UK fashion write: "Fur is back..."
halv
Posts: 701
Fur is back...and the fashion industry should hang its head in shame
by LIZ JONES
There is a moment when you realise that fashion has, this time, gone too far. Mine came last week when I was standing in the Joseph shop in Fulham trying to find something to wear to a Christmas party.
I overheard two young women, probably in their late 20s, talking while they caressed a black poncho made entirely of rabbit fur and costing over £300.
'I have to have it,' one of them said. 'I could wear my H&M slippy dress underneath — but this would add a bit of class.'
And then a day later, in the Prada store on Old Bond Street, where almost every garment was bedecked with fur — on pockets, on sweaters, on skirts, on belts, on helmets — I rummaged around for something to wear that hadn't been strangled, or drowned in a bucket of water, or hung by its hind legs and skinned alive, or electrocuted anally. When I asked the shop assistant to help me find a coat without fur, she shrugged her bony shoulders and went off to help someone else, who I noticed was wearing a black fur-trimmed jacket.
There was a time when women would hardly have dared venture out on the streets of Britain wearing fur without fear of being splattered with paint, or sworn at. But this winter, it seems, that is no longer the case: fur has become acceptable, desirable, normal.
Women — even sane, decent ones — are buckling under the pressure to wear fur.
Not long ago, I sat at the Chanel catwalk show next to my 30-year-old fashion editor friend, who is a vegetarian, and she was saying: 'I have fur envy. I have to have it — just a little bit.'
Jane Bruton, the editor of Grazia magazine, told me that the other day a young member of her staff had turned up to work in a fur coat, and when berated for doing so, wailed: 'But it's vintage.' (Vintage is, when it comes to ethics, no defence. Although the animal has long been dead, wearing the coat still gives off the message that fur is beautiful, and acceptable.)
When Jane asked her if she would wear something with a brand new fur trim, she replied that she would — that she 'wouldn't even think about it'. Sixteen years on from the first 'I Would Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur' billboards, how on earth did British women become so, well, cruel?
Let us first of all 'out' all the female celebrities who have been spotted wearing fur recently. Sophie Dahl: mink and white fox. (Perhaps she is cold from having lost so much weight.) Keira Knightley: astrakhan — a particularly nasty form of fur, coming as it does from a lamb foetus, cut prematurely from its mother's womb, before its tight black curls have unfurled.
Kate Moss: monkey fur, and rabbit fur on Mukluk boots, which I also spotted on the feet of Topshop boss Philip Green's teenage daughter Chloe. Nicole Richie, Jade Jagger, Eva Longoria, Jennifer Lopez. I recently spotted Lucy Ferry in a fur coat, seemingly oblivious to the contradiction that she was also accompanied by a much-loved rescued greyhound.
The list, unfortunately, goes on and on. Who do I spy modelling a fur coat by Giorgio Armani Prive in the new issue of U.S. Harper's Bazaar? None other than Victoria Beckham. And while VB would never have dreamed of wearing fur during her girl band days for fear of alienating her fans, it seems pop stars harbour no such qualms nowadays.
Beyonce recently refused to watch a video — sent to her by the organisation People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) — which shows the ill-treatment of animals on fur farms, and she even extols the virtues of her chinchilla coat in her songs.
'Animals exist for their own reasons'
Perhaps Beyonce should remember the words of the powerful black author Alice Walker: 'The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans, any more than black people were made for whites or women for men.'
And while you might think the only women who wear fur are misguided celebrities and fashionistas with more money than ethics, recent figures suggest the acceptability of fur goes deeper. Sales of fur clothing in Britain have hit £500 million for the first time — up 30 per cent on two years ago.
And while Tony Blair might have banned fur farms in Britain in 2003, £40 million of fur products are imported to this country every year.
I would like to list the names of the designers who habitually use fur, but that would take up far too many trees, so I merely name-check here the ones I consider to be the worst culprits. Stand up Chanel, Dolce & Gabbana, Jean-Paul Gaultier and Chanel.
