Does anyone love bags but have an issue with leather?

[chloehandbags]

Oooh, very provocative, ladies!! :0)

I haven't eaten meat for a long time. Not because I think eating meat is neccessarily wrong, my issue is with the animals welfare. Why is it such a leap to expect humane treatment of animals? Especially if you're going to eat them? At its most base level, a healthy, happy animal, who is treated well, and killed humanely, surely must be more appetising than one that lives in a crate, never sees daylight and is killed in a cruel and disprespectful way...

Now, leather. I wear leather shoes, and buy leather bags. I have to say, every time I do, I do feel a pang, but I think "by product" and am half ok with it.

Other animal skins? No way. You know, I'm so stupid, I bought the most beautiful pair of Alexander McQueen butterfly heel sandals (the butterflys definately weren't real!) and I thought they were leather. Turns out, they're lizard skin. How hideous? I still love the shoes, but couldn't ever bare to wear then, and have even got as far as to take then out to the bonfire, but shame on me, couldn't bring my self to throw them on.... still don't know what I'm going to do with them.... *sigh*

It's such an emotive issue. You know, if the fur industry was properly regulated, with animal welfare being the primary issue, I wonder if I would have such a problem with it? As it stands at the moment, I can't justify the use of any animal skin, if the animal hasn't first been used for food, and that's because the animals are in no way treated at all humanely. Go visit a Mink farm. There is one near where I live. Those minks live all their lives in cages, 20" x 10". It's so their fur isn't damaged. In Ireland, minks are actually gassed, although there are regs relating to how many mink at a time are thrown into the gassing boxes, so that death is supposed to be quick, no one bothers with that, I witnessed a horrific death for animals that had never seen daylight, and couldn't even walk, because their feet were deformed, with having to live (can't even say walk, as they are barely able to turn around in their cages) on wire all their short pathetic lives.

I'm really, really not trying to preach to anyone. As far as I'm concerned, each to their own. I do what I can to help any animal in distress, and I certainly give money to campaigns to help animal welfare issues.

Just one thing. Stella McCartney? Props to her for all her animal free products. I tiny thing that niggles about her though, is I once read an interview with her, where she was picked up for wearing a pair of LEATHER boots. Her reply? "They're vintage". Like that doesn't count???

K

Kathleen, I agree that if your reasoning for not wearing new leather is that the animals are not treated well and then inhumanely killed, even though you are aware that they are primarily killed for their meat, then this reasoning should still hold true for vintage leather. I assume that this is the case for Stella.

Conversely, in one way at least, as long as you are comfortable with leather in general; vintage really doesn't count with fur, or exotic skins like lizard. In that, if you buy a vintage fur product, you are not actually increasing perceived demand for fur and therefore, no more animals are killed due to your actions.

However, although I don't have a problem with people buying true vintage, or antique, fur or exotics (as long as they are sure that they are genuinely pre-owned), I do have a problem with them wearing them in public, unless they also wear a sign around their neck saying 'This Fur/Skin is Vintage'! Because the majority of people who see them, will either assume that it is new, or will not understand what difference it makes if it is old and will think that the person is condoning fur/exotic skin production.

 

[Crystal05]

Kathleen summed it up really well I think. It reduces the demand and doesn't create demand for the big companies I suppose.
But still, might create demand indirectly... if ppl know they can sell a bag off, they will buy more. Like here, we can sell out Chanels and LVs without losing much money at all if we decide we want another one.
So Stella's idea that if you have to, buy 2nd hand, really does need to apply to real vintage.

 

[chloehandbags]

Kathleen summed it up really well I think. It reduces the demand and doesn't create demand for the big companies I suppose.
But still, might create demand indirectly... if ppl know they can sell a bag off, they will buy more. Like here, we can sell out Chanels and LVs without losing much money at all if we decide we want another one.
So Stella's idea that if you have to, buy 2nd hand, really does need to apply to real vintage.

If your issue with not wearing leather is the inhumanity of the whole meat industry, then what difference does it make if the leather is old? A cow still died for its meat and whether you wear the by-product (its leather) or not and whether when you did, it was vintage or not, will not increase (or decrease) the number of cows killed for their meat, in future.


Edit: Sorry, Crystal, forgot to say that when I said 'you' and 'your' I was speaking generally, not about you, directly!

 

[Kathleen37]

Apologies, ladies, I didn't make myself clear.

Stella is vegan, ie, no animal products WHAT SO EVER. Vegans have
no dairy, no animals, no animal by products. My point was, she "supposedly" doesn't believe it's at any time right to wear any animal products, but she thinks "vintage" is ok??

