Fur : Real v. Faux... Fashion's Hairiest Debate

[dior_couture1245]

F*ck that.

As someone who lives in California, I can tell you that legislation like that makes my blood boil.

While half the city of Los Angeles turns into a literal slum, while hundreds of thousands of homeless people rot on the street, crime has increased, trash is littered everywhere....somehow Mr. Newsom found time to ban fur.

As the quality of life decreases and the the cost of life increases in California, I’m glad to know that the governor is prioritizing animals over his citizens.

 

[Phuel]

^^^ Persistent issues like homelessness and crime aren’t trendy enough to get attention and placate attention-span deprived SM and all the shallow SJW to turn in a vote for him.

Just like the same issues do not garner any big media photo opps for my idiot Prime Minister. So instead, he allocates a huge chunk of the taxpayers’ dollars and resources into reopening decades-old unsolved cases on Aboriginal murders because research has shown that Native issues are trending in SM and this fashion victim PM needs to go where the trends are.

In both cases, both are doing it for the media attention it generates to get more likes and followers.

 

[Benn98]

Well, you know, I don't think the discussion of poverty should be brought in because it's not really relevant to this specific issue. That's how other equally pressing issues often get sidelined and people wake up and realise 'oh dear, it's 2013 and we've still not legalised gay marriage because we've had to prioritise housing, and healthcare, benefits and and and all these years.'
I'm with HeatherAnne and Melancholybaby when they say there's no need for fur, real or fake, because we are not Neanderthals. And so because it's such an unnecessary material, I think it's perfectly fine for this politician to kickstart this law, and this is coming from a meat-eater. My only concern is that a law like this may spur on the production of fake fur, which we all know to be very taxing on the environment. But I don't want to believe that because other than boot and puffer trims, fur, in general, is no longer as aspirational as it was years ago in general. There's actually something vulgar about it - real or fake.

 

[dior_couture1245]

^^But you have to remember that considering fur as vulgar and unnecessary is your opinion, not a fact, and others who disagree and who appreciate and love and cherish fur...why do they have to that up because of how you feel about the subject?

And I don’t think my argument about other pressing issues not coming first is irrelevant. It’s the old “we can walk AND chew gum” refrain...with the leaders claiming to be able to tackle issues like homelessness and crime AND be able to take on causes like banning fur. The problem is that neither homelessness or crime where I live in Los Angeles are being meaningfully taken care of - and are only getting worse - so to read that they the governor is using his time to ban fur - and with such fanfare - really is infuriating. The priorities are so out of whack.

 

[Benn98]

^^But you have to remember that considering fur as vulgar and unnecessary is your opinion, not a fact, and others who disagree and who appreciate and love and cherish fur...why do they have to that up because of how you feel about the subject?

No no, I'm definitely not in the habit of shutting people up for not agreeing with me.
Calling fur 'vulgar' is my opinion, but saying it is 'unnecessary' as a basic necessity is a fact, you don't need fur in order to survive. Not in 2019.

I mean these laws will never be welcomed universally. But as you can tell from the article, more industry organisations seem to be in favour and therefore it will be more positively embraced. Doesn't mean you're not allowed to thrash it.

 

[Nomar]

I personally have no objections to people who wear fur. However, would I personally wear it? Probably not, it's just not my taste.

If people can wear other types of animal skins like leather then I don't see why not. For people who justify it because it's a by-product of the meat industry, that is definitely not always the case.

 

[MulletProof]

Weho banned it first, ages ago.. they're done fine, winning all the lawsuits too.. they'll get used to it.

Maybe I have experienced a different LA rarely getting out of its central area but in the past years, I have only seen one person wearing fur and it was fake, and it was on a rainy day (ew?..) because the temperature will never drop enough to even rock some heattech by uniqlo lol..

Why did it get pass? because someone in Glendale put that out with the support of citizens just like any other (just with more time and energy..?) and it went through a fair process and voilà.. it's a democracy and California can afford to take multiple actions (I mean, it's not Syria). Yes, there are alarming issues and you have to prioritize but ultimately, you must get a freakin' highway done with the same devotion used to argue in favor of free-range eggs, weed, gun control, sanctuary cities, a new museum, completely different things in every level, all important for different reasons and mostly for a diverse society... especially in LA people are passionate about animal rights and they'll lecture you for hours (if you let them lol) or will try to link your complicity on animal cruelty (or even just in the fact that you buy Lysol!) to some sort of mental health issue that you can talk to them about haha and deservingly so! (I know I deserve it when I keep eating meat when I love my vegan ramen and vegan breakfasts. it's 2019, not 2019 BC, I will be fine without eating dead bodies- but.. Lysol is off limits, in the words of Lana 'I won't not f*ck you the f*ck up' if you dare criticize my use of Lysol).. so yeah, it's a thing and it's not bad, why do we have to dress like cavemen especially in a weather that never ever drops below 0?..