Stand up, too, Welsh-born designer Julien Macdonald, whose collection for this winter was obscene in its use of fox and chinchilla. Macdonald, when challenged after the blood fest that was his show during London Fashion Week, would say only: 'I adore fur; it adds ultimate luxury and glamour to my collections.'
When I rang for a comment this week, he was unavailable. In the past he has stated simply: 'F**k animals'.
As Sadie Frost, the vegetarian half of design duo Frost French and the most recent star to take off her clothes in support of Peta's I Would Rather Go Naked campaign, said recently: 'As a designer, I've become aware of how fur is often pushed on you to get financial breaks along the way.
'I know that a lot of designers who were having problems financially have cleared their debts by using fur. Though we've certainly had problems, I would have really failed if I'd done that. I've noticed fur coming back in the past five years, and it has been getting more and more outrageous. I have never understood its appeal. It makes me think of blood, guts, cages.'
Another bete noire in my book is Burberry, whose collection for this winter has fur in places you never before realised you needed it, such as on the hem of a trench coat, or on the cuffs or on the neck of a sweater. The label's designer, Christopher Bailey, has repeatedly refused to listen to Peta's arguments against the use of fur.
When I interviewed the three young women who, in protest, stormed the Burberry catwalk in Milan back in September, they told me they had been terrified moments before they unfurled their anti-fur banners (as well they might have been, given the manhandling they received from the security guards), but that the memory of Peta's video of a fox being skinned alive spurred them on.
I have seen it, too, and it is heartbreaking: you can see the fox blinking and looking around in shock after it has been reduced to a bloody pulp.
Let's look at the grisly facts of fur. Although every time I write an anti-fur piece I receive an admonishing letter from the British Fur Trade Association, it should be remembered that fox and mink and rabbit are, by nature, wild, shy creatures that become incredibly stressed in cages. Another horrible fact: more than two million cats and dogs are killed for their fur in China every year. Some still have their collars on when they are slaughtered — meaning they were once much-loved pets.
In China, many of the animals are still alive when the workers hang them up by their hind legs to skin them. Cats are strangled within their cages while other cats look on, and dogs asphyxiated with metal wires. With no animal welfare considerations, the pelts produced are so cheap that China is now the biggest exporter of fur in the world.
Recent talk of an EU ban on dog and cat fur is a positive step, but it is impossible to DNA test every fur item that comes into Europe, and these fur products are not labelled as real fur at all.
And if you think that buying an expensive, designer piece of fur will somehow ensure the animals were treated with a modicum of decency, you are very much mistaken. Burberry, the aforementioned quintessentially 'British' company (which plans, incidentally, to close its Welsh factory and move production to China in the very near future), only stopped using fur from China a few seasons ago.
And what about seals? In 2005, more than 300,000 harp seals were killed during Canada's commercial seal hunt, which begins in late March and lasts until mid-May. These animals, too, are often skinned while conscious. All of this bloodshed for a supposedly 'luxury' item.
But there is some good news. A handful of designers, including Vivienne Westwood, Todd Oldham and Katharine Hamnett, will not use fur. Ralph Lauren announced a worldwide ban earlier this year, and Paul Smith has no fur in his current collection, nor any plans to use it.
And two of the worst culprits, Miuccia Prada and Roberto Cavalli, have agreed to look more closely at the ethics of fur and to reduce its use. But will they actually deliver cruelty-free clothes? I doubt it.
When I interviewed John Galliano a few years ago and told him how shocked I had been at the amount of fur — heads, tails, whole birds used as hats - at his Dior show in the Orangerie at Versailles, he had nodded his head in agreement and said he was beginning to change his mind.
Stella McCartney, who refuses to use even leather in her collections, had sent him the Peta video. He said: 'I watched it, and I was shocked, and it made me think.' But lo and behold, this winter Dior is awash with dead animals.
