Phil has a lovely introduction to the topic of fur and morality over at Millionaire Socialite.
The topic of morality has been on my mind for the last few days as I have explored The Fur Information Council’s Fur Fashion Week 2006. I admit that I do not see fur from the same perspective as many of the people who have left comments on Almost Girl. For me fur is simply not a moral issue in and of itself. As Phil reminds us there are moral problems inherent in sourcing and manufacturing in fashion period. The fact that fur has an added sourcing complications because it deals with live animals does not somehow make it more or less moral than the rest of the fashion industry. How it deals with those sourcing issues is what can make it immoral.
The issue for me is rather more complicated. Let me introduce the subject to you through a personal anecdote. I was educated in the Waldorf education system whose academic pedagogy revolves around the principle that one should understand the world around oneself in a very basic and fundamental way. It is this bottom down whole to parts approach that allows Waldorf educated children to then take their wide appreciation of many subject and specialize very successfully in a wide range of areas. What is surprising for people is that one area that Waldorf education treats very seriously is farming. Thus at a young age I was exposed to all elements of farming and animal husbandry. Through my education and my own work on a farm in Colorado I raised, slaughtered, and ate animals that had been in my own care. This experience taught me a kind of appreciation for my own consumption habits as they relate to a larger life cycle that frankly forces me to relate to fur in a more holistic manner than many people.
How does this relate to fur? Most people, yes even PETA activists live in such a state of disconnect from our planet that they are forced into emotional relationships with the many living creatures that live below us in the food chain. A steak doesn’t look very much like the cow that it came from nor really neither does tanned leather (which is just a skinned fur coat). But a fur coat is a disturbingly real reminder of the reality of our own consumption habits and its inherent consequences.
And we don’t like to be reminded. We get our milk in cartoons, our chicken in nuggets, and our fish in fillets. The farther we distance ourselves from a product’s natural source the more comfortable and complacent we are in consuming them. And vegetarians, don’t kid yourself into thinking that your consumption habits are a get out of jail free card, the mango you enjoyed wasn’t grown in your neighbors backyard. My point is that we over consume as a society because we don’t have to think about it. The produce porn is visually overwhelming at a grocer like Whole Foods and so because we as humans are conditioned to respond to scarcity we take it all in.
Such is the great evil of suburban and urban living. We are comfortably coddled and kept away from the disturbing sins of agribusiness even while books like Diet for a Small Planet and Fast Food Nation ask us to change our mindset.
But we are too far removed from the life cycles to reengage. We may understand the facts but the emotional resonance is not there for us. So we say yes this is a great American tragedy but I will not worry today.
But with fur we are faced with a dramatic reminder of our own status as Counterfeit Chic reminds us as carnivore consumers at the top of the food chain. And the one byproduct of that consumption pattern we can’t ignore is something fuzzy staring back at it. A fur coat has a great deal of emotional resonance, that is one reason it is such a fantastic fashion statement for many people. But the issue here is that a fur coat is simply too real a reminder of the source and implications of a product for us to ignore even as we ignore a host of other sins in our mediated heavily consumptive worlds. And so we react! Fur is dead! Well so is the leather, the eggs, and even the lettuce.
I think the solution here is one in which we acknowledge our place in the food chain and make concessions and accommodations from there. I have no problem with owning or wearing fur that is ethically and sustainably sourced because I have no problem with meats or vegetables that are produced in the same manner. In fact, I actually prefer to many fabrics because they are generational pieces that become heirlooms. Fur lasts and is treasured, precisely because of its emotional resonance. That in turn actually helps to reduce a society of drastic over consumption. A gore-tex coat just doesn’t do the same thing.
And I have peace of mind knowing that I believe in respect for the land, respect for the animals that have given their lives so that I might live, and a deep and spiritual connection to the intertwined ecology of my life. Without this I might just be another silly urbanite that listens to the invectives of PETA and doesn’t understand the wider ramifications of sourcing.
Julie, thanks for this thoughtful post , whilst I am still unable to morally justify the fur industry personaly many of you’re comments did resonate, especially with regard our disconnect from our consumeristic habits and over consumption.
I wish I had more time to write a detailed post here, but I don’t have that luxury, but I would like to take issue with one of your points.