Now TMI for a public forum but as a longtime DTLA resident, the homeless situation has indeed gotten so much worse in the past 2 years with the epidemics, I have seen/experienced some pretty f*cked up stuff that I honestly think warrants a therapist appointment and it's the reason for my upcoming relocation because my level of stress has dramatically changed . For the same reason, it's something I have given to A LOT of goddamn thoughts, as in '3 am looking at the ceiling' thoughts, and done research about it, both for personal and academic purposes. Why? because the coverage by respectable media never quite conveys what I see for myself on Skid Row ('it's a housing crisis!') and because, if you asked the locals some 5 years ago, they'd tell you things like 'oh yeah, many of them are war veterans, from like Vietnam, they came back with all kinds of conditions' (mm yeah, and that's why many are below 30..?).

Little by little, the opioids crisis became a topic and it takes you immediately back to lobbyists, huge donors involved in every operation of the country -from art to guns-, people in nice houses in Connecticut. And the good news is that, as difficult as it is to even think of dismantling such well-positioned and powerful [pharmaceutical] mafia, it is happening in the slow steps you'd expect to. The Sackler family/Purdue Pharma are on trial, the BS of pain measurement is being discussed, the APS filed bankruptcy, the doctors that have handed out thousands of prescriptions without a good reason and in a short amount of time are getting exposed. Something is being done when only less than 5 years ago, it was not a conversation.

Now yes, both Gavin and Garcetti have done nothing about housing/rent control and preserving cultural spaces, and done everything for real estate as*holes. But while the housing crisis does make things extra difficult for the homeless situation and the crime it leads to, it is NOT the root of the problem. Ask any homeless person (if they can even talk) when was the last time they lived under a roof? I can assure you it was not 'oh yeah I was evicted from my apartment in Culver City', it will be 'Florida' 'Pennsylvania'. Eviction in LA is actually very hard, because of the problem above, the organizations involved and the discrimination lawsuits that may take place, people are not just evicted for asking a landlord for an inspection or to fix a bulb (as The Guardian reported surely getting a lot of 'wow what!' in the UK). What reporters have not done is stand outside a Greyhound station, you'll see homeless people arrive on an hourly basis from shelters from all over the country that just hand them one-way tickets to LA with no accountability or even government screening on what it's causing on the other side of the country (LA is not a dumpster and no city in the world would be able to handle having every homeless person with a severe addiction/mental illness being shipped over just like that). LA has thousands now, even if you had a huge complex to house them all, guess what? it would not work because they're very very ill with addictions and now with all the epidemics brewing there (typhus). How can that be fixed? I honestly don't know, but I see plenty of organizations (government and privately-funded ones), tons of young people.. there everyday, doing the work of saints because I honestly... couldn't, and they frankly need us all, I just cannot find that compassionate volunteer inside me in the same way some here can't quit their fur even in 75 degree weather.

(want more? PM me for the full PDF )

 

[dior_couture1245]

^^Yes! I worked downtown for a while and it’s as bad as you say...I have seen some true horrors.

Again...to the fur question. It isn’t a matter of expecting, demanding or wishing people to wear fur in LA...I don’t! It’s too hot! Even in the dead of our “winter,” you can still get away with a puffer jacket and some flip flops.

However...that isn’t the point. If you want fur, you should be able to buy it. If you don’t want to wear fur, don’t buy it.

 

[MulletProof]

I have seen some true horrors.

I was on a flight recently talking to a Spanish guy 'aw LA, my dream city!' lol.. I was like 'it's cool yeah!' as I got flashbacks of that time I was chased by a freakin' zombie peeling scabs off his bleeding shoulder and trying to throw them at me, or when I was pushed against a wall by a man who yelled at me 'you f*cking bougie a*s b*tch!' (!).. or that banker stabbed in her scalp with the nails of a crazy woman and how the blood poured on the sidewalk (which left me sobbing an entire afternoon).

Back to this legislation, truth is, anyone can sue the state and it can be overturned just like it happened (briefly) with foie gras. Fur is fundamentally the same as foie gras.. Californians do not live in cruel conditions without it, but they certainly endorse cruel conditions with it.

