Whoa. Have you guys seen Sophie Ellis Bextor’s anti-fur ad? (Here‘s the big version.) I admire her principles, but one has to wonder if she wears leather. (I don’t think those boots in the “Murder on the Dancefloor” video are synthetic.) Because really, there’s not a heck of a lot of difference, is there? I mean, we eat the rest of the cow so it’s less of a waste, but you’re still wearing animal bits for fashion. I guess foxes are just cuddlier looking than cows.
Tricia
November 14, 2002 — 4:41 pm
So, how many animals were harmed in the making of this ad… at least one! Not a very PETA friendly advert!
martin
November 16, 2002 — 4:17 am
At least if the rest of the animal is going to be kiled for food you may as well make efficient use of whats left. Its greener for a start.
brigita
November 16, 2002 — 5:03 am
i have to agree with martin on this one. especially since my piggies get toxic if i wear shoes composed of Man Made Materials. against my better bleeding-heart judgement, i’ve actually started to see the wisdom of investing in leather furniture as they last forever and are easier to clean than cloth upholstery (as a recent incident involving my spastic dog and a glass of red wine has taught me). still, can’t stand the smell of the stuff.
Kris
November 16, 2002 — 10:16 am
I totally agree with you guys. I’m just trying to figure out what PETA’s argument is. Is it the *killing* of the animals that bother them, or the *wearing* of animal bits? Because I don’t see them making such a big deal about leather. It’s almost like it’s a class thing. Furs are an easy target because you can usually tell when someone’s wearing a real one, and the people that own them are usually wealthy upper-class types. No one wants to throw red paint on some single mother on welfare because she happens to be wearing leather shoes. I just think it’s a bit hypocritical of them not to target both activities, since the shock tactics they employ in their ads imply that they’re pretty much against all animal killing ever.
rdh
November 16, 2002 — 11:21 am
Well I think…..naawww better leave this subject alone. Have to be up real early for….ah…..well….never mind. 🙂 ya know.
Kris
November 16, 2002 — 2:10 pm
Heh. (For the confused, it’s deer hunting season in Indiana and my Dad needs to get back to his tree.) 🙂
brigita
November 16, 2002 — 2:24 pm
while PETA’s message might be good, it always gets lost in the delivery. did you know they’re based here in norfolk? there’s a Ronald McDonald House (where they house the families of children requiring lengthy hospital stays…i think) down the street from me—apparently a bunch of PETA “activists” threw a bunch of red paint on the Ronald McD statue outside the house protesting the meatpacking industry or the deforestation of the rain forest or some such thing…
i can’t see how attacking sick kids helps to further their cause, but i guess someone has to play the extremist.
a related topic actually came up tonight (at dinner, of all times) as a friend was talking about this NYT article that she’d read recently. PETA came up (natch) and i said we should infiltrate their offices and check out what they have for sale in the vending machines (do you know that all hostess products may contain beef fat? that doesn’t neccessarily mean that they do, but it has kept me from eating a Ho-Ho) and whether or not all of their employees are meat/dairy/leather free. oy.
i’d say “don’t even get me started” but it seems that i’ve done a good enough job on my own. 😉
Dan
November 16, 2002 — 2:39 pm
To be fair, PETA *is* against wearing leather. I think the reason they put their high-profile people in fur ads is because, basically, fur is a winning issue for PETA. Their ads take on fur, but they also advertise PETA. And probably, the fur issue is a good motivator for people who are concerned about “ETA” but haven’t gotten involved yet (read: target audience).
Dan
November 16, 2002 — 2:44 pm
Looking at the issue from the other side, you could argue that the fur campaign is one that calls for celebrities, and that all the extra attention they garner is just a byproduct of that. Allow me to explain. *clears throat* The irony aspect is important to the anti-fur campaign. They are trying to contrast the glamorous perception of fur with the ugly reality. (The ads are basically a direct response to the fur industry that tells people how luxurious fur is and how your wife will love you forever if you give her one and will wear the fur with nothing underneath and give you hot sex, etc.) Also, the use of celebrities targets the demographic that is most likely to buy and wear furs: other celebrities and rich socialite types. Hence the use of celebrity models is especially appropriate for an anti-fur campaign, as opposed to an anti-leather one.
Kris
November 17, 2002 — 12:05 am
I was telling the Snook about our discussion tonight, and he had a unique perspective. Here in Australia foxes are an introduced species, and in fact without natural predators they’re considered vermin. Someone in his office sent round that PETA ad the other day, and I’m afraid the effect was the opposite of what PETA intended. As far as the Aussies are concerned, a dead fox is the only good fox. I wonder what PETA’s stance would be down here?
Actually I can probably guess. A bunch of animal activists threw a hissy fit a few months ago because the government authorized a kangaroo cull on an army base out in the middle of nowhere. Apparently the roos had become dangerously overpopulated and there just wasn’t any food anywhere nearby for them to eat. The government hired professional sharp shooters and there were all these rules about them only shooting the males and not any females that might have joeys, etc. To me, it sounded like the most humane thing to do. They interviewed locals on the news who reported that most of the roos were lying around sick and dying anyway. Yet still the PETA-heads protested. What bothered me was that they didn’t have any other plan to deal with the problem. They just decided that killing = bad, no matter what.
See, that’s the problem for me. I definitely emphathise with the “ethical treatment” bit of the name. I don’t want chickens to live cooped up in little boxes. At the same time, though, I don’t think “killing” animals, whether for eating or wearing even, is necessarily bad. Everybody eats something. I don’t think it’s necessary to apologize for being at the top of the food chain. That’s where they lose me. I could get behind a more moderate PETA, one that urged people to buy free-range chickens and stuff. Instead they ambush models on the catwalk. Whatever.
(Sorry about the rant, but I’ve had some wine and I have no idea what I’m saying anyway…)