Our latest dumb subway rider seems innocent enough. She's keeping to herself, not taking up more space than she needs, not spitting all over the floor. So what's the problem?Well, in her haste to get to work on time, it seems she left all morals and ethics at the door and picked up this hideous coat of 55 dead minks instead.
If this woman was elderly or was a time traveler from pre-historic times, I could shrug it off and tell myself she doesn't know any better. But she's not old. And she's not a time traveler. She seems able minded enough to know the difference between right and wrong. She seems like she would have the knowledge and common sense that would deter most people from wearing fur. Surely she understands the pain and misery the fur industry puts millions of animals through each year, all for the sake of "fashion." Animals that are intelligent, social, and most importantly, SENTIENT.
It's one thing to see some oblivious tourist strutting through Soho with their coat of ignorance, but to be forced to confront it on your ride home for half an hour is really frustrating. You begin to wonder why someone like this is on a commuter train to begin with. Where does someone like this find employment? What reason and rational thinking skills is she using during her workday that she is completely abandoning when she shops for clothes?
I don't know, maybe it's not that big of a deal. Maybe we should all desert our morals when it comes to clothing. I have been wanting to try out my new Darfur children-skin boots.
13 comments:
I'm all for animal rights but comparing skinned children boots to a mink fur really shows that this blog is about preaching to the converted. Fur is popular among Russians many of whom grew up in areas where fur was the warmest available material and many of whose diaspora ride the q train. You may want to consider cultural sensitivity training before continuing your assault on fellow q train riders. Everyone deserves privacy.
I would go after the wealthy who wear fur not working class folk that live in Brighton Beach.
Anonymous, from my understanding of your comment, you are suggesting that it's okay to wear a fur coat if your mother or grandmother owned one and handed it down to you. It's not. In fact, if we trace ethics and morality back in time, it's probably pretty safe to assume that the animals that were tortured and killed to make an older coat were subject to far more gruesome deaths than animals found in today's fur industry. Under your thinking, our current understanding of right and wrong should be abandoned for tradition's sake. This is a dangerous rationale. This is the line of thinking that allowed slavery to flourish for so long.
Also, cultural sensitivity training? Really? As if cultural differences excuse outrageous abuses that have been documented for dozens of years? Are you the kind of person who argues that Muslim "honor killings" should not be weighed on the same ethical scale Americans use? To paraphrase Sam Harris, not acknowledging the cruelties of the fur industry is not simply a different style of ethics, it is a failure of ethics.
I specifically gave a pass to time travelers and old people for not knowing how serious the abuses in the fur industry really are. This woman, however, is on a commuter train into Manhattan. She's not "fresh off the boat" from Siberia. Her failure of ethics cannot be excused by her ancestral roots. When she wears that coat, she's delivering a message. That message being "Fuck Ethics."
No matter where the person hails from, anyone who wears fur or supports the fur industry could also benefit from some sensitivity training. Were they, and you, too, Anonymous, to research how fur coats are made, they probably wouldn't want to be a part of an industry that electrocutes, strangles, stomps and skins alive rabbits, foxes and minks. The cruelty in the fur industry is beyond anything we could imagine, and the animals that become coats like the one the woman in the picture is wearing often live their short lives in small cages, crowded with other animals. Tradition or the popularity of a fashion is not enough to justify the suffering of these animals, and I would encourage you to learn more about the fur industry at furisdead.com.
I appreciate your belief that "everyone deserves privacy." I believe I deserve a commute to work in which I'm not confronted with 55 dead animals. Unfortunately for all of us, we can't always get we want.
I agree that this blog is about preaching to the converted (not that there's anything wrong with that!) I also agree that this woman may not have an excuse for her ignorance.
However, I am not sure about whether it is alright to wear fur that has been passed down from your grandmother. If you yourself did not purchase the fur, and if its purchase was decades ago, you are not financially supporting the industry just by wearing it. Of course, if the mere sight of a fur coat turns your stomach, then you'd want nothing to do with the antique.
Another question in this vein is do we destroy antique ivory? If we are not morally allowed to use it, destruction is the only course, and that just seems a waste. Would you refuse to play a 100 year old piano because its keys were made of ivory?
If you want to go that far (and you brought up slavery), the White House was built by slaves. Should it be destroyed? This seems to be the same logic as forsaking an heir loomed fur coat.