One of the hardest things to accept is that for every change or upgrade that you gain in life, because conditions are rarely transferable, you lose at least one thing you did not want to lose. This hurts in personal choices and it's frustrating as a citizen in a society. But many forget that the whole premise of a society is to relinquish a lot of our beloved 'If I want it, I should be able to!' freedoms (for instance, the freedom to kill, the freedom to occupy land, the freedom to declare yourself its ruler without a democratic process) and handing them over to a "government" so they can manage these freedoms for you and criminalize you for them through a legal system if they deem that beneficial in the long run and it facilitates a safer life for everyone.

Where am I going? economies gain force and leadership by their own progress and ability to reach new levels of sophistication. As you climb up that ladder (which is the "change and upgrade" I mentioned) you leave behind obsolete practices that as rightful as they still feel for some (like maintaining farming livestock in an urban zone or being a coal miner in LA), they no longer serve a purpose or denote a past lifestyle. A majority has moved on as they have gradually gained access to these sophisticated alternatives that distance them more from their barbaric beginnings. If you judge just by lifestyle, economic development and amount of access to information and alternatives, you'll see there is no need for a Californian with a 'good' income to consume animal products, let alone fur, they're more than ready to graduate, many have already done so. The way people in Bolivia or Kyrgyzstan or even Montana are not and should not be pressured, let alone lectured to do so. Different development stages.

My point is that losing freedom of choice is often seen as a wild act of repression, when in reality, if replaced by new choices, it's the basis of every society and its survival. The state has taken an initiative that mirrors a way of living with more sustainable/sensitive choices that's been happening for decades in its cities and as the world's fifth largest economy, with many apparel companies in more need of California than the other way around, it sends a message of dressing responsibly and upgrading codes of sartorial status.

 

[Benn98]

....... as I got flashbacks of that time I was chased by a freakin' zombie peeling scabs off his bleeding shoulder and trying to throw them at me, or when I was pushed against a wall by a man who yelled at me 'you f*cking bougie a*s b*tch!' (!).. or that banker stabbed in her scalp with the nails of a crazy woman and how the blood poured on the sidewalk (which left me sobbing an entire afternoon).

Read that with my hand covering mouth.....good God, the things you've seen!!! We have a rough sleepers problem as well, but people are not prepared to normalise it to the point that an archaic disease such as typhus could break out. Last I read about it was during the war.... in concentration camps, so you can only imagine how low sanitary conditions must be in order for it to develop.
You lot really need to hold your MP accountable and demand they sort this. It's just not on.

I'm still in support of the fur ban, but it doesn't have to mean other issues should take a back seat.

 

[dior_couture1245]

I still can’t get on board with banning fur.

What do we ban after fur? What is next on the chopping block for strictly economic reasons? Are utility and efficiency the only allowable metrics for why something should exist?

At what point is utopia achieved? When we’ve banned all the “bad things?”

 

[Caffeine]

I'm anti-big government, so banning fur via legislation is nonsense to me.
What's next, soda water? Plastic bottles? Anything platic?

Newsom doesn't care that his people lost power for days, experiencing worse lives than average citizens in developing countries. And Yes, we must ban fur! His priorities are clear.

To MulletProof - there was a good article on WSJ about San Fran's homeless problems. (which is probably no different from LA's issues.) It's not housing. It's drugs. From what I learned, although Portugal decriminalized usage of drugs, it didn't decriminalize dealing drugs. CA in practice stopped prosecuting drug dealers hence situation gets worse and worse. (There are other factors too and feel free to look up that article.)

This is political and perhaps too far away from fur, but election has consequences. If CA residents collectively want to ban fur and don't mind homeless issues, then Newsom is the guy and they should all lock arms and stop using fur. People prefer different lifestyles can simply move. There are 50 states in America, and there will be one for you

To me, I file it under "not my business" category.

 

[Benn98]

The California Fur Ban and What It Means for You

Is this the beginning of the end of the mink coat? Here’s what you need to know.

By Vanessa Friedman
Oct. 14, 2019

So California has become the first state to ban fur. This sounds draconian. What does that actually mean?

It is true that on Friday the state’s governor, Gavin Newsom, signed AB44 into law, which bans sales of new clothing and accessories (handbags, shoes, pompoms, key chains, you know) made of fur. But that does not mean that California is saying sayonara to all fur.

For the purpose of the law, fur is defined as “animal skin or part thereof with hair, fleece or fur fibers attached thereto.” For the purposes of shoppers, that means mink, sable, chinchilla, lynx, fox, rabbit, beaver, coyote and other luxury furs.

Exceptions have been made for cowhide, deerskin, sheepskin and goatskin. Which means that shearling is totally fine. Exceptions have also been made for religious observances (shtreimels, the fur hats often worn by Hasidic Jews, can continue to be sold) and other traditional or cultural purposes.

