fur, martha stewart & vintage

V

vgriffin

Registered Guest
i know vintage is for most (me too) a pretty happy place, overall. but there are aspects to vinage that are a little darker, a little more controversial.

i put together a short article, inspired by a video narration that martha stewart did against the use of fur.

i ask that you please watch it, or at least listen to her narration.

http://tinyurl.com/2ejzjx


thank you very much.

cheers -- t
 
For some reason I could not watch the video - it wouldn't open up, but I did read your piece. Thanks for putting the info together and sharing.

I'm left asking myself whether Martha has sworn off all leather products too and become a vegetarian. If so, then I admire her conviction even though I am an
omnivore. If not, then I have many questions.

It's a hot topic and open to much debate.
 
HI Tamara;

I didn't watch the video because I am sure it will show all sorts of horrible images of baby seals being clubbed etc. However, any abattoir where they slaughter pigs or cows is just as gruesome.

I am not in favour of the ban on fur but I do think there should be limitations. Naturally anything endangered is irresponsible to trap in the wild and wear, I think even vintage endangered species is difficult to justify outside of a museum setting.

However, fur trapping is an important part of the Native economy and by banning all forms of trapping in the wild of non-endangered species will ruin Northern Native communities. Caribou, harbour seal, wolverine, muskrat, and coyote are plentiful in the north and can also be problems if not trapped in order to keep the ecobalance in check. Raccoons are so plentiful their populations are much larger than they ever were.

I think the issue of farmed animals especially, like fox, chinchilla, rabbit, and mink are difficult to condemn since they are raised for their pelts like farm animals (farmed minks live a life that is much cosier than in the wild and on average longer).

I know its a hot topic and although I wouldn't wear fur myself I can't condemn those who do but do it responsibly.

If its just animal cruelty that is the issue then you also have to look at farm animals and the products we use from them (feather pillows, some glues, most soaps, jello, leather, some explosives, most soup bases, renet used for most cheeses, and of course meat) as being a problem as well.

To be perfectly honest, I remember seeing pictures of Martha Stewart wearing a full length fur coat not five years ago, and the debate over fur has been raging since the 1970s -- she is a little late coming to the table... It is too bad that PETA has an all or nothing approach because their polarized viewpoint makes many, like myself, who are sympathetic to the cause turn away from them as I see them as single-minded irrational zealots (similar to how I see the anti-smoking movement which has gone beyond reason). I think its all about balance and responsibility.

I know this will probably piss off a few people, so my apologies in advance but that is how I see it.
 
hi jonathan and deborah :)

thanks for responding. i know this can be a volatile topic, and i appreciate you or anyone else putting his/her thoughts out there in the open.

just quickly, i don't think we should discount the message because of the messenger (whether it's peta or martha). i just came across the martha clip and i thought it was especially well-done and well-spoken, which is why i recommended it.

i do know (and have seen footage of pig and horse slaughter, the animals are terrified and it's bloody and gruesome and not terribly humane -- for the humans or the animals, who often are alive when the stun gun takes another shot, and are alive when they're strung up) that slaughter of "farm animals" is just as brutal. but one arguement for the consumption (if not the method) of animals is that people need meat. that arguement (which is not entirely accurate, but i'm not introducing the topic of vegetarianism here) does not hold with fur. we don't need fur to keep warm. it's unnecessary and worn most often for reasons of vanity or "fashion."

regarding mink/fox "farms," i'm afraid that the statement that the animals lead a cozier life isn't accurate. it's unnatural for mink and foxes to be kept in little boxes (they roam over many square miles of range in the wild) and at such high population densities (they are generally solitary animals in the wild, 'tho do team up for "family" enterprises). and the way they are killed is awful. just brutal, cruel, and the pain is immense. the old saw "that's what they're raised for" is a human invention. it does not justify the treatment.

also, regarding native american/indigenous people economies, this also doesn't justify the extreme pain and barbarity. humans have many more choices, even in remote locations, than animals do. we've adapted to many roles and invented a million more. an animal has little choice more than to "be the animal."

i think one of the "tests" (that people often don't wish to take) is to watch footage of these practices (i'm not speaking of you particularly, jonathan, just in general). out of sight is out of mind, and it's easier to dismiss objections -- even one's own -- without the sights and sounds of the blood, the mangling, the slow dying. human brains are exceptionally visual, which is why seeing this footage really spells things out for many who view it.

again, thank you both for sharing. i realize that my statements as well might ruffle feathers. it's a risk worth taking, because some things are worth discussing, and if we never talk, we can never advance.

thank you again.

cheers -- t
 
Tamara--

I didn't watch the Martha Stewart video (I'm hard of hearing and generally rely on captions or mega-amplification to make sense of things, and my laptop has neither!), but did check out your thoughtful blog entry.

