Change in attitudes?

[Foxglove]

I finally got the chance to watch last weeks "Hotel Babylon" and it was good to see Joan Collins draped in fox once again.

 

One thing I noticed is that at no point in the story was ANY reference made to her furs. Absolutely nothing, not even from the pert little receptionist with the attitude problem.

 

Over the past few years, whenever a British program included a scene with either real or fake fur, one of the characters would tend to say "I hope that isn't real fur" or something similar.

 

The absence of this in a recent production like Hotel Babylon suggests that the media may be going off the idea of knocking fur-wearing at every opportunity. Perhaps they are coming round to the idea that, once again, furs are a normal and desirable part of life associated with glamour and wealth.

 

This may be wishful thinking based on just one example and I could be reading between the lines too much here but it would be interesting to hear if anyone else has noticed the same sort of thing in their TV viewing anywhere in the world.

[Earendil]

The line "I hope thats not real fur" - or the general comment towards real fur is so used-to-death in media that any serious show stating such a line will psychologically throw themselves into a b-series state of acting in conversation.

 

I think that may have a lot to do with it, but hey - I'm not complaining.

 

Besides, telling Joan Collins that fur is bad, is like telling Solomon that money is bad. It just doesn't work.

[auzmink]

Anyone notice the new M+S ads in the UK advising everyone how they care for animals and won't stock fur! Oh well, haven't used M+S for years and don't propose to start.

 

Ah the uninformed 'masses'!!

[Guest]

I'll never understand why anyone would ever hope something wasn't real fur!

[Guest]

Anyone notice the new M+S ads in the UK advising everyone how they care for animals and won't stock fur!

 

I dont think M&S has ever stocked fur, so it's no great loss. I might be wrong, maybe the Marble Arch store carries them. Even if they were to stock fur items it doubt would be more than rabbit trims or whole jackets, maybe a trimmed scarf or gloves.

 

Although it would be fun to see what the average Per Una shopper would make of a rack of sables.

 

They'de be better off advertising the fact that they support third world economies and profits over home made goods, although to be fair ethically they're pretty sound.

 

 

Tryxie

[Guest]

I do think they are ethical to appeal to their middle class petit bourgeois clientelle though Tryxie....caring sells (and at a higher price)

 

They were stocking fur incidentally in selected shops about 6 years ago (mainly lamb/shearling but some other trims) and certainly about 25 years ago also.

 

On food stuff they are the same...yes they stock some ethical stuff, and pretend to support British farming. However they also stock an amazing array of coffee, palm oil products, and African grown western vegetables

which are all a massive threat to African wildlife. Ppeople in the marketing and PR office know that but don't care as they think the general public are unable to abstract the link between intensive arble farming/plantation and habitat destruction on a massive scale.

 

Lets be honest about this.

Elephants survived thousands of years of ivory trade.

Leopards survived thousands of years of fur trade.

 

If you make your living from animals, you have a self interest in protecting their habitats and allowing them to thrive.

 

Elephants are being exterminated in huge numbers as they threaten crops.

Leopards are being exterminated in their thousands because they threaten plantation workers (particularly coffee which has displaced their traditional prey so they are indeed turning man eater because theres nothing else)

 

Fair Trade is a euphamism for mass extinction the like of which we have never seen.

 

Because it suits everybody to make Africa an source of cheap labour , huge natural resources and at the same time pay lip service to preventing famine, everything is hunky dory.

 

This has to stop.

 

At least groups like the WWF are beginning to question this whole thing but they may be too late. Some conservation groups are calling for the return of big game hunting(and the WWF have introduced it in some areas to hugely succesful recovery of animal stocks) and ivory "harvesting" which doesnt involve killing the animals but rather darting and cutting(the ivory grows back really quickly).

 

So ironically I think "ethical" produce can be profoundly unethical.

 

I also think many of Africa's problems are to do with moving from a fundamentally animal based economy to a resources exploitation and land development one.

 

Marks and Spencers care because caring sells. Because I cant believe they are that unsophisticated that they cant see coffee spells death for great apes and leopards.

