Fur wearers: ever been screamed at on the street?

[ricera]

Not trying to start a sh!tstorm but I have always been genuinely curious about this one thing and now seems as good a time as any to ask if anyone cares to answer...

For those who are opposed to the unnecessary use of animals, leather, fur, etc... Most handbags are made from leather. TPF essentially glorifies handbags. How do you reconcile your love of bags, being a member here etc. with your beliefs about animal rights.

Thank you to anyone who takes the time to answer

My transition to vegan-ism has, and still is, taking some time. I have been a vegetarian for most of my life even though I was raised in a meat-eating family. I think there is a gradient of animal rights activism/consciousness. Most people oppose egregious animal abuse. Others own pets and care for them, some even rescue them. Further along the gradient is vegetarianism and then veganism. It takes most people a very long series of small steps to reach those last two points.
When I first joined tpf, I wasn't where I am now. Why do I stay? Because I love fashion and craftsmanship. Because I love style. Because I learn so much here. There are a great many ugly truths about the fashion industry. It can be just as exploitive of humans as it is of animals. That's why I favor Hermes and BV: because they care for their people.
Part of me really wants to pretend that leather is just another material- a building part. But it's not. I've had to force myself to recognize the origins of my purses and shoes, and it hasn't been easy. In December, after I had taken my vow, I lusted after an Hermes Drag, but it wasn't meant to be. Thanks to Docride, I have learned to give my leather things the best care. This is so they last me longer and, in some way, to respect the animal that lost its life.
A hypocrite is someone who acts in contradiction to their stated beliefs (see Merriam-Webster). A person who does eats meat but is anti-fur is not a hypocrite. Neither is a vegetarian (some one who does not believe in eating meat) who wears leather. A hypocrite in this situation is someone who says no one should wear fur but wears it anyway. This word is often used incorrectly and inappropriately as this thread can prove.
The Eco-feminist objection to the anti-fur movement is based on the use of sexist images, such as the "rather be naked" campaign. With respect to animals, Eco-feminists argue that sometimes the human exercise of power over them is unjust and that humans are discriminatory towards members of other species.
Full Disclosure: As a child, my father trapped mink for extra money. We don't talk about it much, but I do that know that he has become very anti-fur. Part of the reason is because he feels that the practices of the modern fur industry are woefully inhumane.
I want the other members of tpf to be happy, but I also want to minimize the amount of suffering in the world. I'm not happy that someone treated xiaoxiao that way. Still, the responses in this thread have been extremely hostile to animal activists in general.

 

[helpchow]

I love your post and the amount of thoughtfulness that went into it.

 

[Hessefan]

Actually I'd probably have given up fur if I didn't think anti-fur people were so offensive.

Can I just add that you shouldn't wear or give up fur because of other people or to spite them, but because you are aware of the facts and either comfortable with wearing it or not.
Otherwise it's like saying you would believe in God, except some priests are so pushy/sexist/offensive/. Of all the people who are anti-fur it's only a small minority that is offensive and aggressive. And some of those, I have found, are young teenagers who will change their mind later on anyway. Or topmodels...

 

[sara.p]