Even without having seen it though, I tend to think that in any choice of who the fashion consumer should listen to--Martha Stewart saying "don't wear fur; it's cruel" vs John Galliano ads saying "this sumptuous fur will make you a fashion goddess"--parody-ripe Martha will invariably lose out! (Ditto for PETA, which has become much more civil in its activism but is still tainted by its former guerrilla tactics).

I also see where you're coming from in your objection to the glamorization of fur by vintage sellers, but think trying to break the association of luxe with fur is an uphill battle--for every woman willing to learn about the suffering of the creatures now adorning them, there are 5 more who will get VERY offended if you imply their morals are suspect because Galliano furs happen to make them drool...

Instead of seeing vintage furs as a kind of gateway drug (ie if you see a leopard trimmed 40s garment as wonderfully chic, you're one step away from saving up your bread money for a new mink), I wonder if a more effective, realistic approach is to stress vintage furs as a wonderful alternative to new furs...

That's what I like about vintage in general--that it's an alternative to the insane pace of commodities consumption at present, which is really bad for the earth, exploited third world workers, and our own mental health. Vintage provides us with the ability to indulge our acquisitiveness and desire for creative expression through dress with things that are both recycled and an encapsulization of our cultural history, and I think that's true for fur as well as other vintage items.

My perspective on the issue is definitely shaped by the fact that my father-in-law was a furrier for half a century (and he's been my father-in-law for almost 30 years now!), who tried REALLY hard to get my husband to go into the family business (instead of becoming a professor). I was, simultaneously, an animal rights movement sympathizer and an incredibly decent, hardworking furrier's daughter-in-law Sort of made me very aware of all the grey areas...
 
carrie, hey there :)

thank you for taking the time to read the blog post on my site. i appreciate it, as this topic is very worth of discussion, and we more often choose not to discuss it for fear of offending other vintage sellers (or, heaven forbid) vintage buyers.

re the nature of the uphill battle...i think things must have looked so much more "uphill" than they do now. now fur isn't exactly fashionable, 'tho the fur industry, abetted by galliano, et al, ever-try to reverse the trend. and i actually think the reverse -- most people have never heard of galliano, or don't know who he is really, even if they recognize the name. martha definitely has much better name recognition, and i think that when someone well-known takes a stand on something, people do take it under greater consideration, whatever their next thought might be.

fur sales have been on a general decline this past century, albeit with minor upticks here and there. the overall trend is generally "fur is not glamorous/fur is cruel." i think there's a very slim portion of the populace that does not at least sympathize with the "no fur" idea. after all, our beloved doggie pals are of the same family as foxes, for example. if you can imagine how your dog might feel on a fur "farm," you can imagine how the fox feels. sadly, places like china use dog fur for trims on coats and hoods (right now), and i suppose their take on it might be, "but that's what the dogs are raised for."

i do think that wearing vintage fur as everyday wear is better than wearing new fur. absolutely. but does the wearing of vintage fur as a commonplace item send the message that fur is somehow attractive as a fashion choice? it does, i don't think there's any getting around that. i do think it's better if it's patently obvious that the fur is vintage. at least that's one step away from linking it to what's new and hip. but it's also a gray area, because vintage has moved from being the domain of a very small, almost anti-fashion subset, to being fashionable in and of itself.

which leads me to the idea of faux fur. some folks assert that faux fur (if it's good enough to fool the eye or hand) also promotes the idea as fur being fashionable. i absolutely see the validity of that point, for if folks don't know your faux lynx coat is faux, the assumption is that it's real, and is real fur is fashionable, etc.

