy away from controversy.
The organization has in the past been widely condemned for insensitivity in ads which compared the plight, as it were, of, say, chickens and cows to the Holocaust and America's slavery past.
Beyond that, PETA stakes an extremist position. Many animal rights groups believe in ceasing, say, cruel practices like locking hundreds of chickens in a dark plant. Or, my most important animal rights cause, ceasing with the sad practice of selling and butchering dolphins (see the documentary The Cove on this). There are genuine concerns for the rights of animals. And it is decent and just to oppose, say, the killing and trading of some animals and the manner in which the corporate food industry often treats animals.
But PETA goes too far in its opposition, for example, to cutting one's lawn because it may endanger ants, literally. And viewing Zoos as unconscionable. And the group has in the past undertaken provocative, to put it politely, ways in demonstrating its opposition which is offending in its vulgarity and thus counterproductive. It is infamous for throwing red paint on fur-wearing public personalties and models.
And now the city of Montreal has taken down one of its ads on the premise that it is sexist:
Last week, the city of Montreal banned Pamela Anderson's new PETA ad, slamming it as "sexist." In the advertisement, Pamela's bikini clad body is divided and labeled as various cuts of meat. This image is coupled with the slogan: "All Animals Have the Same Parts." A Montreal official explained the ban: "[The advertisement] is not so much controversial, as it goes against all principles public organizations are fighting for in the everlasting battle of equality between men and women."
PETA senior vice president Dan Mathews responded: "I think that city officials are confusing 'sexy' with 'sexist.'"
The ad is not sexiest, I believe, and quite clever in promoting a vegetarian lifestyle. It is sexy and memorable more than anything. It is not meant to be a crude likening of a woman to an animal, of course, it is just meant to humanize the animals we love to eat. It is not done in any cheap manner, so the ad is cool.
But I really think and more to the point: What right does a state have to ban a private ad displayed on private property? Censorship of public ads are only merited if they are explicitly pornographic or incite racism and violence.
But those Canadians with their soft standards, eh?
P.S. Pamela is a Canadian native.
