One for Those Animals
May 6th 2010 22:01
By Maimoona Rahman
Imagine anal electrocution. Does it send a string of shivers up your spine? Yet, we dismiss off the shivers while wearing or using fur, and in most cases, people are blithely ignorant about the truth behind the extraction of fur. The real devils even compromise with feelings for luxury, or perhaps, they have no feelings. It’s hard to imagine a fellow so cold. Merchants of the infamous fur trade pay workers to employ anal electrocution to kill our furry friends. Funny, we call theses animals our friends.
I always thought animal fur was the fruit of some zany ill-treatment meted out to helpless animals for sadistic pleasure in the last century. Functional word being ‘last’. Somewhere in my mind, fur trade ended with my eight grade when I wrote my last essay on why fur trade leads to endangerment of species. Last night, I came across a video that made me laugh, because I thought it portrayed something that doesn’t happen any more. ‘Old school,’ I smirked. ‘Remember PETA?’
However, after I ran some unbiased research of my own, I came across the fact that there’s no such thing as synthetic fur. If you want fur, then the only option you have is an animal. I normally wouldn’t have cartloads of problem with fur trade if the animals weren’t subjected to maltreatment, but it turns out, good treatment is a waste of time and effort.
There are multiple ways of tearing off fur from an animal. The best and most humane, in my opinion, would be to first slit its jugular vein, which painlessly renders it dead, and then strip off its coat. But, what good does caging and electrocution serve? Other than sadistic pleasure?
Fur trade also thrives on skinning the animals alive. Perhaps, it’s because the fur regrows, though I doubt the animal lives that long. The animals are hung upside down by their hind legs and their fur is ripped off their bodies. It’s pretty bloody and painful. Most animals die without their coats, like foxes. Wouldn’t you die without your skin?
I still can’t imagine a human’s being so ruthless and cold. At least by now it must be quite obvious that animals have feelings despite their inability to talk. They can sense pain just as much as we humans can, and I shudder to think what other hideousness these people who skin these animals alive are capable of.
Stakeouts at fur companies have suggested that there’s no such thing as faux fur. There’s cheap fur, which comes from the rather abundant species like cats (?) and dogs, and expensive fur, which grows on foxes and raccoons. There are fur trimmings on gift items, antique pieces, blankets, and fur coats that people tend to buy without realising that the fur could be real. A furry good that looks pretty on the racks is on impulse added to the shopping cart , paid for, and carried home. But what about the animal that had to pay the price of our exquisite tastes?
Fur trade is booming in the clothing industry like never before, despite PETA. In fact, designer Karl Lagerfeld defends killing of animals for fur saying that if we don’t slay them then they may slay us. Which by the way is absolutely ridiculous unless you live in some snowy patch of wilderness close to the north pole and there’s a hungry bear on the prowl. Or maybe a hungry fox. Karl Lagerfeld, as a funny matter of fact, claims that he doesn’t eat meat – which I believe is another piece of authentic bogus – because he simply can’t stand the thought of growing and living off something that was once alive. Even fruits and veggies were once alive, duh! The difference between eating meat and wearing fur is that the process of tearing off fur involves a tear-yielding painful scheme, whereas the killing of cattle doesn’t. The meat industry take care of their live animals. In fact, here in the local farms, I’ve known of people even playing with the cattle – not in a way that involves pulling tails and dehorning. The amount of cage space allotted to an animal about to donate its fur is way less than the amount of space a cow in the throes of death gets. Plus, cattle are rarely skinned alive the way cats and foxes are.
Karl Lagerfeld’s opinion is beyond consideration because he is the sort of fellow who justifies the promotion of size zero. He is the sort of person who doesn’t believe that eating disorders terrorise the girls of today because a larger population of women are obese unlike those with eating disorders. He’s the one who once said something to the effect: We’ve all seen our fat mothers eating chips and popcorn in a couch before the screen. That’s ugly, not size zero.
There are a million and one synthetic options the world of science has opened up to us. So why is there a craze for doling out ill-treatment in the name of fashion? To truly express solidarity with the poor, poor animals we must boycott all products and even brands that sell fur. If money doesn’t pour into the fur trade, then the use of fur and hence, cruelty to animals will decline. How hard is it be to shove a middle finger in Karl Lagerfeld’s and his models’ faces or his products? Why can’t some people simply accept the fact that fur belongs to the body of an animal; we are too sophisticated for it. I don’t understand the glory in showing the world that you are trigger-friendly. Fur doesn’t make you any more intimidating; it simply shows your lunatic desire to condescend to the level that you need a fur on yourself.
Here’s to the animals who had to give up their birth right, the right to wear fur on their backs.