My transition to vegan-ism has, and still is, taking some time. I have been a vegetarian for most of my life even though I was raised in a meat-eating family. I think there is a gradient of animal rights activism/consciousness. Most people oppose egregious animal abuse. Others own pets and care for them, some even rescue them. Further along the gradient is vegetarianism and then veganism. It takes most people a very long series of small steps to reach those last two points.
When I first joined tpf, I wasn't where I am now. Why do I stay? Because I love fashion and craftsmanship. Because I love style. Because I learn so much here. There are a great many ugly truths about the fashion industry. It can be just as exploitive of humans as it is of animals. That's why I favor Hermes and BV: because they care for their people.
Part of me really wants to pretend that leather is just another material- a building part. But it's not. I've had to force myself to recognize the origins of my purses and shoes, and it hasn't been easy. In December, after I had taken my vow, I lusted after an Hermes Drag, but it wasn't meant to be. Thanks to Docride, I have learned to give my leather things the best care. This is so they last me longer and, in some way, to respect the animal that lost its life.
A hypocrite is someone who acts in contradiction to their stated beliefs (see Merriam-Webster). A person who does eats meat but is anti-fur is not a hypocrite. Neither is a vegetarian (some one who does not believe in eating meat) who wears leather. A hypocrite in this situation is someone who says no one should wear fur but wears it anyway. This word is often used incorrectly and inappropriately as this thread can prove.
The Eco-feminist objection to the anti-fur movement is based on the use of sexist images, such as the "rather be naked" campaign. With respect to animals, Eco-feminists argue that sometimes the human exercise of power over them is unjust and that humans are discriminatory towards members of other species.
Full Disclosure: As a child, my father trapped mink for extra money. We don't talk about it much, but I do that know that he has become very anti-fur. Part of the reason is because he feels that the practices of the modern fur industry are woefully inhumane.
I want the other members of tpf to be happy, but I also want to minimize the amount of suffering in the world. I'm not happy that someone treated xiaoxiao that way. Still, the responses in this thread have been extremely hostile to animal activists in general.

i love how much thought you put into this! i wish more people would use this as an example to follow, and explain their thoughts or opinions on a topic in a clear concise and CALM manner (such as this), instead of getting their emotions too involved, and as a result, [they] are unable to articulate what they truly want to say.. and leaves both parties frustrated...

 

[Hoodster777]

Not trying to start a sh!tstorm but I have always been genuinely curious about this one thing and now seems as good a time as any to ask if anyone cares to answer...

For those who are opposed to the unnecessary use of animals, leather, fur, etc... Most handbags are made from leather. TPF essentially glorifies handbags. How do you reconcile your love of bags, being a member here etc. with your beliefs about animal rights.

Thank you to anyone who takes the time to answer

Vegetarian here (started in May). My Coach collection is all leather bags, but I've stopped buying them. Any bag that I've bought in the past year is either non-leather, or has a minimal amount on it (most of my L.A.M.B. bags just have leather strap/trim, my Marc Jacobs is coated canvas), so I try to get bags that are as animal-friendly as possible, but are still my taste. And yes, sometimes it leans toward a coated canvas bag with a leather strap... or a leather bag like my Juicy bag. And I think that its almost impossible to avoid any contact with animal products unless you are a strict vegan. I take several neccessary medications a day, all of which were tested on animals. I just do what I can- not eat meat, only wear faux-fur, and try to buy a minimal amount of leather goods.

And op, that's awful. I would never expect that to happen in that area! Some people are insane, I would never press my views on someone like that. And I don't mind fur, I just won't wear it. My mom still has all of my grandma's old furs, which I do think are gorgeous (except for the orange one that I swear looks like my cat, lol).

 

[Serpentis]

Thank you for providing cites, but I never used an ad hominem. An ad hominem is a direct insult, i.e. “X person is stupid.”

I don’t consider the term “extreme animal lover” an epithet, i.e. name-calling. Verbally attacking a stranger on the street for wearing a fur coat is an extreme act, and describing someone who behaves in an extreme manner as extreme is not an insult – it’s merely descriptive. I’d consider that description a euphemism in some cases, i.e. the Animal Liberation Front.

It’s also not an insult to point out the inconsistencies in another’s behavior when that other person undertakes to judge one’s own behavior. If you’ve been vaccinated for polio, then you have directly benefited from medical experimentation on monkeys, which are creatures of a higher level of intelligence and feeling than a mink or a rabbit. That is fact.

I feel no obligation to cede the moral high ground to another human being who isn’t living up to the standards they are trying to impose upon me. If we’re going to posit that benefiting from the use of legally manufactured animal products is reprehensible, find me any member of the human race who isn’t somehow guilty.

Groups like PETA aren’t just against wearing fur or leather, they’re against using animal products of any kind. That means no medicines tested on lab animals, no meat, no seafood, no poultry, no dairy, no honey, no eggs, no wool, no cashmere, no goosedown, no silk, no bone china, no pearls. They’re against keeping companion animals of any kind, or keeping working animals of any kind – no horseback riding, no carriage horses, no racehorses, no American Kennel Club, no 4-H Club, no hunting dogs, no police dogs, no assistant dogs for the blind, deaf, or handicapped. They’re against zoos and the conservation of rare species in captivity, too.