There is also Kate Moss modelling black fur in the new Dior campaign carried by almost every glossy. Which brings me neatly to my next point.
While most British magazines have a policy of not using fur on the editorial pages, they do carry ads for designers who use fur. But flicking through the September issue of Vogue, I came across a six-page 'advertorial' entitled Fur for Fashionistas, with a Burberry wool and fox trench, a chinchilla coat by Julien Macdonald, a Roberto Cavalli mink and lynx coat, and fox coats by Prada and Marc Jacobs.
And while Grazia editor Jane Bruton wouldn't wear fur or feature it in her magazine, she understands that women find it 'intoxicating, seductive. It feels lovely, and it appeals to your primal side.' Is this the reason British women have suddenly fallen head-over-heels in love with it? I think, perversely, that the rise of the British High Street is partly to blame.
Having spoken to numerous buyers for boutiques in London and further afield, all of whom refuse to be named, the point I heard made over and over again is that, with the High Street so spectacularly good at everything previously the preserve of the designer - cashmere sweaters, giant bags, impeccable tailoring, gorgeous prints and chiffons and silks, even wedding dresses, for goodness' sake - only fur (avoided by every High Street store, including the formerly rabbit-retailing Zara) can still be thought of as exclusive.
Wearing a real silver fox is now the only status symbol left for those silly enough to care about such things. When I asked Saskia Cox, the owner and buyer of the Diverse chain of boutiques, why she insists on selling fur in her shops, she told me: 'Fur is such a luxury. It's opulent, it feels nice to wear. Ooh, and Kate Moss wearing it definitely helps.
'I agree that it is a backlash against the High Street. If you buy a fur coat from Topshop, it is going to be fake and it will become shoddy after only a month of wear. I only have rabbit fur in the shop at the moment, by a label called Antik Batik. Rabbit is pretty mainstream. It's a by-product, no worse than eating meat.' I told her that rabbits are farmed in terrible conditions. A large proportion are bred and killed purely for fur. The RSPCA says you should not assume it is a by-product. 'Really?' she said, surprised. 'I didn't know that. I would think twice about stocking it next year.'
Maybe it is time we all started to think twice about this issue. When I challenged Joseph on the amount of fur in its store, a spokesperson sent me this: 'Joseph, in line with designer brands and high fashion brands, has responded in its Autumn/ Winter collection to the growing demand from its customers for the comfort and warmth of fur. This is undeniably a growing trend but we are extremely selective in our use of fur products.' I will leave the last word to Stella McCartney, who told me yesterday: 'For me, it is a principle. I just don't understand why these beautiful creatures have to die for someone's coat. It is both medieval and barbaric, and I think there are plenty of alternatives out there. Comfy? Warm? The very idea leaves me cold.'
by LIZ JONES
There is a moment when you realise that fashion has, this time, gone too far. Mine came last week when I was standing in the Joseph shop in Fulham trying to find something to wear to a Christmas party.
I overheard two young women, probably in their late 20s, talking while they caressed a black poncho made entirely of rabbit fur and costing over £300.
'I have to have it,' one of them said. 'I could wear my H&M slippy dress underneath — but this would add a bit of class.'
And then a day later, in the Prada store on Old Bond Street, where almost every garment was bedecked with fur — on pockets, on sweaters, on skirts, on belts, on helmets — I rummaged around for something to wear that hadn't been strangled, or drowned in a bucket of water, or hung by its hind legs and skinned alive, or electrocuted anally. When I asked the shop assistant to help me find a coat without fur, she shrugged her bony shoulders and went off to help someone else, who I noticed was wearing a black fur-trimmed jacket.
There was a time when women would hardly have dared venture out on the streets of Britain wearing fur without fear of being splattered with paint, or sworn at. But this winter, it seems, that is no longer the case: fur has become acceptable, desirable, normal.
Women — even sane, decent ones — are buckling under the pressure to wear fur.