You mention that you were educated in the Steiner Waldorf system, and how this approach to education has shaped your beliefs and understanding. I myself have been involved with the Waldorf system and indeed my daughter attends a Rudolf Steiner school, so I have a lot of experience regarding ‘holistic/ biodynamic farming. It is my understanding that holist / biodynamic farming is a system where each animal / crop would benefit and contribute to the management of the farm. I don’t see how farming fur really fits into the holstic equation, I don’t see how you could feed back any of the by products of mass producing fur in a holistic way. The meat would probably not be consumed and there would be very little manure produced I expect for fertilizers.
With regards the longevity of fur coats and your suggestion that they become family heirlooms I don’t see this happening. They are being sold as fashion, which is disposable and styles change constantly. People with enough money to buy fur are not the types to wear the same coat every season so are they going to buy a new one each season? I really don’t believe they will see them as heirlooms, they are more likely to be status symbols. I could buy into this as a valid argument if I believed this may be the case, but really, they will become disposable items like everything else especially as the prices come down if they gain popularity. I’m sure China could produce a nice line in cut price furs for the high street !
Julie this was a well thought out and well written piece and you make many valid points I’m just having trouble getting my head around some of you’re theorys. All food for thought though! Thankyou for all the research and work you’ve put into this it’s very valid, I am though, underwhelmed by the response this has recieved here I thought It’d be a real hot topic !
And vegetarians, don’t kid yourself into thinking that your consumption habits are a get out of jail free card, the mango you enjoyed wasn’t grown in your neighbors backyard. My point is that we over consume as a society because we don’t have to think about it. The produce porn is visually overwhelming at a grocer like Whole Foods and so because we as humans are conditioned to respond to scarcity we take it all in.
———————————————————————-
Again -at least in my case- you’re assuming that I consume the way you do. I don’t. I do not arrogantly presume that as a vegetarian, I have a get out of jail free card. Half the battle is sustainably sourcing your food as well. And I don’t eat mangos (long story). I consume fresh produce, grown as close to me as is possible. And btw, the closest Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s is 250 miles away so I have to go to the local farmer (bummer huh). The only produce I eat out of season are tomatoes. My food politics go far beyond crossing meat off my shopping list. That’s a cheap shot; my choices are made much more thoughtfully than that and I don’t appreciate your cursory assumptions and comparisons. As someone who was educated to be so open minded, I’m surprised you make the assumptions you do.
And Julie, trying to equivocate dead lettuce to dead animals in order to feel better or justify your consumption habits is pathetic. That’s an argument I expect from Bubba, not someone who is the product of the most liberal education money can buy.
> And Julie, trying to equivocate dead lettuce to dead animals in order to feel better or justify your consumption habits is pathetic.
Eat what you kill. “Sex Time and Power” relates women’s sexuality, in particular, the desire to be nurtured through childbearing and rearing by a father who can provide for his family, to consumption habits. Meat as a source of energy is more efficient than a pure vegetarian diet, particularly in areas where lentils etc etc are not indegenous.
However, it was difficult for prehistoric man to kill these beasts, which means that the ones who were willing to take risks to kill ended up with the most “fruitful” women. This explains cultural tendencies towards risk taking.
So, per a liberal education, I think the question becomes if the risks a given father/mother/family take are justified from a moral standpoint. Use energy wisely.
That cow probably wasn’t going to save the world anyway.
Signed,
Bubba
Ow. “That cow probably wasn’t going to save the world anyway?”
You have a dog? A cat? Any pet? Could you say that your pet’s life is worth any more than the life of a cow? If you could- how? You can’t deem who’s more worthy to live and who’s more worthy to die- who’s life is worth more or who’s life is worth less.
Ow. I don’t even know what to say…
Regarding the rest of the post- I agree with the lettuce thing- how can you compare torture to lettuce leaves? I know you might say you’re detached or you’re just immune to the whole situation because of what you went through growing up- but you can’t compare pain to lettuce leaves. Lettuce can’t feel pain- they don’t have nerve endings. That’s just…a weird statement.
You say that fur lasts? It doesn’t last…it’s just skin/hair sprayed with chemicals so it doesn’t decompose right off of someone. Think of a corpse- after a few months it’s already decaying.