Los Angeles, San Francisco and Berkeley. A variety of countries have banned fur farming, including Serbia, Luxembourg, Belgium, Norway, Germany and the Czech Republic. And similar bills banning fur sales have been introduced in New York City and Hawaii, though they have yet to become law.

Really? New York City could be next?

A bill was proposed in New York last March by the City Council speaker Corey Johnson, but since then conversation has gone pretty quiet. It is fair to say, though, that the momentum is with the movement.

“haute fourrure” fashion shows once a year during couture. (Fendi did not respond to requests for comment on the ban.)

Still, all of this just-say-no-to-fur is not quite the sacrifice it sounds, since for many brands fur makes up a very small percentage of sales (at Coach, for example, fur accounted for less than 1 percent of its business). In California, it was an especially tiny percentage.

This is true for department stores, too. Saks does not even have a dedicated fur salon in its California stores. On the other hand, fur is still popular in Miami. Cameron Silver of the vintage store Decades said in an email that while there was “a waning interest” in fur in California, “preloved fur pieces” tend to be the first to sell at trunk shows across the country.

“I was just in Chattanooga, and on a 99-degree day two 1980s-era fur jackets sold within minutes,” he said. So geography does play a role.

Why is all this happening now?

The anti-fur movement has been growing for a while, but between the general conversation about the climate crisis, a raft of books like “Eating Animals,” by Jonathan Safran Foer, and the sense that fur feels very last century, and contrary to millennial value systems, consumer sentiment has begun to swing against it. And whither consumers, so, too, those that sell to them.

Fur Information Council of America, and accounting for more than 32,000 full-time jobs — to the fact that many of the fake alternatives are made from petroleum and other plastic-based synthetics and are generally regarded as entirely disposable, which means they end up in landfill, which means fake fur is probably worse for the environment than real fur, which is almost never thrown away.

African-Americans and Hasidic Jews, see fur as an important part of their cultural heritage, one on which lawmakers should not be permitted to impose their own voter-pandering morality.

What happens next?

Retailers are gaming out all sorts of possible scenarios. PETA is currently lobbying — with some success (see: ASOS) — to ban the use of cashmere, silk, down and feathers. As a result, there have been a lot of doomsday scenarios floated about the slippery slope we are poised to tumble down.

Keith Kaplan, of the Fur Information Council of America (F.I.C.), issued the following statement after the California news broke: “This issue is about much more than animal welfare in the fur industry. It is about the end of animal use of any kind. Fur today, leather tomorrow, your wool blankets and silk sheets — and meat after that.”

Scary! Not surprisingly, the F.I.C. has said it will challenge the fur ban in the courts.

In other words, this is not the last we’ve heard of this fight.

Nope.

New York Times

 

[dior_couture1245]

Keith Kaplan is correct. It’s fur today, but leather, silk, cashmere, wool, and meat will all eventually face the chopping block (no pun intended).

For example, I surely can’t be the only one who’s noticed a spike in media pushing Impossible Burgers and a strange fad of edible insects as protein alternatives to meat....they’re planting seeds in the collective consciousness that meat is unnecessary.

PETA and the likes work very hard to shift the Overton window of public opinion. They’ve been slandering fur for a long time now. Now that they’ve finally made legal headway on fur, don’t think they’re not going to begin working on and lobbying for another animal product to be banned. And they will use the same manipulative emotional tactics to normalize their intent and get the public on board...everyone will fall for it and say “I guess we don’t need it anymore, it’s not modern!” They’ll gladly throw up their hands and give it all away. It may sound alarmist of me, but if you asked anyone from the 60’s or 70’s or even 80’s if fur should be banned they would have thought you were crazy. That’s how we lose these things.

Then we’ll all wake up one day wearing plastic Stella McCartney shoes, synthetic uniforms and eating bugs. And for what? To make a pig happy?

 

[Benn98]

For example, I surely can’t be the only one who’s noticed a spike in media pushing Impossible Burgers and a strange fad of edible insects as protein alternatives to meat....they’re planting seeds in the collective consciousness that meat is unnecessary.

They'll never touch my bangers and bacon!
It's one thing to ban fur, but meat is a necessity for most. I never trust the quack 'medical experts' (looking at you, New Scientist and BBC Focus), who say consuming meat is bad for you - as blanket a statement as I'm putting it here.
I can't speak for Impossible Burger, but I went to a media event and had a tête-à-tête with a bigwig at the UK arm of Beyond Burger when they launched, and he explained that while the target market was almost exclusively meat-eaters, the idea isn't to convert us fully to a plant-based diet. It was just to encourage us to ditch meat maybe once or twice a week which would slow down the demand for meat and positively impact greenhouse gas emissions - which is a global warming accelerator. Who eats meat daily anyway?
Sadly the burger itself taste's like a poor man's version of a McDonald's burger. Blatantly manufactured and tasteless, despite the hyped 'oh, but it bleeds just like meat, only it's beetroot.' If the product was more solid, I'd not have minded, but it's not.