Imagine anal electrocution. Does it send a string of shivers up your spine? Yet, we dismiss off the shivers while wearing or using fur, and in most cases, people are blithely ignorant about the truth behind the extraction of fur. The real devils even compromise with feelings for luxury, or perhaps, they have no feelings. It’s hard to imagine a fellow so cold. Merchants of the infamous fur trade pay workers to employ anal electrocution to kill our furry friends. Funny, we call theses animals our friends.
I always thought animal fur was the fruit of some zany ill-treatment meted out to helpless animals for sadistic pleasure in the last century. Functional word being ‘last’. Somewhere in my mind, fur trade ended with my eight grade when I wrote my last essay on why fur trade leads to endangerment of species. Last night, I came across a video that made me laugh, because I thought it portrayed something that doesn’t happen any more. ‘Old school,’ I smirked. ‘Remember PETA?’
However, after I ran some unbiased research of my own, I came across the fact that there’s no such thing as synthetic fur. If you want fur, then the only option you have is an animal. I normally wouldn’t have cartloads of problem with fur trade if the animals weren’t subjected to maltreatment, but it turns out, good treatment is a waste of time and effort.
There are multiple ways of tearing off fur from an animal. The best and most humane, in my opinion, would be to first slit its jugular vein, which painlessly renders it dead, and then strip off its coat. But, what good does caging and electrocution serve? Other than sadistic pleasure?
Fur trade also thrives on skinning the animals alive. Perhaps, it’s because the fur regrows, though I doubt the animal lives that long. The animals are hung upside down by their hind legs and their fur is ripped off their bodies. It’s pretty bloody and painful. Most animals die without their coats, like foxes. Wouldn’t you die without your skin?
I still can’t imagine a human’s being so ruthless and cold. At least by now it must be quite obvious that animals have feelings despite their inability to talk. They can sense pain just as much as we humans can, and I shudder to think what other hideousness these people who skin these animals alive are capable of.
Stakeouts at fur companies have suggested that there’s no such thing as faux fur. There’s cheap fur, which comes from the rather abundant species like cats (?) and dogs, and expensive fur, which grows on foxes and raccoons. There are fur trimmings on gift items, antique pieces, blankets, and fur coats that people tend to buy without realising that the fur could be real. A furry good that looks pretty on the racks is on impulse added to the shopping cart , paid for, and carried home. But what about the animal that had to pay the price of our exquisite tastes?
Fur trade is booming in the clothing industry like never before, despite PETA. In fact, designer Karl Lagerfeld defends killing of animals for fur saying that if we don’t slay them then they may slay us. Which by the way is absolutely ridiculous unless you live in some snowy patch of wilderness close to the north pole and there’s a hungry bear on the prowl. Or maybe a hungry fox. Karl Lagerfeld, as a funny matter of fact, claims that he doesn’t eat meat – which I believe is another piece of authentic bogus – because he simply can’t stand the thought of growing and living off something that was once alive. Even fruits and veggies were once alive, duh! The difference between eating meat and wearing fur is that the process of tearing off fur involves a tear-yielding painful scheme, whereas the killing of cattle doesn’t. The meat industry take care of their live animals. In fact, here in the local farms, I’ve known of people even playing with the cattle – not in a way that involves pulling tails and dehorning. The amount of cage space allotted to an animal about to donate its fur is way less than the amount of space a cow in the throes of death gets. Plus, cattle are rarely skinned alive the way cats and foxes are.
Karl Lagerfeld’s opinion is beyond consideration because he is the sort of fellow who justifies the promotion of size zero. He is the sort of person who doesn’t believe that eating disorders terrorise the girls of today because a larger population of women are obese unlike those with eating disorders. He’s the one who once said something to the effect: We’ve all seen our fat mothers eating chips and popcorn in a couch before the screen. That’s ugly, not size zero.
There are a million and one synthetic options the world of science has opened up to us. So why is there a craze for doling out ill-treatment in the name of fashion? To truly express solidarity with the poor, poor animals we must boycott all products and even brands that sell fur. If money doesn’t pour into the fur trade, then the use of fur and hence, cruelty to animals will decline. How hard is it be to shove a middle finger in Karl Lagerfeld’s and his models’ faces or his products? Why can’t some people simply accept the fact that fur belongs to the body of an animal; we are too sophisticated for it. I don’t understand the glory in showing the world that you are trigger-friendly. Fur doesn’t make you any more intimidating; it simply shows your lunatic desire to condescend to the level that you need a fur on yourself.
Here’s to the animals who had to give up their birth right, the right to wear fur on their backs.
| 33 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
