Fashion and Fur | How to foster an intelligent debate


LONDON, United Kingdom
– For many of fashion’s iconic characters, from Vogue‘s Anna Wintour to the prolific designer Karl Lagerfeld, who designs for Chanel, Fendi and his eponymous label, fashion and fur go hand in hand. Just last week, Lagerfeld vigorously defended the use of fur to the BBC saying that “in a meat-eating world, wearing leather for shoes and clothes and even handbags, the discussion of fur is childish.”

Of course, there are plenty of people who would disagree with this point of view – the folks at PETA, for one.  A PETA spokesperson told London’s Daily Telegraph that Lagerfeld is “a fashion dinosaur who is as out of step as his furs are out of style. The vast majority of fur these days comes not from hunters as he suggests, but from Chinese fur farms, where no law protects the millions of animals who are routinely beaten and skinned alive.”

So, who’s right?

The answer, of course is not straightforward. Perfectly intelligent people may disagree after having heard all the arguments because, on an issue like this, an individual’s point of view will ultimately depend on how they believe animals should or should not be treated, and how their skins and fur should or should not be used in clothing.

This is why I have found the approach of the aggressive protesters outside the Bryant Park tents, waving bloody photos and screaming at editors and buyers going to see the New York shows, to be pretty pointless. They may actually be doing a disservice to their cause by making it easier for people to dismiss their antics as those of the lunatic fringe.

On the other hand, I found this video by PETA, narrated by Tim Gunn of Project Runway fame, pretty arresting and thought-provoking. It made me think twice about how important it is to know where our clothes come from. It’s easier to ignore these issues when our fashions are made in faraway places without our awareness. But, when some of the visuals are thrust in your face and the logical arguments are presented, it’s a lot harder to turn a blind eye.

There are clearly different approaches for raising awareness of issues like the use of fur and leather in fashion, but the most effective methods are those that provoke intelligent discussion and debate.

This seems to be working. Yesterday, I received an email from Alexia Weeks, the Online Marketing Coordinator for PETA Europe, saying that as a result of this video and a personal appeal from Tim Gunn, Donna Karan has decided to drop fur from her collections, beginning with Autumn/Winter 2009.

Warning: Some of the images in the video are graphic and may turn some readers off, but then again, I guess that is the point.

Related Articles

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

11 comments

  1. I was initially going to rehash AA Gill’s arguments (link below) and present it as my own…but that would be doing a disservice to his eloquence….

    “We wore other species’ skins when they had no further use for them, and we’ve been doing it for a long time. How fur went from being practical and chic, stylish and sensible for 100,000 years, and then all of a sudden became the cagoule of shame in the past decade, is one of the oddest about-faces in all civilisation”

    http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/fashion/article5286453.ece

    Neal from Central District, Hong Kong (general), Hong Kong
  2. I think the fur debate is really a matter of perspective.

    In the natural world, nothing goes to waste. Fur, meat, and bones of an animal are consumed back into nature. Whether by bacteria or by other animals. Humans simply speed up the process by killing animals “prematurely” for their own personal use. Though technically we’re not doing it out of imminent survival today, in way, it has paved way for many businesses for hundreds of years.

    I suppose it would be worst if the animal was an endangered species, but hey, dinosaurs lived for millions of years and they’ve been wiped out without humans laying a single finger to their demise. I just think that no matter how weird and twisted this may sound: the use of animals by humans is simply a natural thing to do. Humans are part of nature as well, let’s not forget that.

    Dahlia from Montreal, QC, Canada
  3. This video is disturbing to look at, like I am sure a million other videos from China, India and from all over the world, of children being abused, starved to death and being prostituted illegally by the hundreds, every day of the week. It is a fact that there is so much violence in the world that goes unnoticed.
    It is pure ignorance on PETA’s behalf, dishonest and a shame that they do not concentrate their efforts and their money in FIRST saving all these poor children around the world that are so mistreated by other humans, but decide instead to concentrate their narrow minded campaigns on their selfish egos and animals.
    Mr. GUNN and PETA people GET YOUR PRIORITIES RIGHT!!! PLEASE!
    How about saving all the children dying in Gaza for starters???

    nick from White Plains, NY, United States
  4. “This is why I have found the approach of the aggressive protesters outside the Bryant Park tents, waving bloody photos and screaming at editors and buyers going to see the New York shows, to be pretty pointless.”

    At the risk of stating the obvious, it was because of protests such as the ones that are being dismissed that change has historically occurred throughout society.

    Without protest France would have never endured the French Revolution, nor would America have embraced the Civil Rights Movement.

    Granted, protest in this most basic form is not the only causative agent in societal change, but it is a vehicle effectively used to build strength in numbers, and it’s purpose is not one to be dismissed.

    The acts of one protester waving bloody images maybe nothing short of a nuisance to someone walking into a show, however, when that image is syndicated throughout the global media, the acts of one will continue to impact the decisions of many.

    Tareq from London, London, United Kingdom
  5. In the interest of full disclosure, I am conflicted myself on the use of animals for human clothing and food. I am a vegetarian, but I wear leather and occasionally eat fish (so I am considered pesco-vegetarian). To add to the confusion, I am a shoe designer for a high-end company and I regularly work with exotic skins such as python, crocodile, and the like (though exotics are being phased out of my company starting this season). I am married to a vegetarian who does NOT wear leather or eat fish. We have spirited debates on the subject, but I am moving in the direction of veganism in my eating habits. I do not nor will I ever wear fur, because I believe (or like to believe) that at least with leather, the whole animal is being used for meat, etc. When I hear that it takes 30-40 animal lives to make one fur coat, it makes me extremely sad especially given the fact that those lives were short, miserable, and most likely ended in fear and pain.