The main questions are “Why [is this allowed to happen]?” and “Is fur necessary?”
You’re right when you say “A steak doesn’t look very much like the cow that it came from nor really neither does tanned leather (which is just a skinned fur coat).” and your point as to why are people more concerned about clothing? But that’s not how some of us think- at least not me- if I look at a steak, I think of a cow just the same as if I look at leather- I think of a cow.
I also agree when you say we as a society- “we don’t like to be reminded” and “we are comfortable coddled” and “too far removed.”
That’s why I Made my blog. I want people to be reminded. People should care. I refer to this again and again because I don’t know how else to go about this- genocide. Some people just don’t want to hear about it. Some people read about it and just flip the page. Does that make it right? No. Should they care? The answer is yes.
Ignorance just isn’t bliss. Especially for the ‘victims’ in question.
So I disagree when you say we’re so far removed that we can no longer reengage.
Oh, And I’m a vegetarian, and I also don’t think I have a get out of jail free card.
I don’t understand. If there are pain-free alternatives- why not use them? As someone else stated on their blog- skins are just a byproduct. Just as if there are alternatives to fossil fuels- why not go for that instead?
Fur is just a paradigm. It’s just something in the mind. We (as a soceity) view it like we do because we’ve grown up with the picture that Fur is a Luxury item. Fur is upperclass. Fur is soft and comfortable.
We don’t see it for what it really is- “beauty” that is formed from cleaned-up blood, guts, pain. I do the “put yourself in another’s shoes.” I honestly, I think it’s just the luck of the draw- I know I’m a human. BUT that doesn’t mean I can exploit animals. Not at all. If you’re deemed (by society again) as more “superior” then you should CARE for the ones lower than you. Not exploit them over and over again. I know I’m a human- but I can’t say that my life is worth more than the life of a cow- I can’t say my life is worth more than 1,000 minks. In the wild- it’s not like they’re just limp creatures that we must use or else god knows what will happen- they have a society too, they have lives. And if you (and this is for everyone) think that they’d rather be stuck inside a cage- NOT brought up free-range- trying to gnaw themselves out- think that they exist so we can use them rather than lead a real life- that it’s all just something we can ignore- It’s just not.
It’s not humane. How can anyone ignore suffering? Why do people ignore suffering? Can we stop ignoring suffering. I think so. It’s not like I was born this way with this stance in my head after all.
Has Anyone even watched these undercover footage clips of the industry? They’re not just by PETA- which most people regard as barbarians- they’re by the Humane Society too. THey’re by a number of places.
Look. Go to a fur farm. Don’t go to someplace after all the fur is cleaned and all you see is lots of hair without going to the place where the fur actually came from. If you’re so detached. Go there. And see how much we can numb ourselves to other’s.
Or for the people who can’t bring themselves to go. Watch all of those clips. Watch every single one. Watch seal, chincilla, mink, wolf, dog, cat. They’re not just having pain for fun. If you want to make an EDUCATED decision. You watch all of those. And then you won’t be ignorant. And then you can make your decision- conscience-free.
Alright. Time for correcting typos…I meant to say, ” As someone else stated on their blog- skins are NOT just a byproduct.” and that was http://totedesigns.blogspot.com/
and I actually just read Lol B’s post thoroughly-
I’ve been thinking the last few days that this subject would be a hot topic too- gauging by the limited responses to many fur posts on blogs. But people just think none of this applies to them… and so they’re probably reluctant to post or even bother.
Here’s an example of a clip that is neither at PETA nor HSUS (if you can’t even deal with HSUS) http://www.animal-protection.net/furtrade/movie.htm
Thanks for that link Gloria, I hope people take the time out to watch it. I felt sickened and horrified.
As the film clearly states China is the worlds largest producer of animal fur and as such they are not bound by any Animal cruelty laws or ethics with regads to the treatment of animals in captivity. I would like to see some evidence from Julie on the holistic side to the fur industry that she refers to. I’m open to seeing examples of the ethical darwinian approach to fur she refers to. Would the people wearing these furs be happy to go and kill their own fur, I think not, so the argument is flawed, this is not road kill people are wearing! I’m sure the lovely little steiner schol Julie went to would not advocate this kind of animal abuse, I don’t see where the Waldorf connection to nature fits in here really ! So you killed some animals on a farm you worked on once, so now that means you can see that farming animals in an inhumane way to kill for clothing is fair game, huh? Don’t see the connection.
