06/08/2013

VOGUE on fur











































Daria "so gorgeous it hurts" Werbowy photographed by Patrick Demarchelier on VOGUE's September 2013 cover


I'm not a  huge VOGUE reader - it's too much "look at all the tennisball-sized diamonds on this 'society' girl whose name means nothing to you!" for my taste, but when I do read VOGUE, it's pretty much always VOGUE UK. The US version is even more show-offy, full of ads and "socialités" (which is just a fancy word for "unemployed") wearing Ralph Lauren, while the Italian one just doesn't do anything for me. I'm not drawn in by it at all, whereas Alexandra Shulman's beautiful, polished yet interesting magazine sometimes makes for luxurious reading, or just flipping through the glossy pages with their stunning photos.

This month's September issue is jam-packed - my arm actually hurt a bit carrying it home yesterday. I love the beyond-beautiful Daria Werbowy on the cover (David has an enormous crush on her - and can you blame him?) and very much enjoyed her editorial and interview - did you know she lives in Cork and is married to a carpenter? Awesome. But one of the main reasons why I was curious about this issue is that this time VOGUE turned their attentions to a quite sticky subject and one that's particularly important to me - FUR!  VOGUE journalist Emily Sheffield actually travelled to Denmark to see a mink farm and investigate the fur trade. Even if I have mixed feelings about the article itself, I'm glad that VOGUE took the step to actually speak out about this very important issue. And it had to be VOGUE UK - I seriously doubt this article would pop up in pelt-pusher Wintour or more-is-more luxury queen Sozzani's respective publications.




There are lots of issues with the piece - first of all, why did VOGUE only visit a Danish fur farm, when most fur we see in designer collections today comes from China, where there are NO animal rights regulations? Secondly, why the implication that animals skinned alive doesn't really happen? Newsflash VOGUE, it does. It happens all the time. Thirdly, in what universe does it make sense to talk about "humane" gassing? What is humane about gassing hundreds of living creatures to death - not for necessity, but for luxury? Shows how much "socialités" care about anyone's suffering except their own (on the occasion they break a nail). And lastly, why always bring meat into the picture? The issue here is fur, not meat or leather. And yes, it is justifiable to eat meat, use leather and say no to fur. IT IS OKAY. You are not a hypocrite if you do this. Heck, it's even okay to eat certain types of meat and not others! I'm the vegan and I'm telling you that as long as you're doing SOMETHING, we applaud you, even if you're not doing EVERYTHING.

Even so, I'm so glad that VOGUE mentioned the fact that so many shops, both high-street and designer (Zara, Topshop, Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger to name a few) have an anti-fur policy, the fact that 95% of UK women wouldn't wear fur and quotes from PETA and Stella McCartney - the couture goddess of fur free.

By the way VOGUE, you got it wrong: Stella McCartney DOES use "animal ingredients" in her designs, she uses wool and silk, but she does not use leather or fur. And that's not the only thing they missed. The journalist concluded saying she'd be okay with wild fox fur but not farmed - what about the foxes agonizing in traps and bleeding to death? What about foxes' tails cut off and the animals being left to bleed to death in the wild? Furthermore, Sheffield mentions that "no one sanctions animals being skinned alive, especially not the regulated fur industry". Hello? What about that huge country in the East where virtually all fur comes from these days, China? What regulations? I'd love it if we could step out of the pink rainbow fairytale and stop pretending that high fashion designers only use quality materials that are produced locally by happy, adult, well-paid workers. Because, do a little digging and you'll find that the Cavallis and the Guccis of the world ain't no better than our H&Ms and GAPs, people. With the difference that the high street says NO to fur.

It feels like VOGUE aimed to get both sides of the story out there and they (kind of) did. Except, you know, they're VOGUE and they can't really risk alienating sixty-or-so designers that do use fur and frequently advertise in the magazine. So I'll let their benevolent attitude towards fur slide and applaud them for actually bringing light to the issue. But for all of you reading the article and going, "phew": NO. This is not the whole truth. See what actually goes on here (go on and click, there are no nasty pictures or videos guys). Then tell me how "humane" that sounds to you.