I have “actually talked to” plenty of… animal rights pundits, believe me – more than I want to. They usually have no compunction about making their (always onsolicited on my part) opinions known, as the OP and plenty of other posters in this thread have had demonstrated to them. I’ve said, and I maintain, that objection to the use of animal products never justifies cruelty to, harassment of, or incivility toward other human beings.

The fact is, a woman on the street wearing a legally manufactured and acquired fur is harming no one, and she has the same right to not be angrily accosted as anyone else. It’s not like she was stomping a kitten to death – she was wearing a garment that is legal for her to own and wear. She was not the one disturbing the peace by angrily confronting a stranger on the street and compelling that person to run away from her.

If you don’t like fur or leather, fine. Don’t wear it. I’ve never heard of someone who likes fur screaming at anyone on the street for wearing clothing derived from plant sources. I doubt that anyone will ever forcibly put a chinchilla bolero or snakeskin boots on you. Likewise, if someone unknowingly gives you a gift you find morally objectionable, you have every right to dispose of it as you choose.

The thing is, the fur wearers are not the ones accosting people in veggie-leather shoes on the street and spray painting their organically-grown cotton clothing. (The latter constitutes the legal definition of assault and battery, vandalism, and destruction of property by the way.)

If a person is going to hold him- or herself up as a model of XYZ virtuous belief, that person’s behavior must bear scrutiny. If a person is going to talk the talk, that person is expected to walk the walk. That person is after all exhorting others to follow their example and be like them.

Plus it's often the case that animal-rights pundits are very much about protecting the small-cute-and-fuzzy critters like mink, chinchilla, rabbits, and foxes, while the cows, sheep, pythons, crocodiles, alligators, down geese, and silkworms seem to be on their own.

I also notice that well-to-do women walking alone on city streets are usually the ones targeted – for some reason, no one ever seems to accost tall, stocky men in leather jackets or snakeskin boots. After all, depositing a dead raccoon on the lunch plate of a rail-thin, middle-aged female fashion editor is far less potentially dangerous than say, accosting customers in a leather clothing shop frequented by well-built men in the S&M fetish community. I wonder if the same animal-rights pundit willing to spray-paint a lone woman’s mink coat would do the same to a 250-lb. bodybuilder clad in head-to-toe leather in the middle of, say, the San Francisco Folsom Street Fair.

 

[Serpentis]

Of course, there are plenty of leather products that are not byproducts of the meat industry (alligator, crocodile, snake, kangaroo, etc.), which is not to say that they are never used for meat too.

Alligator meat is an expensive delicacy in the American south, and kangaroo meat is frequently eaten in Australia.

I've had alligator tail sirloin and alligator meatballs in mornay sauce while in New Orleans, and they're delicious. Very much like delicate, oceany whitefish.

But in keeping with a compassionate utilitarian viewpoint, I very much prefer to wear the fur or leather of a creature whose meat I also enjoy, as in, if you're going to kill a creature, first of all, do it with a minimum of pain. Then use as much of its carcass as you possibly can. I eat roast rabbit, so I'll wear rabbit fur. I eat lamb, so I'll wear shearling and swakara. I eat alligator, so I'll wear alligator leather, and so on.

 

[Hessefan]

