Fur is Back?
In this morning’s Guardian Unlimited (UK), we learn that fur is back in vogue in the US and Italy, but some are trying to ban it from catwalks, where recently Jean Paul Gaultier’s couture show included a fur coat "replete with multiple fox heads bobbing along the sides."
Ewwww.
What struck me in this particular article was three sets of verbiage. The first is:
Not wearing [fur] was the trendy position, and that is precisely the problem: when a trend becomes too popular, the backlash can only be a matter of time. In other words, the anti-fur movement was a victim of its own success.
The problem here, is that I don’t think people like me did succeed. My evidence? Fur is back. We allowed fur to be a trend. I ask you: Who in their right mind was in favor of slavery? Oh, right, people like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, both of whom owned slaves. But once slavery was abolished, was there a massive backlash? Was abolition just a trend? No, because of the legal element of abolition. Abolitionists convinced the rest that slavery was a morally bankrupt institution with no redeeming value.
And now I ask you: What is the redeeming value of anal electrocution, steel-jaw leghold traps, getting stomped to death, or living in a 2.5 foot square cage (if you’re a fox) with three other foxes, for your entire life (until your anal electrocution)? Click here if you’re a masochist or if you don’t believe me.
Do I think fur should be banned, despite my apparent Libertarian tendencies? Yes. Why? Because there is simply no reason for fur to exist anywhere other than on an animal that doesn’t "wear" it, but on the animal that is is part of, as much as the head, the heart, and the entrails.
The second fascinating string of words is:
Like cheekily rebellious teenagers, today’s celebrities, such as Jade Jagger and Kate Moss, frequently wear fur – which both excites the paparazzi and emphasises (yes, that’s how they spell it across the pond) that they are far more interested in style than in being granola-munching animal rights campaigners.
I not only take umbrage with that last part because I don’t care for granola, but because I think it’s absurd to imply that being against the breeding and torturing of animals for your ego makes you some kind of uber-leftist, Animal Liberation Front-supporter. Making fur an issue for extremists is ridiculous. Fur is barbaric and represents blood and guts for an ego boost that only the wearer sees. The rest of us find it pathetic and insulting and it’s time we put an end to it.
The third quote sheds clarifying light on the situation with designers who use fur.
Another problem for the anti-fur movement is simply that the fur industry is so wealthy. Many designers have become reliant on it for financial backing, and that means they are then obliged to feature fur in their collections. Rare is the autumn/winter fashion show these days that doesn’t thank in its press release a fur company such as Saga Furs for its "support".
Lifelong vegetarian and designer Sadie Frost says:
As a designer, I’ve become aware of how fur is often pushed on you to get financial breaks along the way. I know that a lot of designers who were having problems financially, which we certainly have, have cleared their debts by using fur . . .
Ah-ha! The fur industry basically subsidizes the design industry. Oh, what a tangled web . . .
Go to Infurmation for more facts, and also for lists of designers and store chains that have pledged to go fur-free, as well as current pertinent legislation.