Not long ago, I sat at the Chanel catwalk show next to my 30-year-old fashion editor friend, who is a vegetarian, and she was saying: 'I have fur envy. I have to have it — just a little bit.'
Jane Bruton, the editor of Grazia magazine, told me that the other day a young member of her staff had turned up to work in a fur coat, and when berated for doing so, wailed: 'But it's vintage.' (Vintage is, when it comes to ethics, no defence. Although the animal has long been dead, wearing the coat still gives off the message that fur is beautiful, and acceptable.)
When Jane asked her if she would wear something with a brand new fur trim, she replied that she would — that she 'wouldn't even think about it'. Sixteen years on from the first 'I Would Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur' billboards, how on earth did British women become so, well, cruel?
Let us first of all 'out' all the female celebrities who have been spotted wearing fur recently. Sophie Dahl: mink and white fox. (Perhaps she is cold from having lost so much weight.) Keira Knightley: astrakhan — a particularly nasty form of fur, coming as it does from a lamb foetus, cut prematurely from its mother's womb, before its tight black curls have unfurled.
Kate Moss: monkey fur, and rabbit fur on Mukluk boots, which I also spotted on the feet of Topshop boss Philip Green's teenage daughter Chloe. Nicole Richie, Jade Jagger, Eva Longoria, Jennifer Lopez. I recently spotted Lucy Ferry in a fur coat, seemingly oblivious to the contradiction that she was also accompanied by a much-loved rescued greyhound.
The list, unfortunately, goes on and on. Who do I spy modelling a fur coat by Giorgio Armani Prive in the new issue of U.S. Harper's Bazaar? None other than Victoria Beckham. And while VB would never have dreamed of wearing fur during her girl band days for fear of alienating her fans, it seems pop stars harbour no such qualms nowadays.
Beyonce recently refused to watch a video — sent to her by the organisation People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) — which shows the ill-treatment of animals on fur farms, and she even extols the virtues of her chinchilla coat in her songs.
'Animals exist for their own reasons'
Perhaps Beyonce should remember the words of the powerful black author Alice Walker: 'The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans, any more than black people were made for whites or women for men.'
And while you might think the only women who wear fur are misguided celebrities and fashionistas with more money than ethics, recent figures suggest the acceptability of fur goes deeper. Sales of fur clothing in Britain have hit £500 million for the first time — up 30 per cent on two years ago.
And while Tony Blair might have banned fur farms in Britain in 2003, £40 million of fur products are imported to this country every year.
I would like to list the names of the designers who habitually use fur, but that would take up far too many trees, so I merely name-check here the ones I consider to be the worst culprits. Stand up Chanel, Dolce & Gabbana, Jean-Paul Gaultier and Chanel.
Stand up, too, Welsh-born designer Julien Macdonald, whose collection for this winter was obscene in its use of fox and chinchilla. Macdonald, when challenged after the blood fest that was his show during London Fashion Week, would say only: 'I adore fur; it adds ultimate luxury and glamour to my collections.'
When I rang for a comment this week, he was unavailable. In the past he has stated simply: 'F**k animals'.
As Sadie Frost, the vegetarian half of design duo Frost French and the most recent star to take off her clothes in support of Peta's I Would Rather Go Naked campaign, said recently: 'As a designer, I've become aware of how fur is often pushed on you to get financial breaks along the way.
'I know that a lot of designers who were having problems financially have cleared their debts by using fur. Though we've certainly had problems, I would have really failed if I'd done that. I've noticed fur coming back in the past five years, and it has been getting more and more outrageous. I have never understood its appeal. It makes me think of blood, guts, cages.'
Another bete noire in my book is Burberry, whose collection for this winter has fur in places you never before realised you needed it, such as on the hem of a trench coat, or on the cuffs or on the neck of a sweater. The label's designer, Christopher Bailey, has repeatedly refused to listen to Peta's arguments against the use of fur.
