More

Washington Brings Out The Fur

The Huffington Post   First Posted: 02/19/09 05:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 02:00 PM ET

Fur

WASHINGTON--Fur is back. Big time.

The high glam factor of Barack Obama's inauguration, and the city's brutal cold snap seem to have given many revelers license to come out of their pelt-packed, politically-incorrect closets swathed in the hides of creatures great and small.

At last night's inaugural ball hosted by TheRoot.com and the Washington Post, DJ Biz Markie--he of the enormo physique--wore an ankle-grazing black mink greatcoat, size 62 long, as casually as if it were a bathrobe.

"I like my fur. I have, like, 15 of them: three minks, three sables, two chinchillas..." says the unapologetic Beat Box regular on the "Yo Gabba Gabba" kids' TV show.

Designer Dianne von Furstenberg came to the same soiree at the National Museum of American History sporting vintage monkey fur, which is black, shiny, coarse, very long and poker straight. "I've had it 40 years, so it's been dead a long time." she explains. "Sometimes I tell people it's nylon."

L.A. comic Michael Colyar chose a full-length raccoon for Sunday's jazz brunch thrown by Essence Magazine and Perennial Sports and Entertainment, one of six furs he owns.

"They all died from acid reflux," Colyar solemnly swears.

And the bleat goes on.

Katrina Peebles had two fur coats at the National Portrait Gallery unveiling of Shepherd Fairey's original, iconic Obama graphic: a lush Russian sable that her husband--Miami and DC real estate developer Donahue Peebles--gave her when their son was born 14 years ago, and a mink swing coat with a zig-zag hem and blood red lining that she'd loaned to a shivering friend from Florida.

2009-01-19-fur.jpg
Katrina Peebles envelopes her husband Donahue, in her sable coat.


Peebles concedes she "felt bad" wearing her Galanos mink to the National Zoo with her daughter, a place, after all, where the animals are supposed to feel safe in their own skins.

"I knew it was anti-green. But it was just so cold, " says Peebles, who owns a half-dozen furs worth $400,000. (She prefers that all big gifts from hubby come from furriers, not jewelers). Then she adds: "I do eat red meat, but I do a lot of things for kids."

Bush administration Chief of Protocol Nancy Brinker topped her gray suit with a woven shawl of indeterminate taxonomy. With the deft diplomacy required by her day job, she called it "re-grow-able...It's not a pelt. It's shorn." She also carried an aubergine mink purse, and wore a black overcoat lined in something brown and fluffy.

It isn't just boldface names who are piling are on the furs. All over town, revelers are bundling up in fur jackets, coats, vests, hats, scarves, cuffs, muffs, boot-tops and stoles..

And where there are folks in fur, there is PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which scored a few raid-paint hits on hapless-ballgoers at Bill Clinton's 1997 inauguration.

Last week they chose an inaugurally-slow Thursday to stage an extremely public act of charity (are there any other kind these days?) just blocks from the White House.

At a table in Farragut Square, a media mini-scrum checked out the giveaway of used fur coats to homeless women who'd been driven across town by staff of the shelters where they seek refuge. As cameras rolled, the women, some with children, pawed through the piles, trying on the most promising. Several of them happily left with a warm coat. Even a homeless man or two got lucky, said Ashley Byrne, PETA's campaign coordinator. The gents fit into castoffs from some very large ladies.

The inventory comes from remorseful fur owners who donate them to PETA for use as agit-props in its traveling anti-fur-crusade-cum-street theater.

The coats range from cheap ratty rabbit (marketed in some quarters as "lapin," which is French for bunny) to the occasional mink with the requisite satin lining and elaborate monogramming.

Over the years, PETA has painted, burned, buried, or cut up for use as animal bedding all those tax-deductible wraps. Nor did this batch escape alteration.

PETA marked the linings and sliced holes in the skins to minimize resale "marketability" while retaining warm-ability. This ensures "that people who weren't homeless wouldn't have any incentive to want one," say Byrne.

This week PETA volunteers--some of them clad in raccoon, fox and rabbit costumes--will leaflet fur-swathed humans about the error of their ways. "We realize people have no idea how these animals suffer, how they are beaten or electrocuted or skinned alive," says Byrne. The hope is that education begets donation.

To spread the word in downtown gridlock, PETA has bought ads on 20 DC pedi-cabs, those rickshaw-derived vehicles pulled by strapping young bi-peds.

