Sunday, January 10, 2010

Defeatist "logic" on fur trim

Yesterday, while speaking with a woman wearing an attractive coat with a big fur-trimmed hood, I tried to start a conversation about that fur. As soon as she gathered where I was going -- toward the horrors of how fur garments for humans come about -- she quickly and firmly said, "I wouldn't buy this again now, but I eat meat and wear leather shoes, so I'm wearing this coat."

Her argument seemed to be that two strikes against her (eating animals and wearing animal products on her feet) made a third strike (wearing the fur-trimmed hood) of little more importance. Or maybe she felt kind of "What's the use? -- I'm already doing the 'wrong thing' so I might as well continue," or "I've got the name, so I might as well have the game."

Whatever her reasoning for continuing in the path of animal abuse because she'd already started down that road, she was wrong. First, she could stop the first two things at any time if she wanted to, and second, she (and we) don't necessarily have to be on the "right" side of every issue.

For instance, whether we like it or not, many of the NYC protesters against fur wear leather shoes and carry leather handbags. But at least they're drawing the line at wearing fur. And who knows, maybe some day their antipathy to fur will carry over to leather. Or eating meat. Or both.

Or, paraphrasing the old NJARA (now APLNJ) slogan: one person can't do everything, but every person can do something.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Terrific post Pat! Something is always better than nothing. You might not be the star, but at least you're in the game. CJ