I wrote my first post at 730 am in bed bleary eyed and tired this morning, now I’m awake I feel angry and upset at some of the inferences made by Julie. I do believe Julie is trying to look at a larger picture here but it’s just not possible to disconect morality and ethics from this whole debate as she suggests. Animal abuse is not the same as any other supply chain issue in the fashion industry.
I would love to be proved wrong and be shown some examples of the holistic nature of the fur industry, please Julie show us some examples.
Also, what’s wrong with having an ‘emotional relationship with the animals that live in the food chain below us’ ?
I have an Uncle that really treasured his gore- tex, wore it till it fell off his back. We have an emotional resonance to things we appreciate and believe in whatever their material.
Too many people ripping into you,huh? I posted my thoughts on the topic too,
Arriere-Pensee : FUR & MORALITY…..
Hey Anna , I don’t think anyones ripping into Julie here, infact I do agree with some of her sentiments, rather Julie invited debate here because she can handle it !, and we have a right to respond, I think so far this has been very civil!
On some levels I get where Julie is coming from, I think her point is that she supports ethical production of fur, the problem I have is that there is not a lot of evidence of this ethical production, but I am open to being shown otherwise.
So no ripping, just joining in the discussion. Surely it’s all positive, Like I said earlier I think it’s great that Julie has raised this issue.
Here here! no ripping. I think Julie has some points too! See my blog for the rest..
I believe many of you are conflating too many of the issues. I said I have a more holistic view of fur.
This isn’t to deny or justify any of the terrible things that happen, but like anything else in the garment industry there’s an array of issues, perspectives, and considerations that need to be addressed independently of “OMG BUNNIES!”
A relative of my bfs is a mink farmer in Italy. If you upset a mink, it will ruin the fur. If you feed a mink a bad diet, it will ruin the fur. If the mink gets sick, you better make it well, or the fur will be ruined. If you stress it out before killing it, it will ruin the fur. Animals used for fur coats are by in large, not treated in the same way as animals who are eaten (lest the fur be ruined). Being a mink doesn’t sound half bad by comparison.
Vegetarian issues — I’m not going near that one with e 10 ft pole.
The Ongoing Controversy: Fur in Fashion…
As Fur Fashion Week continues in New York, it has caused much thought about the issues surrounding fur and morality. As I write up this post I’m having flashbacks of a news story I saw on TV about a group……
So, in a nutshell Julie, you feel that you have a more considered argument here, and a more holistic view, as you ponder the wider ramifications and implications of the issue, whilst we the anti fur brigade are coming purely from an ‘OMG Bunnies’ stance.
For the record I don’t find bunnies cute, or foxes or ferrets or minks.
You say you have a ‘holistic view’ but you don’t expand on that really, other than to say you have experience with farming so you are less divorced from the realities of eating meat . Broad statement with little substance me thinks.
Conflating the issues ? Why, because we are adding to the discussion and asking more questions? You wrote this post, so expect some feedback.
You are making some huge assumptions here about our beliefs and lifestyles, inferring we live a contradictory life, ie we happily chow down on battery farmed chicken nuggetts and chemically sprayed mangoes shipped from far corners of the globe but we get teary over cute animals being killed. Not the argument we are presenting I’m afraid.
I notice that you are featuring fur blog articles written by some of your partners over at Coutorture, yet, I notice however that Jason from Tote has posted his opinions but is not featured on your site as a headliner. Is this because it doesn’t back up the Coutorture stance or because it’s not a popular enough blog to be featured on the front page ?