When I interviewed the three young women who, in protest, stormed the Burberry catwalk in Milan back in September, they told me they had been terrified moments before they unfurled their anti-fur banners (as well they might have been, given the manhandling they received from the security guards), but that the memory of Peta's video of a fox being skinned alive spurred them on.
I have seen it, too, and it is heartbreaking: you can see the fox blinking and looking around in shock after it has been reduced to a bloody pulp.
Let's look at the grisly facts of fur. Although every time I write an anti-fur piece I receive an admonishing letter from the British Fur Trade Association, it should be remembered that fox and mink and rabbit are, by nature, wild, shy creatures that become incredibly stressed in cages. Another horrible fact: more than two million cats and dogs are killed for their fur in China every year. Some still have their collars on when they are slaughtered — meaning they were once much-loved pets.
In China, many of the animals are still alive when the workers hang them up by their hind legs to skin them. Cats are strangled within their cages while other cats look on, and dogs asphyxiated with metal wires. With no animal welfare considerations, the pelts produced are so cheap that China is now the biggest exporter of fur in the world.
Recent talk of an EU ban on dog and cat fur is a positive step, but it is impossible to DNA test every fur item that comes into Europe, and these fur products are not labelled as real fur at all.
And if you think that buying an expensive, designer piece of fur will somehow ensure the animals were treated with a modicum of decency, you are very much mistaken. Burberry, the aforementioned quintessentially 'British' company (which plans, incidentally, to close its Welsh factory and move production to China in the very near future), only stopped using fur from China a few seasons ago.
And what about seals? In 2005, more than 300,000 harp seals were killed during Canada's commercial seal hunt, which begins in late March and lasts until mid-May. These animals, too, are often skinned while conscious. All of this bloodshed for a supposedly 'luxury' item.
But there is some good news. A handful of designers, including Vivienne Westwood, Todd Oldham and Katharine Hamnett, will not use fur. Ralph Lauren announced a worldwide ban earlier this year, and Paul Smith has no fur in his current collection, nor any plans to use it.
And two of the worst culprits, Miuccia Prada and Roberto Cavalli, have agreed to look more closely at the ethics of fur and to reduce its use. But will they actually deliver cruelty-free clothes? I doubt it.
When I interviewed John Galliano a few years ago and told him how shocked I had been at the amount of fur — heads, tails, whole birds used as hats - at his Dior show in the Orangerie at Versailles, he had nodded his head in agreement and said he was beginning to change his mind.
Stella McCartney, who refuses to use even leather in her collections, had sent him the Peta video. He said: 'I watched it, and I was shocked, and it made me think.' But lo and behold, this winter Dior is awash with dead animals.
There is also Kate Moss modelling black fur in the new Dior campaign carried by almost every glossy. Which brings me neatly to my next point.
While most British magazines have a policy of not using fur on the editorial pages, they do carry ads for designers who use fur. But flicking through the September issue of Vogue, I came across a six-page 'advertorial' entitled Fur for Fashionistas, with a Burberry wool and fox trench, a chinchilla coat by Julien Macdonald, a Roberto Cavalli mink and lynx coat, and fox coats by Prada and Marc Jacobs.
And while Grazia editor Jane Bruton wouldn't wear fur or feature it in her magazine, she understands that women find it 'intoxicating, seductive. It feels lovely, and it appeals to your primal side.' Is this the reason British women have suddenly fallen head-over-heels in love with it? I think, perversely, that the rise of the British High Street is partly to blame.
Having spoken to numerous buyers for boutiques in London and further afield, all of whom refuse to be named, the point I heard made over and over again is that, with the High Street so spectacularly good at everything previously the preserve of the designer - cashmere sweaters, giant bags, impeccable tailoring, gorgeous prints and chiffons and silks, even wedding dresses, for goodness' sake - only fur (avoided by every High Street store, including the formerly rabbit-retailing Zara) can still be thought of as exclusive.
