The use of images of thin, scantily-clad women to advertise the benefits of veganism is also misguided:
[T]hey reinforce harmful Western beauty standards by using only thin, large-breasted women, who tend to be posed to appear vulnerable and alluring to the (heterosexual male) intended viewer, as well as using only men who are muscular and trim and posed to look powerful and self-assured . . . Veganism is about animal rights, not about feeling sexy, or having better sex . . . and it is most certainly not about "looking better" than people who eat meat.
As to whether sexed-up campaigns work, Prof. Gary Francionewrites:
I have never had anyone come to me to say that they had been moved to consider the animal issue because they saw a naked woman in a cage. Indeed, this is precisely the sort of thing that makes progressive people think that the animal rights movement is a pathetic joke to be dismissed and ignored.
Sexist Language
Some animal rights activists believe that all rules of civility go out the window when dealing with animal exploiters, and resort to using misogynistic insults. Women who wear fur are sometimes called "fur hags," "bitch," or the "c" word.
Misogynistic terms insult all women, not just the woman who is the target of the insult. Furthermore, they are completely unjustified. There is no reason to use sexist language when criticizing an animal exploiter.
Some activists defend sexist insults, claiming that the women deserve to be insulted when they choose to wear fur. However, insulting someone’s gender, race, religion, disability or sexual orientation is never justified.
Some defend misogynistic language by pointing out that the animals suffer much more than the insulted women. However, this argument is based on faulty logic. Insulting women does nothing for the animals, and being vegan does not require misogyny. One doesn’t have to choose between women and animals, so arguing the lesser of two burdens is a false argument. Keep in mind that this argument is very similar to one made by animal exploiters, who say that they would rather help people than animals. Helping people does not prohibit one from going vegan or helping animals, just as supporting animal rights does not prohibit one from opposing misogyny.
Such language also harms the movement because it is divisive and takes the focus away from the animals. Anything that compromises our ability to work together hurts the animals and hurts the movement, and instead of hearing our message, the public will focus on the sexism.
What About Men?
Using naked men in campaigns is still problematic. Again, these campaigns promote a very narrow definition of beauty and objectify people. The solution is not to feature more naked men in animal rights campaigns, but to stop objectifying people.
Using feminine terms to insult men is also misogynistic. For example, the title of the book "Meat is for Pussies" insults women because the message is that a man who eats meat is feminine and therefore inferior. Referring to a man in feminine terms, with rare exceptions, is generally considered an insult in our society. As a California court noted in a 2010 hostile workplace lawsuit, "Calling a man a "bitch" belittles him precisely because it belittles women . . . Indeed, it insults the man by comparing him to a woman, and, thereby, could be taken as humiliating to women as a group as well." That’s in addition to the fact that the words "pussy" and "bitch" are offensive regardless of whether one is referring to a man or a woman.
Similarly, some animal activists call men "fur hags," and therefore claim that the term "fur hag" is not sexist. Again, the word "hag" by itself is offensive, and calling a man a "hag" is offensive because of the implication that he should feel insulted to be called a woman.
Women Using Misogynistic Language
Some female activists feel that they are entitled to use the term "fur hag" because they are women themselves, but being a woman is not a defense for misogyny. The use of such language by women reeks of self-hatred, which results from society’s constant message that women are inferior. It also encourages men to use the same language, because it sends the message that the term "fur hag" must be OK if women use it.
Sexual campaigns and sexist language do little, if anything, to help the animal rights movement, but cause a great deal of harm to the movement itself as well as society as a whole. Attacks on someone’s gender, race, religion, class, ethnicity, disability or sexual orientation are never justified.