Let me take another crack at this, per my liberal free market education. From the New Yorker ( http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/articles/051205crbo_books1 ):
> A hedgehog is a person who sees international affairs to be ultimately determined by a single bottom-line force: balance-of-power considerations, or the clash of civilizations, or globalization and the spread of free markets. A hedgehog is the kind of person who holds a great-man theory of history, according to which the Cold War does not end if there is no Ronald Reagan. Or he or she might adhere to the “actor-dispensability thesis,� according to which Soviet Communism was doomed no matter what. Whatever it is, the big idea, and that idea alone, dictates the probable outcome of events. For the hedgehog, therefore, predictions that fail are only “off on timing,� or are “almost right,� derailed by an unforeseeable accident. There are always little swerves in the short run, but the long run irons them out.
> Foxes, on the other hand, don’t see a single determining explanation in history. They tend, Tetlock says, “to see the world as a shifting mixture of self-fulfilling and self-negating prophecies: self-fulfilling ones in which success breeds success, and failure, failure but only up to a point, and then self-negating prophecies kick in as people recognize that things have gone too far.�
Most of you responding in the comments seem to be, what I would call, “emotional hedgehogs”; that is, you see the diminishing of violence/torture as the single drive of womanhood. That’s fine. Keep at it. Good job.
Julie is more of a fox, in that she sees the work she does by making the fashion industry more transparent as an ultimately greater good than any related incidences of animal cruelty. If she were so unanimously judgemental, she wouldn’t be able to do the work she does.
Signed,
Bubba
Great posting. I think a lot of the emotion that people invest in animals is also a function of our affluent life style (which as you rightly point out distances most people from the source of the food on our table, from mangos to meat). Somewhere recently I read that when emotions become irrational, real dangers are taken less seriously. It’s not “moral” to worry about animals; it is a function of having nothing more serious to worry about. I suspect that many people so invested in animals have not thoroughly thought through, e.g., the danger of terrorism to our way of life. You don’t see folks in the Middle East worrying about slaughtering animals for food. I suppose, however, when the day comes that they do it will be a peaceful world.
In this connection, has anyone noticed the odd phenomenom of people (even straight guys) carrying their little pooches around on their arms like babies? I trace this back to Reese Witherspoon in “Legally Blond” and Paris Hilton, but it’s a pathetic commentary on prosperous modern life.
Minks – treatment and disposal – transparency and education
I’ve been writing about how there should be more transparency in the fur industry and was seeking some more information about where the carcasses go, and treatment of the animals whilst they are living. I decided to do some research of my own. I found the …
Lol,
>Is this because it doesn’t back up the Coutorture stance or because it’s not a >popular enough blog to be featured on the front page ?
I did most of the editing yesterday. We didn’t feature Jason’t piece because there was so much other great commentary that day and since Fur Fashion Week has its own front-page link I wanted to highlight some other stories. No agenda, just too much good blogging to fit in
Er, I posted that last comment, forgetting that I needed to log Julie out after borrowing her laptop.
Hm. What a subject. I personally quite enjoy eating meat and love leather. Fur is far too expensive for me, and I’m not really a demonstrative status type so it’s not my thing but I am not against it as a material.
If the issue is not the textile itself but the way it is produced, I find the human rights violations of the fashion industry to be much more anger-inducing than the issue of “animal rights”.
The consensus seems to be that bad, unethical industrial practices… are, well, bad. Guess what? Every industry has a full share of opportunistic, lying, cheating human beings who don’t care for anything’s well-being save the profits. Not news.
As for killing animals for our own use? This is a personal choice. Given the bloodthirsty nature of our history as human beings I find my own penchant for leather and cheeseburgers awfully mundane. Though I’ve bonded with my own cats, there’s no way that they enjoy a similar status to me as far as “rights” go. And besides, they’re little carnivores too, it’s not like they respect the right of the birdies to live. This is a human society (until it falls apart) and as a human I am more concerned with violations of rights against my own species as opposed to those of animals. My consumption choices reflect this.
Beyond that filter, I find the effort to be completely ethical to be almost impossible to maintain. Rather than be a hypocrite and pretend that I make every choice through a filter of ethicality, I must admit that I often choose to remain unaware of the wider implications of my lifestyle. I believe complete ethicality is a fundamentalist myth. I try to be good to the human beings and animals in my life, but I can’t pretend that my own existence doesn’t cause suffering for others indirectly when it obviously does.
As for this fur thing, I refuse to value it as “good” or “bad”. It’s so complicated I can’t compute those assessments beyond a case-by-case basis.