 

As for attitudes changing towards fur, I think that people who are more sophisticated, and without an agenda, are sick of the way the fur industry have been treated. So yes...slowly, it is changing. If you go to a modern country like those in Scandinavia, you can see immediately how the fur industry protects vast areas of wilderness.....let alone Siberia and Canada

who are the other big fur producers who still have 2/3 of the forest on the planet between them. Its clear to anyone with a brain that the two go hand in hand. We can reverse the damge done by PETA and Greenpeace and its allies in global industry....but we have to pounce on the bleating sheep every chance we get.

 

Sorry about the rant. Ask the Masai or the pygmies what they think of fair trade and plantations.

[Mr Barguzin]

"Lets be honest about this.

Elephants survived thousands of years of ivory trade.

Leopards survived thousands of years of fur trade. "

 

Yes and no..... Their evolution halted, but man's and man's ability to kill maim and destroy has continued and continues to evolve. (spears V High calibre rifles)

 

Then again, this is from a bloke who has told a Jew that there have been and no doubt will be in the future times when I have thought the best way to end the Israel/Palistine argument was to drop aa A-bomb over the centre of Jerusalem.

 

And do I see a bit of "AbFab" in M&S's marketing tactics?

 

As for the fur question.... There will always be those who try and impose their views on others. We wouldn't be "the human race' if that were not a fact of life. It is what happens after the expressing of those views that is the determinate. As can be seen, youngsters are wearing more fur, albeit in just trims and hats... and want to experience furs. Animal rights groups are being seen for what they are: Marginalised opportunists, who lack the gumption and reinforce thier ineptitude by always falling back on the misguided thought that animals actually can conceptualise ideas, thought and philosophy.

 

Back to the initial quote: when mankind was first upon this planet, he killed for survival. Current "uncivilised" peoples would love nothing better than to return to that way of life, but are prevented by the narrowmindedness of a few petty self righteous individuals who claim the high morale ground and the mindless peons who fall in behind them because they have failed to utilise their own mind and thought processes. It is also a throwback to the late 18th century philosophy of Social Engineering... making them into our own images. All White Nations have tried... and few succeed.

 

So, as history has a habit of repeating itself, either directly or indirectly man will realise that having the "uncivilised" make use of the talents that were passed down from generation to generation may in its own way go a long way to further man's existance on this little planet.

[Guest]

Playboy is now having girls in fur again in there features.

maybe the tide is turning.

[Guest]

Hot Dam!!

 

I'll get Payboy again.

 

OFF

[Fox]

Playboy is now having girls in fur again in there features.

maybe the tide is turning.

 

Ahh, that's music to my ears!

[Chubby]

Yes attitudes are changing. http://forums.superiorpics.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/414898/an/0/page/1#414898

More and more young celebs are wearing fur nowdays.

 

Chubby

[Guest]

 

Okay its funny...but come on guys...me and Tryxie and Piotr were trying to have a serious discussion here!!!!!

 

Something that Tryxie and I argued about by PM Piotr was ine of the things you are talking about. Tryxie had powerful, haunting words for me when I SUGGESTED MAN FIRST KILLED FOR FUR FOR SURVIVAL. mAYBE THIS IS A CORRUPTION OF WHAT SHE SAID OUT OF CONTEXT, fORGIVE ME FOR THAT TRYXIE. BUT SHE SAID THAT MAN USED FUR IN THE FIRST PLACE FOR REASONS OF POWER AND STATUS .

 

Sorry about the caps but i aint typing it agin and they came on by accident.

 

Whatever, for one million years very few fur bearing animals have become extinct without disease (see off topic FUR JOKES). Its taken stupid environmentalists/archaeologists 20 years to change their view and in the meantime hunting still gets most of the blame. Yes Piotr guns did have an effect. But the buffalo were not killed for meat or fur. They were killed to the point of extinction to allow trains to run, wheat fields, and the extermination of the plains Indians. If M and S had any ethics they would ban all arable procuce from the US midwest. If greenpeace had any ethics they would focus on reintroduction of buffalo to trample their paymasters Heinz crops into the dirt. ( www.activistcash.com )

[White Fox]

Have to be careful as I am coming into the middle of something here that I have not followed from the start.

