Wearing Fur

[dawbs]

This is an honest question, so please don't flame me.  I'm not trying to be sarcastic or snarky, I would really like to know the answer to this.

What is it about fur that makes it so much more offensive to many people than meat or leather? 

I have never heard of animal rights activists throwing red paint over people's leather shoes or staking out the opening of a new McDonalds.  If it is the killing of animals the activists object to, the meat and leather industries are a far more logical target, with a death toll in the tens of millions rather than thousands like the fur industry.  I also understand that fur-producing animals are farmed, rather than taken from the wild.

I repeat; I understand that some people have intense moral objections to fur and I respect their beliefs.  I am just interested to learn the reasons behind them.

In my experience, most people who take issue with fur also take issue with leather and meat and the like.
In my opinion, the focus on fur is 2 fold (my apologies if I'm butchering someone else's argument...I have to confess, I hunt, I eat meat, and I"m not completely objective here) :

1-fur = easier target.  If I'm going to throw red paint (btw, I'm not inclined to  ) I'm more likely to aim for the lady wearing fur than I am to aim for the biker wearing leather.

2-fur = no other uses for the animal.  Some people feel that if an animal must die (for meat, for disease, for any reason) we should make use of it.  Animals used for fur are killed for their pelts and often very little uses is made of the rest of the animal (the remainder of the carcass is discarded), so it can seen as more of a "senseless killing just for the fur".
(whereas butchering a cow leads to meat, leather, etc. the carcass isn't wasted, the death serves more of a 'purpose')

(the fact that it has made the news (again) that animals westerners think of as pets (like dogs and cats) are often used for fur does add another element as well)

[leaf_eater]

This is an honest question, so please don't flame me.  I'm not trying to be sarcastic or snarky, I would really like to know the answer to this.

What is it about fur that makes it so much more offensive to many people than meat or leather? 

I think the activists assume that the general public will be more open to an anti-fur message since fur is a luxury item (in non-indigenous cultures). It's also a manageable issue whereas taking on the meat or or leather industries would be very difficult and time consuming. Of course, some activists do take on those industries, there is clearly enough animal mistreatment and abuse to occupy all activists and compassionate people.

Some people will say there are reasons of jealousy or sexism or hypocrisy but it has not been my experience - as a vegan of nearly 20 years - that this is the case. Class, however, may be an issue and is related to the luxury item point I made above, fur is basically an item for the wealthy (however relative that wealth may be) and in theory, most people, who are not wealthy, would not identify with the wealthy. In fact, I've read some things lately that imply that many Americans identify with the possibility of acquiring wealth so this may not hold true.

[leaf_eater]

There *is* a way to evangalize properly, be it religion, politics, or saving the spotted owl.  Annoying people ain't it.

One wonders if the Suffragettes and the Civil Rights movement (not to mention the Boston Tea Party) would have gotten anywhere had they been concerned with not annoying people.

You are correct.  The suffragettes most certainly did annoy people and were accused of a lot of nasty things.

However, I think that there is a difference between picking on private individuals verses working on long-term change.  There is nothing wrong, for example, with peaceful protests, writing one's elected officials and trying to educate the public.  Yet targeting private individuals-complete strangers- for personal choices is not the best approach.  Accusing complete strangers of murder such as the jerk in the OP's original post or other nasty things is not the best approach for convincing other people to embrace one's cause.   

My point was that actions that may once have been perceived as rude or annoying are now generally accepted as having been necessary to foment social change and progress. Just last night I watched a heart wrenching documentary, The Untold Story of Emmett Louis Till and there were clips of racists saying that some people were making a big deal out of the murder of this 14 year old for allegedly whistling at a white woman (in 1955 Mississippi) and they should just mind own their own business. They felt threatened and personally attacked because the status quo was being disrupted.

[cheyne]

Well, most fur-bearing animals that are used for coats do not taste good, have enough skin for leather, or are pet animals.  Basically mink, coyote, beaver, sable ect.. are only used for their fur. 