Wearing a real silver fox is now the only status symbol left for those silly enough to care about such things. When I asked Saskia Cox, the owner and buyer of the Diverse chain of boutiques, why she insists on selling fur in her shops, she told me: 'Fur is such a luxury. It's opulent, it feels nice to wear. Ooh, and Kate Moss wearing it definitely helps.
'I agree that it is a backlash against the High Street. If you buy a fur coat from Topshop, it is going to be fake and it will become shoddy after only a month of wear. I only have rabbit fur in the shop at the moment, by a label called Antik Batik. Rabbit is pretty mainstream. It's a by-product, no worse than eating meat.' I told her that rabbits are farmed in terrible conditions. A large proportion are bred and killed purely for fur. The RSPCA says you should not assume it is a by-product. 'Really?' she said, surprised. 'I didn't know that. I would think twice about stocking it next year.'
Maybe it is time we all started to think twice about this issue. When I challenged Joseph on the amount of fur in its store, a spokesperson sent me this: 'Joseph, in line with designer brands and high fashion brands, has responded in its Autumn/ Winter collection to the growing demand from its customers for the comfort and warmth of fur. This is undeniably a growing trend but we are extremely selective in our use of fur products.' I will leave the last word to Stella McCartney, who told me yesterday: 'For me, it is a principle. I just don't understand why these beautiful creatures have to die for someone's coat. It is both medieval and barbaric, and I think there are plenty of alternatives out there. Comfy? Warm? The very idea leaves me cold.'
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
http://www.peta2.com/outthere/o-trentreznoripod.asp?c=1398
People who wear fur=Scum
so are you.
Watch the video. No animal should ever be treated like that.
Im against the torturing of animals but for the killing of animals.
I.E shotgun.
I think its cool to go out and kill an animal and then be able to wear its skin as a coat. I see nothing wrong with that.
We're talking about the fur industry. Not about weekend warriors playing w/ guns.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
While I don't agree with wearing fur at all, I'd better be able to stomach it if I knew the animals were killed humanely. I think that is the first step. I hate to think of ANY living thing suffering.
R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
I agree. Lets kill them humanely and then i can make a hat out of it.
http://www.blogscanada.com/blog/content/2003/10/CoyoteHat.jpg
agreed.
my mother has fur coats :(...and still wears em....makes me sad.
i DO eat meat and wear leather, and maybe it's a rationalization on my part but i just think i DO eat meat so wearing one of the byproducts of the meat i eat - the hide/leather of a cow is ok. but yes, to just kill an animal soley for his fur/hide....seems rather unnecessary/excessive.....it's so sad to think of, and absolutely tragic how these animals are killed.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Who fucking cares. Now, maybe if you turn your energy towards protesting a fucked up war and be an advocate for a 18 year old in a fox hole, I might listen. A fucking coat and a steak just don't matter right now.
What the hell...How do you know that the people posting aren't doing that as well? I had no idea that we're only allowed to care about one issue at a time. Thanks for enlightening me.
You bet. Happy to do it.
This should be good, what have you done personally for an 18 year old in a fox hole?
I have spoke against our involvement there. I have explained to individuals, one on one (and more times than I can count), how important it is to change leadership. Sorry, I just think protesting furs and the way animals are treated at this point in time is fucking trite. Anyway, I have to go kick my dog for barking.
I'd kick my dog too but I accidently shot yesterday when I was chasing some kids with eggs off my property, so it's already pretty messed up.
Actually, I have probably had a greater effect on that private than you can even comprehend. This is not something I'm proud of, but I did the Army of One advertising. It makes me sad to even think about it--though this was prior to the war. I have tried to help the individuals over there as much as I can, whether they know it or not. By the way, the only way I could help him and have him know about it would be to be there with him, and that just can't happen. I think I have helped him. Some of those individuals that I have talked to about this clusterfuck happen to be the same people that worked in the Pentagon when I worked on the Army account, and they can make a difference. So, basically, you don't know.