Campaigning for the Ethical Treatment of Animals… but What About Women?
Do environmental and animal welfare organisations really have to sexualise women to push their agenda?
The sexualisation of women in the media has long since been a source of controversy, due to the creation and reinforcement of old-fashioned stereotypical views of women and the exploitation of this used to push a variety of agendas. In short, advertising uses sex to sell us just about anything. The most surprising of these perhaps, is organisations using sexuality to push environmental and animal welfare messages.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) are known for their exposing of poor animal welfare practices and this, of course, is very important. But is it necessary to spread their message by objectifying women? Must women pose labelled as cuts of meat to encourage a plan-based diet? Do women have to pose nude behind metal bars to discourage the use of animals in circuses? Would women really ‘rather go naked than wear fur’? Not only do these campaigns objectify women, they contribute to the widespread problem in the media of creating an image of what women think they should be. And you can’t help but think there is another way to educate people on animal welfare issues.
“Face It — You Can’t Claim to Be a Feminist and Still Eat Eggs”
In 2018, PETA launched a billboard title “Face It — You Can’t Claim to Be a Feminist and Still Eat Eggs”, suggesting that eggs are a product of the exploitation of female animals and therefore it is hypocritical to be an outspoken feminist and still eat eggs. This all seems a little hypocritical coming from an organisation which on countless occasions has exploited female sexuality to campaign about animal welfare. Perhaps it’s truer that you can’t claim to be a feminist and support PETA.
As a conservation student I am, of course, heavily in support of animal welfare and environmental agendas. I, like most, am of the opinion that animal testing is cruel and unnecessary, and cosmetics corporations now have the ability to easily test their products in other ways that do not harm animals. But I can’t help but think there are other ways to convey an environmental message than by sexualising women.
In 2012, cosmetics brand LUSH decided to ‘bring animal testing back into the public eye’ by dragging a woman through the streets of London, force feeding her and partially shaving her head as passers-by and shoppers observed. Campaigning for the ethical treatment of animals is great. Pretending to treat a woman unethically on the streets of London? Not so great if you ask me.
The sexualisation of women is widespread in advertising. Male-oriented magazine Maxim has around 9 million readers each month and 4 million unique viewers on their online platforms and bases a large part of their content on the photography of ‘beautiful’ women. Whether it be magazine covers, music videos, large-scale billboards or media coverage of female sports teams, women are objectified by so many industries. But there is something extremely contradictory in the existence of this in environmental campaigning. Does the sexualisation of women in animal welfare campaigns not undermine the morality that they’re trying to espouse?
It is important we also consider if such an approach to campaigning in general is even that effective. A meta-analysis of sexual content in advertisements carried out by the University of Illinois in 2017 found that people were more likely to remember ads that contained sexual imagery, but this had no effect on their willingness to buy products. Moreover, people were more likely to have negative attitudes towards brands that used sexual imagery over brands that didn’t. If we apply this to the context of animal welfare campaigning, it could therefore be argued that sexual images are somewhat engaging and memorable, but also can offend and create a negative attitude towards a campaign. It is obviously important to also note that the outcome of this depends on who the audience of such an advertisement is…
I suppose the sad reality in all this is that sex sells. Campaigns portraying the sexualisation of women, no matter their motive, are designed to be striking and memorable, even if they objectify women in doing so. It is just a great shame that the brutal facts surrounding animal cruelty and welfare alone don’t have the same impact.
