Fur Production is Cruel to People, Too October 27, 2009

Flipping through the new VegNews yesterday, I came across Rory Freedman’s brief retelling of a confrontation with a callous, nasty fur-wearer. In typical fashion, the perpetrator made it exceptionally clear that she didn’t give a flying fudge about the living beings who suffered brutish lives and extremely painful deaths to become part of a coat.

This was, of course, hardly surprising to me. In a previous job, I routinely had to interact with a large number of fur-loving women. All but one of them* were appallingly rude, whiny, self-entitled, and extremely spoiled. Their unpleasant behavior included, but most certainly was not limited to:

*Shoving AmEx cards in our faces (they all knew the establishment had never accepted them – and I’m not exaggerating; they were unusually aggressive)

*Throwing tantrums when there was a wait for a fitting room

*Verbally abusing staff (one was also prone to uttering ethnic slurs – go figure why someone like that was patronizing a business with a predominantly Asian staff, but she was such a bully that even the business owner was afraid to give her the boot)

*Coming in ten minutes to closing time and demanding same-day turnaround (my boss was quite adamant that she didn’t want to run her business like a sweatshop, so fulfilling such a demand was impossible)

*Coming by after closing time and banging – HARD – on the glass door (as if we were going to wait on anyone after hours – the older employees all had to relieve their babysitters and we younger ones all would have been late for our second jobs)

Do I have to go on, or do you get the idea?

I strongly suspect that someone who doesn’t give a damn about animal rights isn’t going to care all that much about human rights, either. However, the fur industry can in fact be cruel to people, too; and some image-conscious fur-wearers might stop wearing fur if they had any idea how horrible it makes them look. Only someone who truly doesn’t care if everyone knows they lack empathy (think Anna Wintour) can afford to act like they don’t care about the exploitation of the working class.

If you still haven’t picked up a copy of Ellen Ruppel Shell’s book Cheap: The High Cost of Discount Culture, it’s worth investing in a copy for the following passage alone:

So Deng, a migrant to Guangdong from a mountainous region of central China, told a Washington Post reporter in January 2009 how he had stood knee-deep in vats of hot toxic dye, seven days a week, twelve hours a day, at his job in the Overseas Fur Factory for a salary of $15 a month. Deng said many workers lost their footing or passed out in the fumes…

I was able to locate the article in the Washington Post’s online archives; a free preview can be viewed here (alas, the Post charges for viewing or printing archived articles in their entirety). However, do note that fur production is not the focus of the article.

That passage is also of use when dealing with anyone who falsely claims fur production can be eco-friendly (as mentioned, by yours truly, in several previous entries, faux fur is far more energy-efficient and much less toxic). Would a respected newspaper like the Washington Post make up a story mentioning toxic fur dye when the fur industry and its environmental effects were not the subject of the article in the first place? I don’t think so.

*ONE fur-wearer was polite and well-behaved…which may or may not have had something to do with the fact that her teenage son hated to come in for fittings until I started working there. He had a bit of a crush on me, so she shrewdly inquired about my work schedule. I have to admit it was clever of her.

So You Still Want to Be a Designer? September 11, 2009

The New York Times has issued serious words of warning (courtesy of Teen Vogue and other experts) to those aspiring to work in the fashion industry. To put it bluntly, competition is more stiff than ever before, the rag trade only LOOKS glamorous, the industry is in trouble (which means competition will get much worse), and even very talented people can fail miserably. (When I graduated in 2003, the trade was competitive all right, but it wasn’t THIS bad.)

Still want to be a designer, or at least work in fashion? Damn, you’re brave, and I wish you the best of luck. Now get out there, work hard, and make me proud!

In other news, I haven’t been feeling well lately, and it doesn’t help that The Times also reports that Lindsay Lohan has been appointed “artistic advisor” at French label Ungaro, in spite of the fact that her idea of style is throwing on some leggings and some kind of dead animal. I’m trying very, very hard not to throw up right now.

Hooray for W…Mostly April 3, 2009

I’ve long preferred W Magazine over rival Vogue, and not just for “Countess Esterhazy’s” tongue-in-cheek ‘Last Laugh’ column. (Give it up, John Fairchild, everyone knows it’s you.)

Pick up just about any issue of American Vogue from the past two decades and you’ll see animal-skin overload – editor Anna Wintour has some kind of sick obsession with fur, leather, and various exotic skins. (Good thing I have a strong stomach, since I read every fashion magazine that Huntington Central Library receives.) Sure, you’ll see fur, leather, etc. in the pages of W, but thankfully not to the same extent as Vogue.