Thanks for your well considered reply. An adhominem is not only a direct insult, if you refer to any encyclopedia it "is an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. In other words, it is an argument which attacks the individual rather than the argument that individual is presenting." So, that is exactly what you did in your previous post and in this one, and that was what I was referring to.
In terms of the legality of wearing fur or exotic skins, I don't take that to be a good indicator of the morality or righteousness of anything. There was a time when it was legal to beat one's wife with a stick no wider than one's thumb. There was also a time when it was legal to prevent women from voting. And a time when African Americans couldn't enter white establishments or African people were sold as property. That doesn't make it ethical or perfectly fine to do so. Thankfully times change and so do social noms and the law. If nobody ever questioned those norms or the law, then there would have never been any progress to begin with. Humans have the capacity to make choices based on ethics much more than any other species on the planet. So saying "I can use fur because humans have done so for thousands of years" is like saying "I can beat my partner because men have done so for thousands of years", or saying "tigers eat meat because they were born to do so, therefore I do". This doesn't take into consideration the choices humans are able to make.
As I already posted earlier, it is impossible in today's society to never ever benefit from historical injustices committed to other species, but it is about minimising cruelty as much as possible. Fur is quite an obvious choice to many people.
Lastly, Peta states very clearly on their website and their distributed material that they feel animals aren't ours to abuse. I haven't met a single person from Peta who is against companion animals, dogs for the blind or living with animals, as opposed to living off them (whether it is for entertainment, science or clothing). Those are different organisations you speak of. Animal rights activists are as varied and different as any other organisation
I don't want to go aorund in circles here so won't say more than I already have.

Thank you for providing cites, but I never used an ad hominem. An ad hominem is a direct insult, i.e. “X person is stupid.”

I don’t consider the term “extreme animal lover” an epithet, i.e. name-calling. Verbally attacking a stranger on the street for wearing a fur coat is an extreme act, and describing someone who behaves in an extreme manner as extreme is not an insult – it’s merely descriptive. I’d consider that description a euphemism in some cases, i.e. the Animal Liberation Front.

It’s also not an insult to point out the inconsistencies in another’s behavior when that other person undertakes to judge one’s own behavior. If you’ve been vaccinated for polio, then you have directly benefited from medical experimentation on monkeys, which are creatures of a higher level of intelligence and feeling than a mink or a rabbit. That is fact.

I feel no obligation to cede the moral high ground to another human being who isn’t living up to the standards they are trying to impose upon me. If we’re going to posit that benefiting from the use of legally manufactured animal products is reprehensible, find me any member of the human race who isn’t somehow guilty.

Groups like PETA aren’t just against wearing fur or leather, they’re against using animal products of any kind. That means no medicines tested on lab animals, no meat, no seafood, no poultry, no dairy, no honey, no eggs, no wool, no cashmere, no goosedown, no silk, no bone china, no pearls. They’re against keeping companion animals of any kind, or keeping working animals of any kind – no horseback riding, no carriage horses, no racehorses, no American Kennel Club, no 4-H Club, no hunting dogs, no police dogs, no assistant dogs for the blind, deaf, or handicapped. They’re against zoos and the conservation of rare species in captivity, too.

I have “actually talked to” plenty of… animal rights pundits, believe me – more than I want to. They usually have no compunction about making their (always onsolicited on my part) opinions known, as the OP and plenty of other posters in this thread have had demonstrated to them. I’ve said, and I maintain, that objection to the use of animal products never justifies cruelty to, harassment of, or incivility toward other human beings.

The fact is, a woman on the street wearing a legally manufactured and acquired fur is harming no one, and she has the same right to not be angrily accosted as anyone else. It’s not like she was stomping a kitten to death – she was wearing a garment that is legal for her to own and wear. She was not the one disturbing the peace by angrily confronting a stranger on the street and compelling that person to run away from her.

If you don’t like fur or leather, fine. Don’t wear it. I’ve never heard of someone who likes fur screaming at anyone on the street for wearing clothing derived from plant sources. I doubt that anyone will ever forcibly put a chinchilla bolero or snakeskin boots on you. Likewise, if someone unknowingly gives you a gift you find morally objectionable, you have every right to dispose of it as you choose.

The thing is, the fur wearers are not the ones accosting people in veggie-leather shoes on the street and spray painting their organically-grown cotton clothing. (The latter constitutes the legal definition of assault and battery, vandalism, and destruction of property by the way.)

If a person is going to hold him- or herself up as a model of XYZ virtuous belief, that person’s behavior must bear scrutiny. If a person is going to talk the talk, that person is expected to walk the walk. That person is after all exhorting others to follow their example and be like them.

Plus it's often the case that animal-rights pundits are very much about protecting the small-cute-and-fuzzy critters like mink, chinchilla, rabbits, and foxes, while the cows, sheep, pythons, crocodiles, alligators, down geese, and silkworms seem to be on their own.

