Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Pamela Anderson’

It might just be because I have a Saturday headache (I always get headaches on Saturdays; my brain figures it’s only pleasing me at weekends, so completely folds in on itself), but I really cannot decide whether to take Pammy’s or Canada’s side in the furore over her latest PETA ad.

Fairly self-explanatory as an image, ain’t it? Pamela Anderson asks us to consider that even though her body is tanned, airbrushed, enhanced and adorned, she is still made up of the same parts we like to chew on when taken from a lesser animal. She feels we should look on living creatures as living creatures, not as unripe buffets. The city of Montréal refused a permit for the ad’s launching, stating that the image was sexist

Anderson retorted, “How sad that a woman would be banned from using her own body in a political protest…”, asking Montreal whether burqas would be next, with PETA’s Senior Vice President stating that city officials were “confusing ‘sexy’ with ‘sexist'”.

While I’m no great fan of PETA’s soft-porn advertising – a busty beauty’s behind is hardly the image to change the minds of fur-loving fashionistas – it does seem rather strange that Pamela Anderson comes up against few obstacles when she wants to use her body to wrangle money out of horny fellas, yet is chastised when she uses it to highlight animal rights issues. Having said that, I’m not sure whether this attempt at a play on the derogatory Grade A Meat metaphor succeeds in any way at all. Surely women don’t need “reminding” that we’re all dumb, pretty animals?

It’s also bizarre that Ingrid Newkirk, president of PETA, reprimanded those offended by the image by stating that true feminists should be more concerned about the plight of female livestock than a scantily-clad glamour girl’s preening from a butcher’s block.

It should be noted that while the city of Montréal officially banned the ad, in order to make a statement on how the “values” of the city aren’t reflected by the image, officials then said that a blind eye would be turned if the activists went ahead anyway.

What do you think?

Read Full Post »