If someone throws paint on another person for any reason, I do believe they are guilty of assault.  They should also have to re-imburse the cost of the coat to the person they threw paint on.

This is not an etiquette issue.  Of course it is rude for anyone to harass another person for what they are wearing, (much less actually destroy the item by throwing paint on it).

[kingsrings]

There *is* a way to evangalize properly, be it religion, politics, or saving the spotted owl.  Annoying people ain't it.

One wonders if the Suffragettes and the Civil Rights movement (not to mention the Boston Tea Party) would have gotten anywhere had they been concerned with not annoying people.

You are correct.  The suffragettes most certainly did annoy people and were accused of a lot of nasty things.

However, I think that there is a difference between picking on private individuals verses working on long-term change.  There is nothing wrong, for example, with peaceful protests, writing one's elected officials and trying to educate the public.  Yet targeting private individuals-complete strangers- for personal choices is not the best approach.  Accusing complete strangers of murder such as the jerk in the OP's original post or other nasty things is not the best approach for convincing other people to embrace one's cause.   

My point was that actions that may once have been perceived as rude or annoying are now generally accepted as having been necessary to foment social change and progress. Just last night I watched a heart wrenching documentary, The Untold Story of Emmett Louis Till and there were clips of racists saying that some people were making a big deal out of the murder of this 14 year old for allegedly whistling at a white woman (in 1955 Mississippi) and they should just mind own their own business. They felt threatened and personally attacked because the status quo was being disrupted.

You keep mentioning those situations, but they are completey the polar opposite of the issues that this thread is about.

[MsEva]

Harassing someone about their choice of clothing is rude. If it isn't illegal then there isn't much one can do about it. I personally wouldn't buy fur anymore, but I do own one that I love to wear and it probably would have died of natural causes long before I was born anyway. If anyone was rude enough to tell me off about wearing it I would give them an earful too. I know where my food and my clothes come from and I really don't have a problem with any of it. I expect that my choices be respected.

[gjcva1]

This is an honest question, so please don't flame me.  I'm not trying to be sarcastic or snarky, I would really like to know the answer to this.

What is it about fur that makes it so much more offensive to many people than meat or leather? 

I think the activists assume that the general public will be more open to an anti-fur message since fur is a luxury item (in non-indigenous cultures). It's also a manageable issue whereas taking on the meat or or leather industries would be very difficult and time consuming. Of course, some activists do take on those industries, there is clearly enough animal mistreatment and abuse to occupy all activists and compassionate people.

Some people will say there are reasons of jealousy or sexism or hypocrisy but it has not been my experience - as a vegan of nearly 20 years - that this is the case. Class, however, may be an issue and is related to the luxury item point I made above, fur is basically an item for the wealthy (however relative that wealth may be) and in theory, most people, who are not wealthy, would not identify with the wealthy. In fact, I've read some things lately that imply that many Americans identify with the possibility of acquiring wealth so this may not hold true.

wow, i have a fur coat.  wait until i tell my husband that we are wealthy, it will be a great shock to him!

it doesn't matter if i belong to PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals) or you belong to PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals).  the point is, we are all allowed our own political/environmental/health opinions.  you are a vegan.  i applaud you. i am not. i expect the same level of respect that i have given you.

and if anyone comes at me with a can of paint on the very rare events that i wear said fur coat, i'm taking a picture of you and i WILL sue you for assault, and make you pay to replace the coat that you damaged that you hate so much!

by the way, the you in this statement is NOT directed at leafeater.  it was a generic "you".

[leaf_eater]

There *is* a way to evangalize properly, be it religion, politics, or saving the spotted owl.  Annoying people ain't it.

One wonders if the Suffragettes and the Civil Rights movement (not to mention the Boston Tea Party) would have gotten anywhere had they been concerned with not annoying people.

You are correct.  The suffragettes most certainly did annoy people and were accused of a lot of nasty things.

