Animals Awake, a Dutch organization for animals akin to PETA in the U.S., “takes a page from [their] playbook,” according to David at Adfreak. This commercial, in which a stripper is brutally murdered in front of a live audience, is so shocking that my first I thought was that it was a parody. It’s not.
Major major major trigger warning:
[vimeo]http://vimeo.com/5323112[/vimeo]
The critique, of course, is that Animals Awake is contributing to an atmosphere in which violence against women is ubiquitous (see Jezebel, for example). But I actually think that this commercial works in that we are (I hope) genuinely horrified by the murder at the end. I don’t think it normalizes violence against women like so many other ads/media/products do (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for examples).
BUT it does normalize the connection between violence and sex. There is absolutely no reason why the person murdered in this ad had to a stripper. There is no reason to spend the first half of the commercial titillating us, only to have it suddenly turned into a horror show. There’s absolutely no connection. But because sex and violence are so frequently linked in the American imagination, it actually took me a few minutes of thinking about it to remember that. And I’m kind of horrified that, in my mind, sex and violence go together like peas and carrots. This ad only reinforces that connection.
Sorry I made you watch it.
More images of sexualized violence here, here, here, here, here, here, here here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Here’s another PSA, this one from the U.K., with exactly the same idea.
UPDATE: In the comments, jeffliveshere points out that the commercial is based on a pun:
I agree that the sex and violence connection is unnecessary–but, to be clear, there is wordplay involved–“stripping fish” is apparently a technical term for removing the guts of fish…
Okay, so maybe there isn’t “absolutely no connection.” Even so?
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 17
Algae — July 2, 2009
You hear that all the time... "There's too much sex and violence on tv!"
No, there's too much rape and violence. We could do with less of those things, and more happy, consensual, empowering sex IMHO.
jeffliveshere — July 2, 2009
I agree that the sex and violence connection is unnecessary--but, to be clear, there is wordplay involved--"stripping fish" is apparently a technical term for removing the guts of fish...
Lisa Wade, PhD — July 2, 2009
Thanks jeffliveshere,
I added an update pointing out the pun.
Undefined — July 2, 2009
I agree that this advertisement relies heavily on just how shocking the murder at the end is. I don't at all agree, therefore, that "there is no reason to spend the first half of the commercial titillating us, only to have it suddenly turned into a horror show." The shock is significantly enhanced by the contrast; and the fact that the advert seems to rely precisely on that contrast is itself significant. I think it suggests that the interpretation proposed here is entirely off: the opposition - the complete shift in tone - between the sexy atmosphere of the first part and the horrific violence of the second is key. The advert doesn't normalize the connection between sex and violence: it seems to trade heavily on the extreme cognitive dissonance engendered when the two are juxtaposed. I suspect the advertisers might have been relying on that dissonance as a way of making their message stick. Insofar as the ad might be taken as normalizing the connection between sex and vilence, I think this can only come about if the viewier is already prepared to readily connect the two, and treats the above as nothing more than confirmation of the normality of that link (which obviously needn't involve that she finds that normality acceptable). As the post suggests, Americans might be especially prone to this interpretation; but the advert is, after all, Dutch. Perhaps things are different there..?
Dawn — July 2, 2009
I think any violence like that depicted above would have been shocking. It would have been likely even more shocking had they used a male stripper but they used a woman because they wanted it to be titillating. And also because violence against women IS ubiquitous in advertising and that's likely where their minds went to first. It reenforces the idea of women as vulnerable and yes, that sex & violence are intermixed. But it's sex (as represented by women) & violence that are intermixed. So I don't think you can unlock the Jezebel interpretation from your own.
But I tell you, this ad so infuriates me that it makes me want to go send money to groups that hurt fish. Kinda like how the Peta ads make me want to wear fur. (Then I come to my senses but still.)
Noir — July 2, 2009
I don't think that the problem is that "normalizes" violence against women, the problem is that trivializes it and uses in a exploitative way to "made people aware" about... fishing.
