Look at this ad. Just look at it for a second. What do you see? I'm pretty sure most of you would say: a half-naked woman diagrammed into pieces. 

Well, that was me as well. But that wasn't the only thing I saw. I started to see more, and the more I delved into the ad, the more horrific messages I started to see. 

Anderson’s body, as I’ve already mentioned, is sectionalized, which reminds the viewers of a familiar butcher chart found in butcher shops. As it is unusual to label human body parts like beef, PETA apparently attempts to (nice try, PETA) create a shared human & animal identity. Even the words used to label Anderson’s body parts show this: “round”, “rump”, and “leg”. “Round” and “rump” both usually describe cuts of beef; “round” refers to the meat from the upper bottoms of the cows while “rump” refers to the thights. “Leg”, however, is exclusively used for humans— normally, the legs of cows are referred to as “shanks”. So, uh, it’s a weird way to put it, but Anderson is shown to be part beef, part human. 

And my response to this? Clever, but no. What this ad really shows, under its superficial soft heated idea of “animals have the same parts of body as us”, is that women’s body and meat are interchangeable. Simply put, it’s DEHUMANIZING women. I can’t begin to describe to you the utter revulsion I felt when I first came across this ad. I've already mentioned that the message itself is absolutely horrifying, but I can't insist enough howmuch it is horrifying.

At this point, you might wonder, “Hey, this person is supposed to be a vegan feminist. Why is she even against the poster than promotes vegetarianism?” Don’t get me wrong—as an avid vegan feminist, I feel that PETA has good intentions to save the animals. You see, Anderson’s face is turned to the front (while rest of her body faces left side of the poster) that she is gazing directly at the viewer. This creates an effect of directly connecting with the audience, and it is this connection that gives us audience an impression that we’re all involved in the issue of meat consumption. I personally think that’s an extremely powerful approach to a) raise awareness of the issue, and b) encourage the audience participation. 

It’s also worthy to point out how the slogan— “Have a heart, go vegetarian”— uses pathos effectively. The word “heart”, which refers to a rather abstract concept of emotions, usually bears a warm, humane connotation; so in the given context, vegetarians are said to have such humane quality. (Thanks for once, PETA) An image of a heart embedded within a cow parallels the word “heart”, hence, doubly emphasizes the good nature of vegetarianism. (Notice the cow has a heart— it is given an innocent, kind nature as well) The message most likely strikes the viewers’ desires to be labeled as compassionate people. It also aims to evoke sympathy for the innocently-depicted cows sacrificed for humans, and the emotional effects would likely invite the omnivores to our world of vegetarianism. 

But also as a vegan feminist, I’m part of a group that believes the end doesn’t justify the means. PETA surely worsens the marginalization of women to stop the marginalization of animals, and we believe the exploitations of different minority groups are all interconnected. So this sort of advertising method is simply UNACCEPTABLE and INEFFECTIVE. For those of you who disagree that PETA is taking advantage of women, look at how part beef, part human Anderson is clothed only in bra and panty. What’s even worse— a revealing bra and panty that exposes nearly all of her left buttock & breast (note that the exposed part of her breast has a special lighting effect that emphasizes its curvy feature & attracts even more attention to the area). This is an obvious sign that PETA is exploiting women. 

PETA’s choice of the model, Pamela Anderson, also shows PETA's exploitation of women. A former “Playmate of the Month” selected by the sex-hyped Playboy magazine, Anderson is one famous sexy bombshell. At this point, PETA is obviously fiddling with its use of ethos— choosing the "appropriate" image to attract younger viewers. The caption “Pamela Anderson for PETA” only seems to solidify this effect; the word “for”, with its positive connotation of “being in the favor of”, emphasizes the tight bond the group has with the sex-bomb Anderson, and appeal to the sexually budding young adults. The word “PETA” has the biggest, boldest letters in the caption, which is, again, related with the ethos. As an organization that claims to have over 3 million supporters, PETA rather confidently shows off its supposed popularity through big & bolded letters, which ultimately heightens its credibility to the viewers. All in all, many young viewers may unfortunately be convinced to think that PETA is a sexy yet credible organization.

I should also say that PETA also has a huge thing for color psychology— the group sneakily abuses our inherent attraction for colors to convince us that women= meat. Notice that all the words— the captions, slogan & the image of a cow, and logo are all written in purple, as well as Anderson’s undergarments. The background, meanwhile, is pearly white, and these arrangements of colors are indeed highly calculated. The color purple is a rather cliché symbol of luxury and wealth as white is of purity and innocence. By dressing Anderson in purple, like how the cow in the image is colored, and placing her in a white backdrop, PETA shows Anderson as a symbol of all animals sacrificed for the luxury of humans. Not only some of Anderson’s body parts are labeled as those of a beef— a dead cow— Anderson herself is equalised to a living cow soon-to-be-killed. Again, PETA? (deep sigh) Women are not only equal to meat, but living animals who are destined to turn into meat. I guess this is a bit of an evolution from the women & meat analogy that PETA never grows tired of. But still. When will women ever be shown as “women” in these adds?

Shame on PETA for promoting vegetarianism at the expense of women. True, the group has good intentions, attempting to extend justice beyond the boundaries of Homo sapiens, but is stupidly excluding women out of the boundary at the same time. Well, PETA, do you really think this ad is sexy? I hope not. This ad is NOT sexy, it's sexist.