 

[MulletProof]

Ok I can speak for the Impossible burger: it is soooo good [drool emoji]. I’ve tried and made many veggie burgers over the years and this one really nailed it. It tastes the same as meat, but without the little white/pink dots of real meat thank god. I wish I could make it myself. I loved it that much I really asked myself, what are you doing? quit meat already or at least have your first meat-free Christmas . But I haven’t and you know why? not eating octopus again in whatever years I have left in this physical realm called life is just so sad... then again animals have a shorter lifespan, their existence shouldn’t revolve around being in our plate either.

But yeah I agree that at least reducing your intake helps a lot.

And yes dior, I think it’s about slowly graduating.. the good news is that it’s not going to happen in our generation (thanks to people like you and me and our ‘don’t take my TV away!’ lol) or even the next two ones but I think our grandchildren will be more than okay in just dropping animal products and fur will be just a thing of the past that they’ll laugh at (kind of like the long cigarettes from way back, or smoking inside - FYI, I’d personally focus on banning cigarettes/juul/weed/morning breath in public.. anything fume-ish and effin’ invasive, $2,500 fine and get out of my face thanks!).

 

[dior_couture1245]

^^But I’m still waiting on a convincing argument as to why it’s a good thing to eliminate all animal products in the first place. Aside from it just being a progressive vanity project...of which once it’s all been banned, they’ll find another aspect of life which must be eliminated for the new cause of the day.

I have been seriously considering moving out of California...I am getting a bit tired of being a middle classer harassed by the bureaucracy, while, as I mentioned, the city turns to rot.

 

[MulletProof]

^ I say don’t waste your time waiting, you’ll never hear that argument because frankly, all arguments are never going to be good enough for you. Maybe it’s about experiencing.. rather than listening waiting to be convinced.

The bottom line for me is that it causes suffering, often in a pretty brutal way, that’s the one thing that doesn’t sit well with me. I still cannot conciliate how I enjoy something when I have heard how a pig cries when being killed and when I know about the conditions they live in.. when we don’t really need to eat them anymore (argument no. 2 for me). It’s such a simple thing to understand really. What’s not easy to understand is my own reluctance to quit it all for good.. I know it has to do with habit and upbringing.. but if it all became illegal, I also know I’d still be gaining the same pleasure I get both from eating and from dressing.. it’s never been only about animal products for me, not fashion (not even its ‘luxury’ subcategory) and [recent discovery] not food either.

 

[Caffeine]

cashmere, silk, down and feathers..
guess we'll all have to wear polyester?! eeeew!

 

[Benn98]

In California, Beauty Is Now Cruelty-Free

The legislation, which makes it unlawful for a manufacturer to import for profit or sell any cosmetic that was developed using animal testing, came into effect at the start of the new year.

By Ryma Chikhoune on January 9, 2020

California leads in taking major steps in cruelty-free beauty. On Jan. 1, the California Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act, which bans stores from selling cosmetics tested on animals, was enacted.

Though a number of foreign countries had banned the practice, including the European Union in 2013, the initiative marks the first U.S. state to do so. Signed by former Gov. Jerry Brown in 2018, the legislation was authored by Sen. Cathleen Galgiani and endorsed by more than 6,500 individuals, as well as 150 cosmetic companies.

“It states that everything that’s on the shelves, anything new that comes to market shall be cruelty free,” said Judie Mancuso, founder and president of the Social Compassion in Legislation, which advocates for the welfare of animals. The organization, which brought the bill to Galgiani, was a sponsor alongside the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a nonprofit whose mission is to “save and improve” human and animal lives through plant-based diets and ethical research.

The legislation makes it unlawful for a manufacturer to “import for profit or sell” any cosmetic — makeup, skin care, body care and hair care — that was developed using animal testing on or after Jan. 1. A violation of the law is punishable by an initial fine of $5,000, followed by $1,000 a day. There are exceptions to the law that include animal tests required by domestic and international government agencies.

“They are very narrow exceptions,” Mancuso said. “And Nevada and Illinois have followed suit.” The California law has inspired comparable legislation with Nevada’s Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act, followed by a similar bill in Illinois, both signed in 2019 and also coming into effect on Jan. 1. “And now, we are discussing enforcement.”

WWD