And fishing is a very complex area. As if it isn't something that, for example, lots of working- class women use as a way of living. While being victims of violence that richer people benefit from.
I think it's very hypocritical.
Elena — July 2, 2009
And it's not as if sacrificing every sardine painlessly was economically feasible. Honestly, a better approach would be to work first for sustainable management of fisheries rather than worrying about the pain threshold of fish. It's not as if their lot in life didn't already involve being gutted alive by non-human marine predators.
Cola — July 2, 2009
Noir, yeah, it's uncomfortable how women and women's bodies are always used as the surface on which we paint our messages. Maybe this ad doesn't normalize this kind of violence, but it exploits the very real pain and suffering that women often endure because that violence has already been normalized. It shocks me, but I don't have to watch a woman violently murdered to know that it's wrong. What it amounts to is not a lesson "murdering is wrong" but torture porn. It's awfully close to a lot of horror movies and their depictions of sexualised violence against attractive young women, too close for me to give it a pass for using "shock" to send a message.
I'm a vegetarian, and I'm disgusted. I don't need any more reminders that women are perceived as weak and vulnerable, that only attractive young women are worth looking at, and that we're all disposable.
Ashley — July 2, 2009
Yeah, killing a woman and gutting her alive is NOT the same as killing fish and gutting them alive. Do we need to send the Netherlands a memo?
adam — July 2, 2009
PETA actually made an ad strikingly similar to this some time ago (maybe this video was "inspired" by it?). It also makes a much better analogy than a simple play on the word "strip:" "What if you were killed for your coat?" It is also triggering, and though the violence against women motif is still there, it does not exploit the link betweens ex and violence.
"Fur is Dead"
http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=fur-is-dead-psa&Player=wm
Katherine — July 6, 2009
It seems to me ads like this rely upon analogy for their effectiveness: gutting a fish is in some sense *like* gutting a woman. We are upset by gutting women, therefore we ought to be upset by gutting fish.
I am reminded of PETA campaigns from a few years ago where they alleged in side-by-side photos that the factory farming are *like* Nazi concentration camps. [a good sample of these ads can be found via Google image search]
I have a great deal of respect for vegans and activists who oppose cruelty to animals. However, ads that rely on analogies like women=fish, Jewish people=chickens/pigs are in my view, waaay over the line. I find myself wondering if these kinds of campaigns come from groups of people have lots of respect for animals, and very little for other human beings.
hypatia — July 6, 2009
"However, ads that rely on analogies like women=fish, Jewish people=chickens/pigs are in my view, waaay over the line. I find myself wondering if these kinds of campaigns come from groups of people have lots of respect for animals, and very little for other human beings."
Exactly, equating women with fish does more to lower the status of women than raise the status of fish. A human is just not comparable to a fish whose ability to feel pain is completely up to debate. http://www.dtmag.com/Stories/Weird%20Stuff/03-04-ecoseas.htm
Sticking Sex Where it Doesn’t Belong: PETA | Feminist Vegetables — July 6, 2009
[...] by making it sexy to think about women being subjected to violence. It’s not ok. Read more here. And then, if you think you can believe the results are real PETA ads (they are), try searching [...]
ConservativeAnchor — July 8, 2009
That was the dumbest damn video I've ever viewed.
Keepin’ It Classy: PETA Compares Fat Women to Whales » Sociological Images — August 17, 2009
[...] posts: women in (fake) lettuce bikinis, Dutch animal rights ad shows stripper brutally murdered, not sexualizing older women, PETA ad banned from Superbowl, women as bloody packaged meat, [...]
Repertoires of Contention: The PETA Prototype (Trigger Warning) » Sociological Images — August 22, 2009
[...] from a protest by the Alliance for Animal Rights in Russia. Like the protests PETA in the U.S. and Animals Awake in the Netherlands, this Russian protest personifies animals as (mostly) women and then displays them brutally [...]
Violence Against Women on Prime Time Up Since 2004 » Sociological Images — November 7, 2009
[...] here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. [...]