    The use of animals for food and clothing has been the norm for tens of thousands of years. Nothing is going to change that.

    What CAN be changed, however, is the way these animals are treated while they’re alive. Skinning an animal while it’s still conscious is a cruel end to their short, unhappy life and is disrespectful to the animal that’s giving its life for a human’s (frankly unnecessary) use. By changing their sourcing, the companies mentioned in this video are sending the message to countries like China and India that these barbaric practices are not acceptable.

    I applaud PETA and Tim Gunn for exposing the way fur-bearing animals are treated and hope that this video continues to inform consumers who may be able to make another choice about what to buy or what to wear.

    amanda from Brooklyn, NY, United States
  6. Wow, that video was intense! My stomach is churning now….
    For fur, though it is an ethical issue, it is also very much a personal one. On the ethical side, pro-fur usually doesn’t win. On the personal side it can be about warmth, tradition, style or luxury. I think the in your face tactics that PETA has been known for in the fashion industry is not the way to encourage change. Yes, it makes for lots of publicity and bad press for the designers, but it just isn’t classy. I do not eat any meat, with the exception of fish, and do not wear fur. I try my hardest to not buy or wear leather, usually justifying my buy if it’s vintage. I have never tried to convince someone to change their eating habits or make someone feel bad about eating meat in front of me. PETA could take some of these cues and tone it down, so people can take them seriously.

  7. Tim Gunn’s rational delivery is the first time I’ve felt any empathy for PeTA in a long time. I mean PeTA, not the animals, who I feel terrible for after watching that. Thanks Imran, very interesting and timely after Karl’s interview.

    I’m preparing to visit my Mother-in-law with her fabulous fur closet, which includes a dazzling floor length Chinchilla, and my sister and neice who live only a few miles from her and keep an adorable Chinchilla as a house pet. Their Chinchilla lives between two spacious condo-like cages installed on each floor of her house. Both of them pamper their Chinchillas, but we never talk of them together.

    Randall from United States
  8. while I agree with Dahlia’s sentiments…i certainly don’t condone the mode in which the animals are consumed or how it transpires. Perhaps if it was you yourself slitting the throats of rabbits, skinning animals alive & having to endure the screams for survival of these helpless fellow creatures, you may perhaps alter your mindset? However, we operate in a world of global consumption, to know where everything we eat, wear or acquire comes from & its treatment is realistically impossible. As for the vegetarians on this board who consume meat substitutes, i’m sure you’ll be happy to discover that the majority of these products are produced in the same factories as meat products, or packaged & distributed by meat producing firms owned by the same organisation. Also consider the people who work in these factories & the kind of things they get up to…

    jamie from Launceston, Cornwall, United Kingdom
  9. I think Neal’s link is also an interesting read.

    We’re pretty much left with two choices:

    1) Opt to wear fur and other animal by-products with full knowledge that they’ve been stripped from animals (dead or alive).

    2) Opt to wear chemically processed fabrics, many of which are environmentally damaging. There aren’t any formal universal certification for organic fabrics, and how many who claim that they are organic are really not?

    Jamie, although I personally wouldn’t be able to kill and skin animals on my own, you may have to thank developed countries to have sheltered us from doing so. But I won’t have any remorseful guilt for animals who die a cruel death by the hands of humans, mainly because it happens in nature all the time. True, we have the power to give animals a swift and dignified death, but to do so for the billions of creatures on this earth, as you say, is nigh impossible to keep track of. How can we really know what happened to those animals prior to consumption? The discrepancy between cultures also plays a role in the treatment of animals, so sometimes it’s not really a question of morality.

    Dahlia from Montreal, QC, Canada
  10. Ahh the ever continuous argument of PETA and the fashion industry. As a student and now graduate from a fashion school, I wholly approve the USE of fur for designers. Now that DOES NOT mean I condone the actions of these farms nor their treatment of the animals and one must realize, that the video represents a portion of the industry… you will always have a few bad apples in the barrel. PETA complains about the exploit of animals for the fashion industry, but we must realize, that if it WERE NOT for the fur industry, then most of these animals would be either endangered or extinct as of today. Why? because we as humans categorize animals into 2 groups, those beneficial to us and those that are detrimental to us. Mink, fox and along with rabbit(beavers included), are considered vermin/damaging pests by people in various industries and are to be wiped out. They would go the way of the black footed ferret and prairie dog being on the endangered list with their days numbered because they’re “pests”.
    As for the what happens after, I do know minks go to the science labs for students to use in dissection/biology class, after all waste not right?
    Last note… if PETA is SUCH the leader for a vegan world and rights for animals…why even bother with “leather and fur” alternatives…? think about it.

    ed from San Jose, CA, United States
  11. As a womenswear designer, and as a person with an acute conscience, I find this topic one of the most difficult to debate. It comes up every year- without FAIL. Just like your birthday- whether you like it or not!
    On one hand: the cruelty, the protests, the guilt, the ignorance.
    And on the other: the luxury, the basic instincts, warmth, pleasure and function.
    But this year i have come to a conclusion:
    I wear fur. I refuse to let anyone make me feel guilty for doing so. I wear it because it looks good and keeps me warm. I wish I could buy responsibly, lord knows I try wherever possible – but you never really know where fur comes from, the same way you don’t really ever know where your chicken, lamb or beef has come from unless you breed, rear, and slaughter it yourself.
    I am not going to become a farmer or a furrier. The same way I am not going to become a politician just because I am devastated at the hideous state of affairs in Gaza and Israel. I just want to wear lovely things,enjoy the occasional veal chop and stay warm.
    End of.