What I'm trying to get at is that I have trouble reconciling how using relics from the past is an endorsement of continuing those cruel and inhumane practices.
Regular readers will know that this blog is less of a soapbox and more a place for neighborhood news and restaurant reviews from a vegan's perspective.
While you may not be financially supporting the fur industry by wearing a hand-me-down coat, you are still supporting that industry by sending the message that wearing fur is perfectly acceptable. I wouldn't wear a jacket with a huge Confederate flag on it just because my grandmother passed it down to me. That's not a message I want to support or reinforce. And we should not destroy the White House because the White House is not a symbol that represents slavery or constantly reminds people of slavery.
People who already have fur coats don't have to throw them away and waste them. They can donate their coats (and stoles and vests) to organizations like the Humane Society’s Coats for Cubs (http://www.hsus.org/furfree/campaigns/c4c), which uses donated furs to comfort and keep warm orphaned and injured wildlife. The fur becomes something useful and also stops broadcasting the message that animal skin is fashionable.
I still feel that living in a home that was built by slaves is analogous to wearing fur as a statement that the practice is acceptable.
The confederate flag has political connotations that fur does not. And it is true that in some locales fur is the warmest clothing item available. Are exemptions made for the indigenous peoples such as the Inuit?
Of course they are. Does this lady look like an Inuit to you?
Well, I already said that there doesn't seem to be an excuse for her ignorance. But your only exemptions stated were for "time travelers and old people for not knowing how serious the abuses in the fur industry really are." I was just pointing out that it isn't that black and white. There is a cultural element.
Not everyone believes that animals possess the same sort of ethical status as human beings. I'm more inclined to agree with you, Patrick, that wearing fur is wrong. I find it repugnant to be honest. But I know intelligent, thoughtful people who disagree with me and who have plenty of arguments to offer in the defense of our "right" to use animals for coats, food, etc. I think that what traction their arguments have derive from our having only a very shaky understanding of the foundations of ethics in general. Still, I guess my point is that it does no good to pretend as though the people who wear fur or disagree with you are stupid, evil or insensitive. They might simply be wrong, and I suppose we have to at least allow for the logical possibility that some of them are right.
Let's put aside the discussion about whether or not animals have the same ethical status as human beings. Science has proven that they are sentient creatures that feel pain, fear, boredom, etc, so it would never be "right" to put them in a state of constant pain or fear.
Food is a different issue. If you want to argue that it's okay to eat an animal who has had a happy, healthy life living on a big, open farm (this rarely happens), that's one thing. You don't need meat to survive, but whatever. The meat industry has passed that idea along for centuries, so I understand that it may be hard to break away from. Fur, on the other hand, is completely different when you're talking about its uses in modern society. Trim on boots and coats? And fur hats? These are not things we need in New York City. So anyone who thinks it is okay to put sentient animals through the abuses of the fur industry all in the name of "fashion" just proves that they don't know the facts.
All any ethical person needs to do is see pictures or video from a typical fur farm to realize something's not quite right there.
I appreciate your comment, Anonymous, but people who support abusing animals for vanity's sake can not be considered "thoughtful."
"Science has proven that they are sentient creatures that feel pain, fear, boredom, etc"
Not sure what it could mean to say that science has "proven" this. It seems akin to saying that science has proven that I have a nose on my face. The fact is, only someone in the grip of extreme skepticism about other minds could doubt that animals are sentient, and it's not the job of science to answer such skepticism.
Hilarious. The photo, that is. She's obviously quite cozy lined in animal fur, but it's just not that cold here, is it? But maybe this is the only coat she owns. I'm not here to join in the previous discussion - just discovered this blog as a Ditmas newcomer and ridiculously excited about the neighborhood. Here's mine - http://theroux.typepad.com - there are a couple recent posts talking about our move. Nice to be here!
Great blog! I love it... posting photos of fur-hags like that. What a great idea; more people should do it.. then maybe people would start to get a clue that "hey, maybe I shouldn't buy a stupid fur coat."
Keep it up!
~Dave from Concord
I just wish I was sitting next too her, id be chatting her up in no time. She looks beautiful and classy in that coat. I wouldnt have any problem in cuddling up too her and just hoping the train breaks down so I have longer with her :).
Post a Comment