I also notice that well-to-do women walking alone on city streets are usually the ones targeted – for some reason, no one ever seems to accost tall, stocky men in leather jackets or snakeskin boots. After all, depositing a dead raccoon on the lunch plate of a rail-thin, middle-aged female fashion editor is far less potentially dangerous than say, accosting customers in a leather clothing shop frequented by well-built men in the S&M fetish community. I wonder if the same animal-rights pundit willing to spray-paint a lone woman’s mink coat would do the same to a 250-lb. bodybuilder clad in head-to-toe leather in the middle of, say, the San Francisco Folsom Street Fair.

 

[queengrenadine]

Humans have the capacity to make choices based on ethics much more than any other species on the planet. So saying "I can use fur because humans have done so for thousands of years" is like saying "I can beat my partner because men have done so for thousands of years", or saying "tigers eat meat because they were born to do so, therefore I do". This doesn't take into consideration the choices humans are able to make.
As I already posted earlier, it is impossible in today's society to never ever benefit from historical injustices committed to other species, but it is about minimising cruelty as much as possible.

thank you so, so, so much. i don't post very frequently on this site, but i have been following this thread with interest. as a law student interested in animal issues, i really appreciate this rational, well-thought-out view of how many animal activists truly view the issue. it's not as black and white as people seem to think - any steps that can be taken to minimize consumption are positive ones, and nobody has to be entirely consistent to make a small difference. think about other causes - the environment, for example - a person who does their best to recycle and reuse, yet hasn't yet bought a hybrid car, isn't really considered to be some kind of hypocrite. people who aren't full-on vegetarians but attempt to cut down on their meat consumption to promote sustainability also aren't usually considered hypocrites. similarly, i don't see how it's "hypocritical" for someone who uses fur and leather but attempts to minimize their usage to argue that we should gradually attempt to phase animal cruelty out of our lifestyles.

our generation has become inured to animal byproducts in literally EVERYTHING we consume. it seems a little ridiculous to say that someone must completely eschew all of those animal byproducts before they may legitimately argue that some of our animal consumption is probably a little unnecessary. any positive change is a step in the right direction.

personally, i do eat some meat, wear leather, and have bought vintage fur. i try to minimize all those activities and that's good enough for me. it would seem a little illogical to me if somebody tried to tell me i can't advocate for a good cause just because i don't follow the "rules" to a tee. how do my personal activities change the inherent value of the message?

p.s. no offense to anyone here - just wanted to throw my hat into the ring

 

[vhdos]

Alligator meat is an expensive delicacy in the American south, and kangaroo meat is frequently eaten in Australia.

I've had alligator tail sirloin and alligator meatballs in mornay sauce while in New Orleans, and they're delicious. Very much like delicate, oceany whitefish.

But in keeping with a compassionate utilitarian viewpoint, I very much prefer to wear the fur or leather of a creature whose meat I also enjoy, as in, if you're going to kill a creature, first of all, do it with a minimum of pain. Then use as much of its carcass as you possibly can. I eat roast rabbit, so I'll wear rabbit fur. I eat lamb, so I'll wear shearling and swakara. I eat alligator, so I'll wear alligator leather, and so on.

Yes, I know, that's why I said in my post that their meat is sometimes used as a byproduct.

 

[icecreamom]

Hessefan What a thoughtfull statement, you expressed in few lines what I've been telling myself for years. I admire your integrity and agree with your point of view.

 

[ricera]

helpchow and sara.p: Thank you for your kind and supportive comments.
queen grenadine: I'm a law student too!
hessefan: I admire your last response.
Serpentis: From your stubborn misuse of the phrase ad hominem to your false "factual" assertions, it is hard to find a solid argument in your post.
From what I could gather, you feel that most, if not all, animal activists try to force their standards, priorities and values on others. I profoundly disagree with that- please see my prior post.
But ask yourself: What standards, values and priorities have you forced upon animals? Why is that okay? I agree that we should not tell others how to live their life. But then why is it okay to condemn another creature to death?

