So, it seems PETA have gone ape shit on the Olsen twins dubbing them Hairy-Kate and Trashly Trollsen. All because they just launched a bag costing €17,000. Well it’s not the cost per se but the fact that it’s made from fur. Do you agree with PETA calling out designers, store owners etc? While the Olsens are not short of a few quid, many people make their living selling animal fur and such negative attention can be detrimental. It’s a sensitive issue and many people, including me, will remain on the fence… but Anna Wintour is an unashamed fan and refuses to apologise for her penchant for fur. Shouldn’t there be freedom to decide either way without fear of being targeted? Or are PETA just protecting those animals who can’t protect themselves?
I can see where PETA are coming from, but the whole “Trollson” thing comes across as really petty and immature. It’s a person’s own personal choice whether they want to wear fur or not. I personally would never wear fur, but I wouldn’t go around shunning everyone and anyone who does so!
I really like fur it is such a luxury item and would wear it no problem.
I think it’s a personal choice, if you eat meat or wear leather then then the only difference with fur is the visual aspect. Personally I don’t support new fur as there is a huge amount of breeding issues and extremely traumatic conditions for the animals. I would wear old or vintage fur though, as I don’t see it as supporting the industry. It’s a form of recycling, if the item would just be sitting in a granny’s attic otherwise. In the 40′s and 40′s a lot of fur was a result of population control of animals too.
*40′s and 50′s
I don’t wear fur but if anything PETA’s tactics make me sympathetic to fur-wearers. This is bullying! Any charity that abuses humans in the name of protecting animals has lost credibility imo. I could see PETA losing a few celebrity endorsements over this…
I am highly against fur, I think it is cruelty and a completely unnecessary luxury.
I agree people should fight against it, but not the way PETA is doing. Is not about a particular designer or brand, they have to go further on people’s education.
I am against wearing fur, and think people need to be educated about how fashion designers get their materials (Fur,leather). The bag is disgusting anyways and i dont know why anyone would want it, never mind paying 17,000 pound for it.
I like most stuff from their line the row, but that bag is freakin horrible, would never be seen dead with it, fake or real, isn’t the point of wearing fur that it keeps you warm as well as the asthetic value (sorry im not defending fur wearers), its just that its pointless on a bag. X
It’s not just the wearing of fur, ipso facto, that I’m opposed to – more so the inhumane & genuinely grotesque practices adopted by the fur industry. I can see how, to some, the latest PETA ad might come across as cartoonish & juvenile, but it still illustrates an overlooked fact – that fur products like the bag pictured are not simply luxury items/status symbols/on-trend must-haves. The reality is considerably more disturbing than that.
Fur is not a “personal choice” issue. The people making money from fur would like you to believe that this is simply a consumer choice issue. Sadly, choosing between a fur coat and a cruelty-free coat is not the same as choosing between red or pink nail-polish. Nor is it simply a difference of opinion, where the only factors surrounding the issue are you and your opinion vs. me and my opinion. When we consider the fact that there is a perspective conveniently left out of that equitation, and systematically invalidated (that of the animal whose very life and body are at stake, and whose will-to-live and desire to be physically and socially wild, is ignored), the “choice” becomes startlingly clear.
Fur is inherently cruel. There is no kind way to cage a wild animal for its entire life – depriving them of any natural physical or social behavior they evolved to fulfill. There is no kind way to trap and kill animals in the wild – yet an entire industry goes to great lengths to veil the unavoidable reality that fur pelts comes from living, feeling, wild animals who do their best to cry out, and escape their assault.
Fur is unnecessary. Unless one is homeless, a traditional indigenous person living in cold climates, or in a truly life-threatening situation – there really is no good excuse for wearing fur. Fur performs no better than most synthetics when it comes to retaining warmth. Arctic explorers, alpine climbers, and cold-climate sports and adventurer’s gear typically lacks one thing: Fur. Considering the leaps and bounds textile producers have made in sustainable textile production, including imitation furs, there is no reason to put animals through such incredible amounts of pain and suffering.
Fur has lost it’s original meaning. Fur no longer communicates protection from the elements, security, luxury, wealth, taste, class or any sort of legitimate rebelliousness. Quite the opposite, fur now is a very strong visual form of communication that says it’s wearer is either ignorant or indifferent to cruelty. Conditions on fur farms explain why fur was recently banned from Oslo Fashion Week runways, and why so many countries are outlawing and phasing out fur farming like Denmark, Scotland, Ireland, The UK, most of Austria, and The Netherlands.
Fur is a lie. The fur industry is a money-making enterprise. It is perpetuated by manipulative, multimillion dollar marketing campaigns that target magazine editors, stylists, fashion students, designers, and fashion consumers. The New York Times recently reported on this. Yet the industry continues to peddle the myth that fur represents luxury, wealth, taste, and class – and they have gone so far as to call fur “eco-friendly“, and even exploit indigenous people’s traditions to accommodate their arrogant, greedy and frivolous use of animals.
The truth is out there. So many investigations, documentaries and exposés from Asia, to Europe, to North America contradict the outright lies being told on the pages of fashions magazines across the globe and under the pop-culture limelight. Here are some resources to see for yourself exactly how fur is made. Keep in mind, that while animal advocates stand to gain nothing but peace-of-mind, the fur industry stands to lose billions of consumer dollars:
Visit the International Anti-fur Coalition for a list of 70 international anti-fur organizations, or visit the list of the Fur Free Alliance for 35 more international anti-fur organizations.
No One Is Perfect. Most people who purchase fur garments do not know how they are made – and that’s not surprising, considering the monumental effort to keep the process hidden. Let’s say you have some fur, so now what? If you currently own a fur garment, or inherited one from family, why not donate it to coats for cubs or the homeless and turn a product that represents indifference to suffering into a life-saving object?
I personally believe that we as a country are founded on the right to freedom of speech and expression and that if we chose to wear fur, that is our business. As a country, we also have never caved to terrorist threats but it seems peta is allowed to get away with it. Why? I do not in any way shape or form condone savage and inhumane treatment of animals however, I also do NOT support any organization that resorts to childish tantrums and threats. In much the same way there are regulations on the humane extraction of meat and leather, the same is true for fur. Some people adhere to the rules, and others don’t. Those that don’t should be put out of business immediately and those that do should continue to be able to sell their product just like everyone else.