my view on faux is that there is certainly this danger (of faux being mistaken for real). but i think there is plenty of room for one to see a fur, assume (or correctly intuit) that it is faux, and the fauxness now becomes the fashion. nowadays most of the full-fur coats i see are faux. when i do see one that's real, it sticks out, and not in a good way (to my eyes).

i have many coats with faux fur linings and trims. i try where i can to let folks know they are faux, so there's no confusion (i don't think there is, but you never know).

lastly, i'm not here to campaign against vintage fur, per se. i just came across the video, which was compelling and thoughtful, so compelling and thoughtful that i wanted to share it. and it seemed like as good a time as any to discuss vintage fur/fur, and no doubt it won't be the last discussion.

thanks and cheers :) t
 
susan, thanks for the article. :)

i noted that at every point at which it would have made sense to state how the beaver died (drowning), the author of the article chose not to do so.

another element that the article neglects to name is that of accidental snaring. snares and traps are indescriminate, and often trap endangered species, dogs, cats (and, occaisionally, humans).

i think another problem in linking fur to fashion is that fashion and human nature consistently reach for what is rare and unique. sadly, what is rare and unique in animals is often endangered, or increasingly uncommon, which fuels the desire amongst some folks.

anyway, good discussion. thanks :)

t
 
Originally posted by vintagegriffin5
which leads me to the idea of faux fur. some folks assert that faux fur (if it's good enough to fool the eye or hand) also promotes the idea as fur being fashionable. i absolutely see the validity of that point, for if folks don't know your faux lynx coat is faux, the assumption is that it's real, and is real fur is fashionable, etc.

my view on faux is that there is certainly this danger (of faux being mistaken for real). but i think there is plenty of room for one to see a fur, assume (or correctly intuit) that it is faux, and the fauxness now becomes the fashion. nowadays most of the full-fur coats i see are faux. when i do see one that's real, it sticks out, and not in a good way (to my eyes).
Click to expand...

This made me think of all the "vegan" goods out there that are ment to look like leather, but are vinyl. If a coat, bag, or shoes are "leather embossed" vinyl, or just vinyl ment to look leather-like, doesn't this still encourage the use of animal skins (leather) to make these items? This means the folks who are against using any animal products should be wearing cloth only items and nothing that even looks like faux-leather. It's the same argument.

On an animal rights note, I ran into the fois gras protesters today in front of the market I go to! Lots of pictures of geese being force-fed and all that. As I don't eat any organs that are filtering devices, I signed their petition.

Most of the markets here have big front window displays loaded with tins of caviar, fois gras, etc. My favorite is the "aged dry steak" window display where you can watch in ultra-ultra-ultra-slow motion the entire aging (i.e. decomposing) process of very expensive steaks. When they are all rotten and black - THEY'RE DONE!! :drool:

Janine
 
janine, hey there :)

yes, i agree, the faux leather products made to emulate leather (as opposed to just being brown or black shoes, for example) are under the same umbrella as the faux fur arguement, and the companion issues i mentioned.

that steak-in-the-window experience does +not+ sound appealing (to me, anyway). maybe that restaurant is run by vegetarians. ;)

cheers :) t
 
sue, from what i've read, the clubbers will go after the adult seals, who try to protect their child-seals. also, apart from being inhumane to the seals, this is another example of an inhumane experience for humans. wholesale violence like that often breeds indescriminate responses, and violence is escalated. slaughterhouse workers have increased rates of alcoholism, depression, and domestic violence. but i'm getting a little off-topic.

i remember seeing a commercial in the '70s/early '80s on tv (it might have been a greenpeace commercial) that showed clips of the seal hunt. it was brutal, but effective, and one of the big reasons, i think, that the public at large said "no" to seal fur and seal hunting. it really is a different thing to watch it. thanks for being willing to do so.

cheers :) t
 
Oh, it's not a restaurant, it's a market. Two different markets next to each other sell aged steaks. One shows you the slabs of rotting meat - and they ARE rotting - in their front window display (one of the front windows) the other THANKFULLY has their "beef aging device" near the back of the market in the meat department.

Many other markets around here sell the same thing, it's just always creeps me out when it's in the front window.

Janine
 
Oh yes, speaking of beef and vegan issues. What about all the soy and seitan (etc.) products on the market that mimic animal products? Although lots of food industry brain-power goes into creating Not-Dogs and Gimmie Lean - don't they just continue to make people think of eating animal produts?