This month, W has an exclusive online-only slideshow of what they deem “The Best Vegan-Friendly Accessories.” Yay! Sure, I’d love it if they actually ran it in the print version, but hey – baby steps. There was a time when no one was making nice veg-friendly apparel, and now there are a slew of manufacturers doing just that.

It’s not a terribly long list – eleven accessories, one set of all-synthetic makeup brushes, and the upcoming Babycakes cookbook – but it’s a very nice start. W featured items from some of the greats – Matt & Nat, NeuAura, MINK, Olsen Haus, and (of course) the great Stella McCartney – who are long overdue for greater recognition.

My only gripe? The inclusion of accessories from Michael Kors and Marc Jacobs. Both designers are longtime fur users. Surely I’m not alone in believing it’s incredibly hypocritical for ethical vegetarians and vegans to support designers who are heartless enough to use real fur?

Granted, the writer of the piece probably isn’t even vegetarian and probably didn’t put quite as much thought into it as an ethical veg*n would have, but come ON.

Believe it or not, a very close friend of mine (who is also vegan) lives for Dior and Marc Jacobs – and sees nothing wrong with buying whatever accidentally-vegan goods they produce.

“You do know they still use real fur in some of their clothes, right?” I once asked, my left eyebrow slightly raised.

“But a lot of their clothes are totally animal-free!” she chirped in the giddy, bubbly way that only she can pull off.

On this topic, we have to agree to disagree. She may be okay with it, but how many of us are? I’d wager it’s not the majority.

In any case, my thanks to W for giving some great stylish veg-friendly brands some well-deserved attention.

Don’t Buy the Lie – Shearling Is Fur! February 20, 2009

In this On the Runway blog entry, posted earlier today, Eric Wilson brings a solid line of reasoning to the shearling debate. Shearling, if you are just now tuning in, is sheepskin with the hair still attached – to put it bluntly, sheep fur. Yet, Ralph Lauren and Donna Karan, who have stated they will not use fur, both used obscene amount of sheep fur in their runway collections. Calling it “shearling” does not change the fact that it is fur, and that both of them lied.

The post goes on to state that PETA also differentiates between shearling and fur – not a smart move on their part. PETA VP Dan Mathews, it seems, favors a one-thing-at-a-time approach. Oh, please. If only it were that easy. Some designers are still using other species’ furs, despite numerous animal rights groups’ best efforts, so why not condemn sheep fur? If a few highly influential designers (such as Lauren and Karan) can be convinced to leave those poor sheep alone, demand for sheep fur will drop, and other designers will follow suit. (Not all of them will, but some of them will, and that’s a start. Trust me on this, my great-aunt designed dresses on Seventh Avenue back in the day. She shared a lot of designer wisdom with me when I decided to study fashion.)

Tolerating sheep fur but condemning other pelts isn’t just hypocritical, it’s speciesist. I’m not the biggest fan of sheep myself (pigs are cleaner and smarter), but I would never, EVER condone the use of any part of their bodies for fashion.

Whenever someone waddles into the shop wearing (eew! ick! evil!) Uggs, I want to throw up. Hello?! There is a very polite no-fur sign posted on the door. Shearling is fur. Ignoring the sign is deeply disrespectful. The least those people could do is leave those hideous boots outside. (I’ve been tempted to remind them of the dress code, but I’d rather not perpetuate the “vegan Nazi” stereotype. I already know some people who call themselves veg*n think I’m “too strict” because I won’t allow “recycled” wool or “ahimsa” silk on my shelves. Refer to the archives for the reasons why.)

Kudos to Wilson for a well-written, logically sound piece.

In other news, Italy’s fashion industry, which generates a fortune (or used to, anyway), has been hit so hard it is now asking for government help.

Why Fur is NEVER Eco-Friendly February 3, 2009

Because I happen to know quite a bit more about textiles than the average person on the street, I don’t at all mind sharing my knowledge with those who are uninformed or curious.

Pet peeve:  uneducated dimwits who think they can successfully argue with me about whether animal-derived materials used in clothing are eco-friendly or not.

I have done the reading and research. They have not. None of them have ever even looked at a textile book in their lives (let alone studied the subject), and are merely content to regurgitate whatever garbage some money-grubbing greenwasher has tricked them into believing.

On some level, most of them know it’s ALL crap. They buy into the belief that something immoral is “okay” because they WANT to believe they can have their cake and eat it too. They buy the idea that an ostrich handbag is “okay” because it’s “just byproduct” from production of ostrich meat, when in fact ostrich skin accounts for a whopping 80% of the bird’s post-mortem value (source: The Guardian, as referenced in an earlier post), therefore making the meat the “byproduct”, just because they want that bag and won’t let a little thing like the truth stand in their way.