Sorry, that's all I was pointing out. Not the actual vintage aspect at all. :0)

K

 

[chloehandbags]

Apologies, ladies, I didn't make myself clear.

Stella is vegan, ie, no animal products WHAT SO EVER. Vegans have
no dairy, no animals, no animal by products. My point was, she "supposedly" doesn't believe it's at any time right to wear any animal products, but she thinks "vintage" is ok??

Sorry, that's all I was pointing out. Not the actual vintage aspect at all. :0)

K

That's OK Kathleen, as far as I'm concerned (at least), you made yourself perfectly clear and I did understand! I also knew that Stella is vegan and what vegan means.

I was merely trying to delve into what should be the logical reasoning behind a vegan's vintage leather beliefs (i.e. what someone like Stella should, logically, believe [I was agreeing with you, by the way]) and then expand the 'vintage' topic to those who are comfortable with leather, but not with new fur (this does not apply to Stella, obviously).

Perhaps it was I, who wasn't very clear! :shame:


Edit: I think the misunderstanding may be due to the fact that I keep using 'you' and 'your', when I am intending to speak generally and probably should really be using 'one' and 'one's'!

 

[Kathleen37]

My bad again!! :0)

Sorry, I see your point now. I guess I hadn't even thought that a vegan would even consider any type of vintage, as I understood the vegan remit to be exceptionally strict in regard to their animal welfare beliefs, and hadn't thought to look at whether there was any difference between new and vintage in relation to the animal welfare issue. "Just because its an old dead animal, isn't it still a dead animal?" type of thing.

Something worth mulling over..

Thanks!

K

 

[chloehandbags]

My bad again!! :0)

Sorry, I see your point now. I guess I hadn't even thought that a vegan would even consider any type of vintage, as I understood the vegan remit to be exceptionally strict in regard to their animal welfare beliefs, and hadn't thought to look at whether there was any difference between new and vintage in relation to the animal welfare issue. "Just because its an old dead animal, isn't it still a dead animal?" type of thing.

Something worth mulling over..

Thanks!

K

I totally agree with you, that if you're (sorry, 'one's' ) a vegan, that;

"Just because its an old dead animal, isn't it still a dead animal?"

In fact, I think that was very well put.

 

[fr2nc1z]

I don't wear fur or buy the alligator/lizard-like stuff

The regular leather is ok, since everyone uses regular leather all the time. Some of the other leather, its really a toss up.. depends on what type it is

 

[chandi]

Hiya,

short answer - YES! :suspiciou

Longer answer:

I have been veggie (as in no meat or fish, occasional free-range eggs and organic dairy) for over about 17 years - I forget the exact dates as I drifted into it step by step.

Anyway I was totally No Leather - no slaughterhouse products basically, I was like euw why have gross bits of dead animals lying about, Nazi human skin type thoughts, all that - then I got a dog, a rescued ex-racing greyhound, last June. I was single, lonely, and love pooches.

I do not believe dogs are designed to be vegetarian so of course, I feed him meat.

And, I covet and love all bags, and lately especially, designer bags which are made of leather and so had guilt-tripped myself forever on this. :suspiciou I love the look and the style and if LV, Chanel et al switched to artificial leather tomorrow I would still love and buy (what I can afford of) their bags.

I decided that my dog eats the flesh and that in order to have a dog, who I love and who adds to my life, I was paying for the death of animals - okay I only shop via ethical/non-battery farmed meat, but at the end of the day the sheep/cow/chicken etc doesn't want to die.

I figured that I can then just get real about my own choices here and use leather again. I also believe that karmically (and I believe in karma) that to really desire to do something marks your own soul as much as doing it, though obviously the effect on anyone else is different if you keep it restricted to your own thoughts.

I basically decided that I am not a "good" enough person to say I don't crave a flesh product, even though I would not eat meat ever again - I want leather goods.

I love bags so much, but still I wouldn't wear leather shoes, jackets, all that kind of thing.... I know that makes limited sense! :shame:

Perosnally exotics aren't something I'd feel good about, though to be fair I figure that if you're killing an animal to eat, ie poop it out 8 hours later and it's gone for good, why not kill it to make a bag to wear for 20 years?

When I was strictly No Leather I did come to see fur as no different to calfskin, and that the arguments against it were just envy. Obviously the whole cruelty issue is another thing here, but I would now have no more problem with someone else's ethically farmed (if there was such a thing! :evil: ) mink as my own Mui Mui cow skin bag....

This is a long-winded post and possibly not helpful, but I do tend to really think hard about these issues and it was a very significant journey for me.

I don't know what to say to you, except, I applaud the fact you have total integrity and want your choices to come from your personal ethics and not be just manipulated by the media and be unthinking impulses.