Going back to the fur issue, don't come around these here parts! This time of year the streets are TEEMING with full-length furs - and every other length fur. Although, I've been surprised how many people think my faux cheetah coat is REAL! :wacko:

Janine
 
ugh -- apparently some faux fur is mislabelled...

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2862608&page=1

<blockquote>
Feb. 9, 2007 — From the runway to the racks of mass retailers, fake fur is all the rage.

But a recent investigation by the Humane Society found that what's labeled and advertised as faux fur isn't always fake. In testing a sampling of coats, they found that 24 out of 25 samples were mislabeled — most contained the fur of a raccoon dog, a dog that looks like a raccoon.

Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, found the news that fur advertised as fake can actually come from dogs outrageous.

"The images that we have seen in China are truly chilling — animals literally skinned alive for a product where we have an alternative this day in age," he said.

The Humane Society collected the coats they tested from a variety of major retailers, including Lord and Taylor, Saks Fifth Avenue, Macy's, Burlington Coat Factory and JC Penny. They discovered that celebrity clothing lines were also at fault — real fur was found in clothing from Jay-Z's RocaWear line, P Diddy's Sean John label and Beyonce Knowles' House of Deron brand.

"I think what we have found is that the industry at the design level and retail level just isn't paying attention, they are asleep at the wheel," Pacelle said.
</blockquote>

i don't know what was going on here, but when there are billions of dollars on the line, it's easy to look the other way.

cheers -- t
 
i think that's a fair point as well to make about the vegan and vegetarian products that look like meat. i do think there are some differences, 'tho.

first, i think people eat them for a variety of reasons. one -- texture and taste. i don't know of many vegans or vegetarians that object to folks eating animals on the basis of taste. so if non-animal products can offer interesting textures and tastes, many are all for it, especially if it allows meat-eaters to move away from meat (which many are doing for health or diet or allergy reasons).

but it is true that there are definitely those in the vegan and vegetarian populace that object to the "mimicing" on philosophical grounds.

but all that's a bit far afield from the vintage fur / fur issue, so i don't want to conflate the two, even if some similar threads pop up.

oh and :) i'm very familiar with nyc in the winter. i've worked there for many years. it's true one sees more fur coats there (by far) than other places, probably because the fashion industry has a hold there, and it's full of wealthy women and socialites who haven't been exposed to this issue the way more mainstream folks have (imo; a lot of very wealthy people are isolated from issues that directly affect those who make a lot less money; they live in a special world).

cheers :) t
 
also, i was just thinking ---

re foods that mimic meat...i'm not so sure i'd regard a patty-shape ("hamburger shape") or tube-shape ("hotdog shape") intrinsically meat-centric. many foods have for millenia been shaped like patties, for example, because that's a pretty convenient way to prepare, cook, and consume them. a tube-shape is probably more a meat-shape, i think, but a patty shape seems pretty universal.

again, sorry...this is a bit off-topic from the fur issue.

cheers :) t
 
I was just ribbing you. :wub:

No pun intended. :saint:

Tube-shaped non-meat food items:

corn on the cob

cucumbers

carrots

some radishes

yams and other tubers

BANANAS

Japanese eggplant

various peppers

etc, etc.....


Yes, a patty is a squished thing and it can be made of any combination of stuff. :USETHUMBUP:

Janine :hiya:
 
ah, ribbing. :)

but really, i think you brought up a good point, actually. and it's an issue that gets bandied about in veg and non-veg circles.

are there any tube-shaped food items that are non-meat that are made into that shape, specifically? i can only think of pastas, but that's not quite the same tube-shape as a hotdog. (eek. off-topic again)

cheers :) t
 
I do think that shape (tubular) is more naturally occuring in the plant kingdom. Any sausage item (and hot dogs are a sausage) is manipulated to be that way through processing by hand or machine.

Other than funny-shaped pasta (hurray!) and stuffed intestines, I think most other food items just kinda grow that way. As far as being natural, an intestine is naturally tube-shaped. So, in this case, the extruded pasta product is really the most un-natural.

hmmmmm..... what else is there.... puzzled:

Janine
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top