Similarly, they buy into the ludicrous notion that fur is an “eco-friendly” resource. Nothing could be further from the truth. Fur, like leather, requires IMMENSE amounts of space, energy, and chemicals to produce. In fact, a study conducted by Ford Motor Company in the 1930s concluded that a farmed fur coat consumed many times more energy to produce than a trapped fur coat – and a trapped fur coat required at least four times the energy of a faux fur coat. (Keep in mind that in the 1930s, fur was extremely popular among women of all social classes, and was no doubt worn night and day by the wives of Ford execs. Ford had no reason to doctor its own results in favor of faux fur.)

This excellent factsheet from the Humane Society details the ugly truth about fur’s actual environmental impact. While the HSUS did a pretty good job, they did leave out one fact: animals aren’t shaped like coats. Pelts have to be cut into strips and pieced together, which leaves behind many, many small oddly-shaped scraps of fur (and consumes a hell of a lot of energy!). Not only do some of these go to waste (some are made into gross, creepy cat toys and the like), the need for piecing accounts for the sheer number of animals that have to be slaughtered to produce even a moderately-sized garment.

A few fur producers claim to be using “green” preservation methods. Yeah, right. Fur has to be preserved a certain way (formaldehyde, anyone?) or it will start to decompose, and quickly. Any idiot who read the fur chapter in Textiles 101 knows that. A person would have to be extremely gullible to buy into such a ridiculous idea.

As for “vintage” fur: don’t kid yourself. I practically grew up in antique and vintage stores. Old fur starts to look mangy and gross when it’s been around a certain number of years (usually because it hasn’t been kept in cold storage, but even that’s no guarantee). Sometimes, it smells (still off-gassing, maybe?). If you really want to look like an antique taxidermed animal, I can’t stop you, but I can guarantee that it will not flatter you.

Swayed by Suede? Never! January 13, 2009

On Friday night, I got the damn suede question again. This time it was whether I’d ever carry any of Macbeth’s suede offerings. Gee, let me think about that…no.

I never cease to be amazed by how many people, veg*n or not, don’t know what certain materials actually are. I knew suede was animal skin by the time I was 11 years old, long before I decided to study fashion. (I realize there will always be a select few people who don’t recognize a vegan store when they see it, but come ON.)

With that in mind, here’s a brief lexicon of terms you may encounter when buying shoes:

Patent leather – Leather with a “patent” (shiny) finish. Some uninformed veg*ns think it’s fake leather. Trust me, it’s animal skin. (Faux leather with a patent finish is not called patent leather, so don’t let some unscrupulous merchant dupe you.)

Suede – The soft back side of leather (definitely not vegan!). Faux suede kicks real suede’s arse – not only is it cruelty-free, it requires very little upkeep and can take a beating. I had a suede coat I loved in high school, but it required more cleaning and brushing than all of the family pets combined (and still looked awful after two years).

Shearling – Sheep fur. The skin is still attached, ergo it is fur. The sheepskin industry coined the deceptive term “shearling” – it sounds a lot less cruel that way, doesn’t it? Don’t let anyone trick you into thinking this stuff is merely shorn off the sheep – especially if it’s obviously still rooted in the skin when you take the time to look closely. (Remember how many people mocked Pamela Anderson’s naïveté for not realizing her Ugg boots went above and beyond ‘not vegan’? Shearling is passé anyway, so save your money.)

“Veg-tan” or “vegetable tanned” leather – leather tanned using plant-derived materials. Not suitable for ethical vegetarians or vegans, only slightly less toxic than chrome-tanned leather, and requires an immense amount of energy to produce compared to chrome-tan leather or faux leather (the reason it fell out of favor long ago). Vegetable tanning agents aren’t *quite* as effective as chrome, so even if you’re eco-guilted into wasting money on something vegetable tanned, it’s not going to last as long as chrome-tan leather or a good fake. Every pair of vegetable-tanned leather shoes that I or my business partners have ever seen started to look like absolute crap after the wearer had worn them for 2-3 months. (Note: do NOT confuse this stuff with the “Vegetan” materials used by Vegetarian Shoes. All of VS’ materials are 100% animal-free.)

Fur-Free Fashion: Make It Work! December 31, 2008

“I assume you watch Project Runway?” an older lady asked me in the cereal aisle of Trader Joe’s. She’d been admiring my leopard-print coat.

“Actually, no,” I replied. “I don’t have cable.” And, truthfully, even if I could afford cable I would still have no desire to re-live the stress of fashion design school all over again. It’s nowhere near as easy as it looks on TV.