Crystal05, I truly hope you find an answer to this you are happy with, and obviously you're coming from the heart and soul here, not just the head and no-one else can tell you what's right for you.

Respect to ya!

Cx

 

[Kathleen37]

I just wanted to say that greyhounds are lovely, and good on you for getting an ex racer!!

Give him a hug from me!!

K

 

[chandi]

Aw, thanks! Just did, a hug from PF Auntie Kathleen for his furry little bod!

He's got his afternoon run in the garden coming up in a mo, big opportunity for mucho racing about like a maniac and wagging his rather scrawny little tail in the sunshine.

Greys are lovely, if only they were also treated better!

Cx

 

[MandM]

So many amazing posts here!! Combined, we all have a tremendous amount of info on the fur and leather industries.

Danica and Chloe, I couldn't agree more w/ your position on people who simply don't care about animal abuse. I usually agree that we should respect other positions...but as you said, no one accepts the position that children should be systematically mutilated for profit, so the same should be said about animals. There really are a small few moral absolutes and causing pain and suffering for no other reason than profit is one of them. Someone who said they were against animal suffering, but wanted to reform the industry so that we could have a limited amount of HUMANE fur would at least have a leg to stand upon.

But this is such an important topic, so I hope we keep researching it more

 

[chandi]

I usually agree that we should respect other positions...but as you said, no one accepts the position that children should be systematically mutilated for profit, so the same should be said about animals. There really are a small few moral absolutes and causing pain and suffering for no other reason than profit is one of them.

Spot on!

It's not a question of personal choice to not hurt others, their precious lives factor in too.

Cx

 

[sparkle67]

So many amazing posts here!! Combined, we all have a tremendous amount of info on the fur and leather industries.

Danica and Chloe, I couldn't agree more w/ your position on people who simply don't care about animal abuse. I usually agree that we should respect other positions...but as you said, no one accepts the position that children should be systematically mutilated for profit, so the same should be said about animals. There really are a small few moral absolutes and causing pain and suffering for no other reason than profit is one of them. Someone who said they were against animal suffering, but wanted to reform the industry so that we could have a limited amount of HUMANE fur would at least have a leg to stand upon.

But this is such an important topic, so I hope we keep researching it more

I find it amazing that so many people feel so strongly about animal rights but become strangely silent on certain human rights issues. When we have children in this world dying of starvation every minute of every day why do we insist on wasting so many resources on animal rights? Aren't children more important? With all of the money PETA spends on anti-fur campaigns I believe we could feed all of the those children. I realize this is not a popular opinion on this thread but as a mother, pet owner, who does not wear fur, eats meat, and uses leather- I just wonder about the priorities some times. That said- I don't think that animals should be treated cruelly- but with all of the human issues facing us as a global society- our priorities must be in order. this of course is just my opinion-

 

[MandM]

I find it amazing that so many people feel so strongly about animal rights but become strangely silent on certain human rights issues. When we have children in this world dying of starvation every minute of every day why do we insist on wasting so many resources on animal rights? Aren't children more important? With all of the money PETA spends on anti-fur campaigns I believe we could feed all of the those children. I realize this is not a popular opinion on this thread but as a mother, pet owner, who does not wear fur, eats meat, and uses leather- I just wonder about the priorities some times. That said- I don't think that animals should be treated cruelly- but with all of the human issues facing us as a global society- our priorities must be in order. this of course is just my opinion-

It shouldn't have to be an "either/or" issue! The more compassion and kindness that is expressed in the world, the better. No one is chosing BETWEEN children and animals -- I certainly want the best for both. Indeed, by protesting against cruelty to animals, we are also working against child abuse -- since many child abusers begin as pet abusers -- and we are trying to prevent the notion that cruelty to any living being is EVER acceptable.

If you read Patterson's "Eternal Treblinka," you will see that many of the top level organizers of the Nazi Holocaust had experience and training in slaughterhouses and in genetic animal breeding laboratories. They encouraged a belief system in which it was appropriate to "play God" and exterminate living creatures at will in order to produce a "better" society. The citizens became accostomed to the idea that systematic, factory style, slaughter was perfectly acceptable. Thus, when it came time to turn against human beings, no body felt the need to step up and protest. They had been culturally conditioned to ignore cruelty.

By taking the position that no one should care about animals while children are starving, one is sending the message that the feelings of some sentient beings simply don't matter. Supposing that we shouldn't care about the feelings of animals, and should just use them for our own gain, is simply a small step away from saying that we don't need to care about the feelings of infants or the disabled (because they can't "think" the way that functioning adults can). But they can still FEEL. Arguing that we don't need to care about the feelings of animals is needlessly introducing cruelty into our cultural dialogues.