The post is an activist’s nightmare. As many others, I understand and agree with some of the points that you made but it is the overall tone of the piece that disturbs me the most. Personally, I view the issue of fur in the same way that I view meat, or animal byproduct – We’re not doing it right, so I’m not going to do it at all. This is in reference the last reply and to the fact that a large portion of any industry involving animals does not practice ethical treatment of these animals. There is a great difference between hunting an animal and using it for survival and essentially growing an animal in horrible conditions solely for our own desires. A carnivore hunting and killing in the wild is not even comparable to human consumption of meat.
Yes, fur in fashion tends to ignite a passionate response by tugging at the obvious moral threads of anyone, but instead of dismissing it as just superficial concern that never goes deeper, we should be viewing it as a stepping stone in the right direction. Eliminating the obvious, in-your-face brutality that is fashion fur, especially with the amount of other fabrics that are just as warm (I live in Canada, I know my cold), will allow us to begin to address the problem deeper.
The point it, it’s not about doing everything, it’s about doing SOMETHING. Sitting back, complaining about the problems and looking deeper into social tendencies doesn’t change anything. But taking steps to adapt your lifestyle into eco-friendly practices will actually have an impact. You rag on vegetarians – at least they are trying to move in the right direction.
“And I have peace of mind knowing that I believe in respect for the land, respect for the animals that have given their lives so that I might live, and a deep and spiritual connection to the intertwined ecology of my life.”
Translation: I’ve fooled myself into believing, due to my moral ineptitude, that my body requires the slaughter of animals in order to function, and therefore, I accept no responsibility for the inhumane treatment of them and will profit without guilt from their deaths and justify it with a false connection to a higher power.
Geeeeeze, another educated fool.
I’d meant to post this sooner but frankly, I found the topic revolting and had to steel myself to return to it. I’d meant to post that Julie’s gravest presumptive error regarding vegetarians was that *all* of us are vegetarians due to humanitarian concerns. Allow me to assure you that at least in my case, that is false. Not that humanitarian arguments haven’t increasingly affected me once I’d been a vegetarian for several years. No, I became a vegetarian due to SUSTAINABLE and ecological responsible reasons. Unlike some people, my commitment to sustainability is not a recent thing; adopted due to fashionable popularity. Rather, I’ve been into sustainability since before Julie learned to tie her own shoes. Therefore, my menu choices encompass the gamut of factors (e.g. locally grown produce) contributing to sustainability.
And regarding Phil’s “lovely contribution” (his captcha doesn’t display on my screen so I can’t post there) yeah, no duh. I KNOW fashion hasn’t been the best corporate citizen which may just explain the focus of my blog! My commitments to sustainability aren’t short sighted and limited to just my diet. No, my commitments extend to my professional life and personal life. No, I don’t wrap myself up in a flag of eco-conciousness and parade it about at every opportunity so everybody will see how cool I am, I live it. Still, even after 25 years of commitment, I don’t rest easy. I’m always improving. To whit, now I commute by bike to work, to the post office, drugstore, grocery, you name it. Maybe giving up cars is a given in a large urban center like NY with extensive transportation infrastructure but it’s not here in the sprawling southwest. It’s no picnic navigating traffic in over 100 degree weather and sweating through a bike helmet.
You really did kill art buddy!
Kathleen-you are probably the one person who has commented here that I take very seriously when it comes to your commitments and consciousness. If !we are going to play more sustainably than though I doubt anyone can beat you
My major reason for posting this was to say that the bulk of people react to fur out of emotion and confusion. If it is sustainably and ethically sourced then I feel it is just as viable a way to clothe ourselves in moderation as any other fabric. The fact that it so clearly has ties to the earth and to the vibrancy of life and death makes it a material that I believe can help us recapture some of our lost connection to this planet and the creatures that share it with us.
Kathleen, no one is trying to play “more sustainable than thou” – broadcasting our tastes, consumption, and values is simply what bloggers and in the case of sustainability, we do it in the hope of persuading others to follow in our footsteps. Look at Jill from fiftyrx3 – in posting her taste and experience she’s become a useful resource and social hub for her community and those trying to access it.
No pretension, just transparency and curiosity.