It's 2013 people - like Stella McCartney says, there's no need for fur anymore. Heck, we even grow hamburgers in labs these days, it's so sad that we're still killing living creatures by the thousands to drape them around Russian housewives. Fur is unnecessary. Killing for luxury is unnecessary. Cruelty has no place in fashion.

15 comments:

  1. This was a really good read, and I agree wholeheartedly that there is no place for fur. One of my best friends has a vintage hat made out of fox fur, and although I agree with her that looks wise it's beautiful, I refuse to touch it and am a bit uncomfortable when she wears it. But then, I also feel like a hypocrite because I eat meat and own leather goods...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You shouldn't feel this way. As long as you're saying no to real fur you're already helping. If you don't feel like giving up meat and leather but say no to ONE cruel product, you're still doing more than those who eat meat, wear leather AND buy fur.

      Delete
  2. Very good comments, and I agree with you that doing something is better than doing nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I hate the way the word 'humanely' gets thrown around - it just doesn't work! Would it be ok if I humanely killed a human? I love the quote: "Only beautiful animals and ugly people wear fur".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. Even if it was humane - WHICH IS ISN'T - it wouldn't be justifiable. "Humanely" gassing thousands of animals to death isn't anything but cruel.

      Delete
  4. The people just don`t want really see the reality, even if you have all those videos, photos proving that the animals suffer, and that is kind of sad. Hope one day they will wake up

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So true. You are so right. And it's so sad.

      Delete
  5. sono d'accordo con te, la pelliccia non è necessaria! certo, è bellissima e per quanto possano essere verosimili le pellicce ecologiche non avranno mai quella brillantezza e morbidezza...ma a che prezzo?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Most of the worlds farmed fur is produced by European farmers. The EU accounts for 67 % of global mink production and 70 % of fox production. Denmark is the world’s largest producer and exporter of mink skins, while Finland is the world’s largest producer of fox pelts.

    A common myth spread by animal rights organisations is that most fur comes from China. This is somewhat true, but is taken out of context.
    China is the biggest importer of raw fur pelts, China then manufacture these pelts into finished pieces and export them to the world, which makes China one of the worlds biggest exporters of 'finished' fur products.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why did VOGUE not investigate China, too? Why didn't they visit a Chinese fur farm? Condé Nast can surely afford it - PETA went to China to investigate. Why only tell the convenient "truth"?

      Delete
  7. The only 'skinning alive' video that exists is the video from the SAP (Swiss Animal Protection) in 2005. The one with the Raccoon Dog.
    They did some research into that video... it's staged. The skinner was paid to skin the animal alive for the camera.

    If this really happens like the animal rights extremists want us to believe, why is there no more footage or proof since then? It has been 8 years since that video was made.

    Animal rights extremists can be so blindly loyal to their cause that they will do such heinous acts to get the world to turn vegan.

    Have a look at the history of staged videos:
    A sealer was paid to skin a seal alive in front of the cameras for an anti sealing documentary: http://tinyurl.com/l5dq54u

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...one video? One? I have seen several videos of dogs, cats and other animals. They were sent to me and I deleted them because they made me sick to my stomach, otherwise I'd gladly share them with you. I have stayed away from animal abuse videos since then - it's just a bit too much for me. But what really angers me is the MYTH of "humane gassing". It's a mass murder - the article conferms it - yet it's somehow still sold as "humane". And what about fox trapping in the wild? Is that somehow better just because the fox had a life in the wild, a life cut short by a trap that left it agonizing for hours?

      I don't care about "the world going vegan", however I'd love to see the use of real fur outlawed as it's cruel, harmful to the environment and completely unnecessary.

      Delete
    2. ...and "skinned alive" is when the fur farms' HORRIFYING electrocutions do not immediately work and the animals are skinned while STILL alive.

      Delete
    3. http://features.peta.org/ChineseFurFarms/

      http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/381117/Animals-electrocuted-strangled-and-skinned-alive-The-true-face-of-China-s-fur-farms

      http://www.nerzfarm-orsbach.de/external/www.cafteire.net_environment.htm

      http://furtrimisatrap.com/the-cruelty-trap/ - former trappers speak about trapping in the wild - how humane is this?


      Delete
  8. brilliant article!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete

Speak your mind.