 

[Hessefan]

thank you so, so, so much. i don't post very frequently on this site, but i have been following this thread with interest. as a law student interested in animal issues, i really appreciate this rational, well-thought-out view of how many animal activists truly view the issue. it's not as black and white as people seem to think - any steps that can be taken to minimize consumption are positive ones, and nobody has to be entirely consistent to make a small difference. think about other causes - the environment, for example - a person who does their best to recycle and reuse, yet hasn't yet bought a hybrid car, isn't really considered to be some kind of hypocrite. people who aren't full-on vegetarians but attempt to cut down on their meat consumption to promote sustainability also aren't usually considered hypocrites. similarly, i don't see how it's "hypocritical" for someone who uses fur and leather but attempts to minimize their usage to argue that we should gradually attempt to phase animal cruelty out of our lifestyles.

our generation has become inured to animal byproducts in literally EVERYTHING we consume. it seems a little ridiculous to say that someone must completely eschew all of those animal byproducts before they may legitimately argue that some of our animal consumption is probably a little unnecessary. any positive change is a step in the right direction.

personally, i do eat some meat, wear leather, and have bought vintage fur. i try to minimize all those activities and that's good enough for me. it would seem a little illogical to me if somebody tried to tell me i can't advocate for a good cause just because i don't follow the "rules" to a tee. how do my personal activities change the inherent value of the message?

p.s. no offense to anyone here - just wanted to throw my hat into the ring

Thanks to ricera, icecreamom and queengrenadine for your kindness.

And some very good examples above.
Now, the reason I think that people who support other causes such as environmentalism do not experience half as much hostility as animal rights activists is that in this case it is directly about life and death, whereas other causes aren't (except for abortion, and look how intense and aggressive that issue gets). I would dare to guess that most animal rights activists do not actually believe that all people who wear fur, eat meat, or use other animal products are in fact horrible, mean spirited people. In fact, the reaction someone gets when it turns out that they are vegan is most often defensiveness. This to me indicates that many people who do use those products aren't entirely comfortable with the fact that this product is the result of cruelty, violence and death and that they are aware of animals as sentient beings. That is why people came up with the notion of wanting to "kill animals humanely" in the first place. People are often uncomfortable if they encounter someone who wants to opt out of this cycle of death and cruelty because it is an unpleasant thought to think that animals have feelings and are sentient, and that their death may have been unnecessary. So they start to lash out at animal rights activists, because they feel that the mere fact that you want to opt out and not participate is a criticism of them, even if that isn't the case.
No, the people OP encountered shouldn't have yelled at her and frightened her, but similarly to some people lashing out at animal rights activists, some of these activists misinterpret their emotions if you will and try to convince others of their lifestyle as the right one by being belligerent. Really, they probably are also uncomfortable about animals dying, some may even feel desperate and as though no one is hearing their message, and think that this will work. So really, they are not as far apart as we may think, the ones who comment on people wearing fur and the ones who comment on people not eating meat or on animal rights people being hypocrites.
Personally, of course I feel uncomfortable thinking about my involvement in this cycle. But if I make controversial choices, whatever they may be, I expect people to disagree with me and discuss it. And if there are people lobbying for progress in the world, whatever it may be, even if I disagree with them I find it admirable. And if I have a strong reaction to something they say or criticise, I try to consider it and re-evaluate my choices, because there must be a reason for me to have that type of reaction.

As for the other kinds of arguments, the letter written by Kelis accusing the animal rights movement of not caring for other problems in the world or the ad hominem type arguments, those are simply cheap shots people use to quieten another person's critique by discrediting said person. Again, those seem like defensive responses and are the simplest ones employed against movements and people anywhere (Hitler was vegetarian, which he wasn't btw., is another one) and I can't even take them serious.

 

[lily25]

Today was super cold (in comparison to the previous days) and the ladies in the city were wearing their furs. I must have seen at least 20 women with all kinds of fur, full length, fancy 80's fur, strollers, seared jackets, I was surprised. No one butted an eyelid, I didn't see any one getting mean looks or bad comments.

 

[girlfrommoscow]

i just want to pop in and say that i admire reading an intelligent conversation. This is exactly what i admire about this forum that we can all agree to disagree and respect each other opinions!