However, I think that there is a difference between picking on private individuals verses working on long-term change.  There is nothing wrong, for example, with peaceful protests, writing one's elected officials and trying to educate the public.  Yet targeting private individuals-complete strangers- for personal choices is not the best approach.  Accusing complete strangers of murder such as the jerk in the OP's original post or other nasty things is not the best approach for convincing other people to embrace one's cause.   

My point was that actions that may once have been perceived as rude or annoying are now generally accepted as having been necessary to foment social change and progress. Just last night I watched a heart wrenching documentary, The Untold Story of Emmett Louis Till and there were clips of racists saying that some people were making a big deal out of the murder of this 14 year old for allegedly whistling at a white woman (in 1955 Mississippi) and they should just mind own their own business. They felt threatened and personally attacked because the status quo was being disrupted.

You keep mentioning those situations, but they are completey the polar opposite of the issues that this thread is about.

How so? I see this as an issue of people being rude, violating both etiquette and social norms, in order to call attention to an issue they feel very strongly about. And I was putting such protest into historical perspective.

[gjcva1]

There *is* a way to evangalize properly, be it religion, politics, or saving the spotted owl.  Annoying people ain't it.

One wonders if the Suffragettes and the Civil Rights movement (not to mention the Boston Tea Party) would have gotten anywhere had they been concerned with not annoying people.

You are correct.  The suffragettes most certainly did annoy people and were accused of a lot of nasty things.

However, I think that there is a difference between picking on private individuals verses working on long-term change.  There is nothing wrong, for example, with peaceful protests, writing one's elected officials and trying to educate the public.  Yet targeting private individuals-complete strangers- for personal choices is not the best approach.  Accusing complete strangers of murder such as the jerk in the OP's original post or other nasty things is not the best approach for convincing other people to embrace one's cause.   

My point was that actions that may once have been perceived as rude or annoying are now generally accepted as having been necessary to foment social change and progress. Just last night I watched a heart wrenching documentary, The Untold Story of Emmett Louis Till and there were clips of racists saying that some people were making a big deal out of the murder of this 14 year old for allegedly whistling at a white woman (in 1955 Mississippi) and they should just mind own their own business. They felt threatened and personally attacked because the status quo was being disrupted.

You keep mentioning those situations, but they are completey the polar opposite of the issues that this thread is about.

How so? I see this as an issue of people being rude, violating both etiquette and social norms, in order to call attention to an issue they feel very strongly about. And I was putting such protest into historical perspective.

kings rings can certainly speak for herself, but when i read the messages above, they have nothing to do with etiquette, which is the thrust of THIS forum, and scream civil disobedience and social justice.  nothing wrong with that, just not appropriate to THIS forum.  historical perspective is just peachy keen.  but this ain't the place for this discussion.

[MadMadge43]

WOW! I've been out of town!

There have been some really great discussion on both sides. I understand not saying anything if it doesn't effect you, that is politeness. But many people feel that the decisions others make DO effect them, and that's when they open up their mouths.

Unfortunately there are many things people do that bother me, and many things they do that bother other people. My grandmother was a sufferagette (sp?) and I have always felt if she didn't open her mouth I might still be stuck at home. Just as I'm sure blacks feel if they had been "polite" they would still be working only as field laborers and other menial tasks. So I'm pretty sure animal rights activists feel the same way, if they can make their voice heard and maybe humiliate people into doing things their way ideals will change. It's happened before and usually only for good.

Seriously, how many of you have no problem asking somebody to put a cigarrette out or making scene of you get an little bit of smoke on you? Years ago, that would have been considered the height of rudeness to suggest they were bothering you. So why is it so different to realize that the needless farming and killing of animals would bother someone? Or that shopping at WalMart effects your taxes because they don't pay insurance and everytime you shop there your governmental money goes to waste, or having an abortion is murder and God wouldn't like that and you'll burn in hell unless you personally stop it? I may or may not agree with any of these statement, but this is how some see it.