I have never seen a single second of Project Runway, but that doesn’t mean the show is completely off my radar. I’m a big Ugly Betty fan, so of course I’ve seen Christian Siriano’s famous guest spot with Nina Garcia along for the ride, and Tim Gunn’s two cameos as a Fashion TV reporter. This article in the LA Times’ style section caught my eye (and, evidently, that of everyone else who finally realized the insanity of the It Bag phenomenon), and more recently my brother gave me Tim’s book, “A Guide to Quality, Taste, and Style” for my birthday. (The book, for the record, is excellent. I’m still not certain why my brother felt I need it, but I would recommend it to anyone who doesn’t know where to begin with their wardrobe.)

Now, Tim Gunn has made an exclusive video with PETA to encourage fur-loving fashion designers to see the light and have some mercy. This comes just a few months after Stella McCartney not only did a fur exposé for PETA but sent copies of the video to designers who still use fur. The fashion world is an insular world – it makes perfect sense for the anti-fur movement within that world to become increasingly vocal.

On a personal note, even fashion majors have to take a public-speaking course (at least in California colleges). For my persuasive-speech assignment, I argued against the use of fur in fashion. I got an A, and a stack of enthusiastic reviews from my classmates. (The only one who didn’t agree with me was exactly the sort of person with no qualms about seeing dead animals as fashion accessories – ill-mannered, stuck-up, spoiled. Ironically, she couldn’t really afford fur and made do with an angora hat, even in the summer. Fortunately for the bunnies, financial issues forced her withdrawal from school.)

Between the vast improvements in textile technology over the years and the wide variety of faux furs on the market (I personally prefer fakes that don’t look scarily real), there is no excuse for cruel fashion. Cheers to Tim for helping shed some light on the subject. No word yet on what Nina Garcia (whose book “The One Hundred: A Guide to the Stylish Pieces Every Woman Must Own” lists exotic-skin bags and fur among the ‘must-haves’) has to say about this.

Who Are You Calling “Hostile”?! September 12, 2008

There are two kinds of people in this world: those who “get it” and those who don’t.

Sometimes, people who don’t necessarily “get it” wander into my store. I don’t mind. Cute handbags, cool shoes, and “Skinny Bitch” appeal to people who aren’t necessarily vegetarian or vegan. If they want to shop here, that’s fine with me. (I’m not in the habit of asking people about their choices, unless they need my help with something and I need more information.)

Unless, of course, they decide to cause trouble. Anyone with any self-respect would take exception to that.

Much in the same way that some omnivores get obnoxiously vocal and defensive the instant they find out someone quietly eating black bean soup at the next table is a veg*n, I’ve had a few people, upon realizing this is a vegan store, throw screaming fits that would make Naomi Campbell seem like the sweet girl next door.

The door inscription reads “Humane Attire for Men and Women.” There is a small sign on the door serving as a gentle reminder that real fur is not allowed inside our store (faux is fine with us). Apparently, nobody reads them or takes our location into account.

I wasn’t actually in the store at the time, but a few weeks after the grand opening, some woman came in and browsed, and asked what the store was all about. She didn’t even wait for the entire answer to commence howling like a banshee about how much she loved her leather Coach bags and didn’t care what poor unfortunate creatures had to disappear so she could keep living like that. (I’m paraphrasing, of course. Like I said, I wasn’t there.)

Don’t get me started on the former fur trapper (!) who threw an even bigger fit and had to be removed by security.

On another occasion, a sales representative for a sheepskin boot company actually came in the store with the intention of selling me some hideous UGG knockoffs (imagine me gagging here). When I very calmly said “No thank you, we are not interested” he refused to leave the store and started arguing with me! (Wholesale reps, a word of advice: being rude, obnoxious, pushy, or belligerent with ANY retailer will NOT help you sell things. It will have the opposite effect.) This is a respectable establishment; consequently, I don’t allow that sort of behavior and very nearly had to have him removed by the police (the security guards weren’t on duty yet).

Every few months, one particular woman comes in and asks for sheepskin boots. Every time, we tell her we have never carried them and never will. (Why would a store with a no-fur dress code carry sheep fur?!) We have politely reminded her, many times, that this is an animal-friendly business and consequently fur is banned. Usually she storms out, this time she exploded. If her temper tantrum had been an earthquake, it would have been at least an 8.0 on the Richter scale. She demanded to see my business partner (which will never happen, since she recently spent some time in the hospital for a stress-related illness and it’s my responsibility to keep people like that away from her), then stomped out screaming about ME being hostile. Since she has repeatedly been rude to my staff on top of her appalling behavior, she’s not allowed in the store anymore.

This is NOT the pot calling the kettle black. This is the pot calling the red enameled roasting pan black.

And fur-wearers wonder why animal lovers are more inclined to see them as violent.