 

Just wanted to say that indeed for a long time in many cultures Fur was the thing to be wear for kings and queens. not for the ordinary person.

 

Of course there were also the times when most folks would wear fur inside out as the varmets would leave the human skin to take refuge in the fur.

 

Whole lot of history there throughout the ages!

W

[Guest]

Yes you are correct and so is tryxie in her theories I believe in many respects.

 

However I asked some inuit friends on the net and they said that the first use of fur was to wrap the baby in...so maybe its survival too.

 

Either way I also think in primitive culture there is a spiritual aspect to it and that involves respect.

The plains Indians had things like "Buffalo Head Smashed in" jumps yet still they live alongside the animals in their healthy millions for a thousand years or more.

 

20 years of "civilisation" and they were gone. Good job you yanks didnt get Canada too eh?

 

The Cree still hold pieces of ancient paper to my Blair and tell him he had better not ban canadian fur. 150 years we have held our peace with the Plains and forest Cree. For fur. If they do ban it, I think Prince Charles will blow his top.

[Guest]

 

The Cree still hold pieces of ancient paper to my Blair and tell him he had better not ban canadian fur. 150 years we have held our peace with the Plains and forest Cree. For fur. If they do ban it, I think Prince Charles will blow his top.

 

Is that why there is no Customs Duty on Canadian fur?

[Guest]

It may well be but try to tell customs that! I have been regulaly charged if buying from native people and on ebay and its just too much hassle to get the money back though I have heard that there isnt supposed to be duty on canadian fur. Basically customs havent a clue what they are doing.

 

Certainly there are many treaties that the UK will break after 150, sometimes 200 years, with native peoples if there is a ban on Canadian fur. Some Cree have even talked about war; which would make them very sad as they are very very loyal to the Crown much to the annoyance of canadian republicans. They still call Queen Victoria "Grandmother" and always the Queen and Prince Charles rewuest to meet with the elders of the different tribes.

Likewise the Metis have certain treaties and trade agreements stretching back years with The French; some couture houses still buy from the Metis they claim, but I cant speak fir the Metsi or French as I dont know.

 

But several times under this government mps have tried to get Canadian fur banned because of the Native use of leg traps. However the old fashioned leg traps that people think of (with teeth and stuff) havent bee used for 50 years or more....basically because the Cree trappers were hurting their own hounds etc. Leg traps are humane mow and designed to hold not kill. In fact the Cree actually trap in areas where beaver are considered pest and actually rehome the vast majority of them in their homelands, so they can have a better gene pool, and more beaver. SO LEG TRAPS DO NOT EVEN KILL....they hold painlessly with only very very rare injury.On the Cree trappers website they will tell you that they lose the odd one or two, and thats all.

 

When harvested, animals are despatched quickly and its a lot better than an abbatoir death as its against these peoples religion to cause animal suffering. The meat is eaten too...nothing can be wasted. And our government want to ban this yet do nothing about the disgusting factory farming of birds for cheap meat .

 

Ntive peoples always harvest no more than 4% and are currently claiming that the ban on wolf fur has meant that each caribou herd has a huge number of wolf following it and are decimating the Caribou stock. They warn eventually the wolf will suffer too if they are not allowed to hunt it again. the 4% cull keeps everything in balance.

[allfurme]

Diversifying from what TouchofSable was saying, but i think, interesting:

 

About four years ago i was in a pub with my ex-girlfriend and several friends. I had had a couple of drinks and started to chat to a vegan couple about wearing fur. I didn't tell them about my love of it, but thought i would point out a few things that anti-fur people tend to ignore. One really good point is the fact that a person who raises animals for their pelts would have to look after them and ensure their welfare is paramount; happy animal, good fur - unhappy animal - bad fur. I once saw a dog that was kept in a shed; his fur was appauling. The woman there despite being a vegan took my points on board and tended to agree with me. Her boyfriend looked up and said "Yes, but it's rich people that wear fur"

 

Enough said?