So I guess I don't think it's wrong to open your mouth. But harrassing someone like the the OP was talking about, needed a discreet call to the police to let them know you might be in danger.

[goblue2539]

Unfortunately there are many things people do that bother me, and many things they do that bother other people. My grandmother was a sufferagette (sp?) and I have always felt if she didn't open her mouth I might still be stuck at home. Just as I'm sure blacks feel if they had been "polite" they would still be working only as field laborers and other menial tasks. So I'm pretty sure animal rights activists feel the same way, if they can make their voice heard and maybe humiliate people into doing things their way ideals will change. It's happened before and usually only for good.

I may be way off base, but I think the difference is that neither your grandmother or MLK Jr. had to attack one individual person to make changes.  They had to unite others, make reasoned arguments, and try to change the system legally before resorting to illegal measures.  And even the illegal measures they chose were usually designed to not injure others. 

Ultimately, people in society do sometimes have to be "rude" to make changes to that society.  But, most have learned that attacking each and every individual who disagrees one on one is unproductive at best. 

[leaf_eater]

There *is* a way to evangalize properly, be it religion, politics, or saving the spotted owl.  Annoying people ain't it.

One wonders if the Suffragettes and the Civil Rights movement (not to mention the Boston Tea Party) would have gotten anywhere had they been concerned with not annoying people.

You are correct.  The suffragettes most certainly did annoy people and were accused of a lot of nasty things.

However, I think that there is a difference between picking on private individuals verses working on long-term change.  There is nothing wrong, for example, with peaceful protests, writing one's elected officials and trying to educate the public.  Yet targeting private individuals-complete strangers- for personal choices is not the best approach.  Accusing complete strangers of murder such as the jerk in the OP's original post or other nasty things is not the best approach for convincing other people to embrace one's cause.   

My point was that actions that may once have been perceived as rude or annoying are now generally accepted as having been necessary to foment social change and progress. Just last night I watched a heart wrenching documentary, The Untold Story of Emmett Louis Till and there were clips of racists saying that some people were making a big deal out of the murder of this 14 year old for allegedly whistling at a white woman (in 1955 Mississippi) and they should just mind own their own business. They felt threatened and personally attacked because the status quo was being disrupted.

You keep mentioning those situations, but they are completey the polar opposite of the issues that this thread is about.

How so? I see this as an issue of people being rude, violating both etiquette and social norms, in order to call attention to an issue they feel very strongly about. And I was putting such protest into historical perspective.

kings rings can certainly speak for herself, but when i read the messages above, they have nothing to do with etiquette, which is the thrust of THIS forum, and scream civil disobedience and social justice.  nothing wrong with that, just not appropriate to THIS forum.  historical perspective is just peachy keen.  but this ain't the place for this discussion.

I disagree and I believe I have remained on topic - etiquette and when it is or is not appropriate to violate it - in my responses.

[MadMadge43]

Ultimately, people in society do sometimes have to be "rude" to make changes to that society.  But, most have learned that attacking each and every individual who disagrees one on one is unproductive at best.

You may have noticed that I felt they should have called the cops the moment he started harrassing them and following them around. So I do not think physical threats towards people are ever appropriate.

But I will stand by that sometimes it is necessary to be rude or break normal social contracts to make appropriate changes.

[Pixie]

Sorry, for bumping this old thread, but I just had to share this with y'all.    After doing laundry and cleaning closets, I realized every coat I own is a fur coat..... every piece of clothing I own is covered in cat hair! I've been wearing fur all these years and never realized it!   

Sorry, I was laughing at myself, and I hope someone else gets a small chuckle out of it!

[MineralDiva]

LOL  That's cute, Pixie!  Now that you mention it, I've had that very same issue for years!  Well before I ever brought the "standard" version of a fur coat home!

I often look at some of my seaters, coats, whatever other clothing...and think "geez!  This thing picks up everything but men and money!"  LOL