It's not clear what kind of reaction the protesters will elicit as Obama supporters dress and redress for multiple events that include church services, mass outdoor gatherings, black-tie balls, casual receptions, cocktails parties, and on and on and on.

To be sure, millions who love this president love all God's creatures: designers, models, celebs, wanna-bes and just plain folk who subscribe to the PETA mantra that "Fur Is Dead." These folks who may have zero tolerance for anything made from animal products, leather included, and who may go so far as to insist on cruelty-free silk. Others have made nuanced calculations about what works for them.

Sandra Nelson, a registered nurse from Gainesville, Va., is s a quiet convert.

"I love real fur but once you get a puppy it's hard to wear it anymore. Besides, they make coats now that look so real, that are so warm and that are affordable," she says, fighting the cold in a black Albert Nipon coat lined in thick polyester.

Lawyer and government contractor Tiffany Brown of nearby Potomac, Maryland wore a striking, floor length 1940s faux leopard that was cut like a hostess gown: "It's high-style and not real. I love that," she says. However, she also owns a fox jacket her father gave her.

2009-01-19-fur4.jpg
Tiffany Brown


Tangela Lamptey is another paradox, a fur-wearing vegan. But the Altanta-based Continenal Ailines flight attendant is totally thrilled with the yummy pink sweater, woven much like Brinker's shawl, that she found on a run to China.

"I bought it because I like it, and I liked the fact it wasn't real. But I also brought my grandmother's mink to Washington because I was afraid of the frigid weather."

"Fur is still popular, but it's not hot," says the Washington Post's Robin Givhan, winner of the first Pulitzer ever awarded for fashion writing. "It's not something that was on all the runways the way it was a couple of years ago, when Dolce and Gabana did a whole collection of fur skirts, dresses and handbags. But it's definitely still alive and well and it's still a healthy industry."

Well, maybe not that healthy, given the current economy and the last couple of warmish winters, though certainly not in AIG or Chrysler territory either.

"Fur is suffering the same fate as luxury apparel, but it's been a very cold winter, and across the country our retailers report getting calls from people going to the inauguration," said Keith Kaplan, who heads the L.A.-based Fur Information Council of America.

The Obama presidency, he notes, comes amid a shift in consumer demographics.

"African-American women have been representing a larger volume of fur sales because of growing affluence in the community, and because of the effect of that whole urban look, for men, too. It's the bling thing." In 2002, says Kaplan, fewer than 17 percent of fur buyers were African-American. By 2006, the figure had jumped to nearly 27 percent.

PETA continues undaunted, despite last year's apparent failure to rehabilitate chronic serial fur-wearer Aretha Franklin.

In return for paying $19,000 in back taxes that the diva owed in late March, thereby saving her Michigan home from the repo man, PETA wanted her to forsake fur forever and give the group every last one of her over-the-top coats.

"Oh yes, Aretha and her golden sable,"chuckles Kaplan. "She has quite a hefty closet but she turned them down."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST STYLE

WASHINGTON--Fur is back. Big time. The high glam factor of Barack Obama's inauguration, and the city's brutal cold snap seem to have given many revelers license to come out of their pelt-packed, pol...
WASHINGTON--Fur is back. Big time. The high glam factor of Barack Obama's inauguration, and the city's brutal cold snap seem to have given many revelers license to come out of their pelt-packed, pol...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 181
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
retroredux
08:52 AM on 01/30/2009
I have no problem with people who wear fur. Just know that everyone around you (even close friends) considers you to be selfish, ignorant and cruel. They may not say it to your face, but they have no respect for you, as you put vanity and "keeping up with the Jones" over barbaric practices.
07:15 PM on 01/23/2009
I am sooo sick and tired of the perfected saints-on-earth who apparently populate PETA. Do you people realize that the synthetic furs and other fabrics you tout are all petroleum-based? How many sea otters and gulls died in oil slicks because you sniff at fur? Which is both renewable and biodegradable. Can't say that for petrofabrics. Plus, all the little dead mink and fox bodies go to make the pet food that your own precious pets have for dinner (unless, of course, you've forced vegetarianism on your Lab or Siamese as well), not to mention fertilizer and all sorts of other end uses. I will continue to wear (alternately) my five fur coats, and, when asked by snippy morons "How many dead animals did it take to make that coat?" to respond with the immortal riposte of Suzanne Sugarbaker of "Designing Women", "Fifty! Want to make it fifty-one?"
05:11 PM on 01/21/2009
What a shame; all of Steven Spielberg's millions didn't buy his wife a conscience or a heart. Wearing a huge fur coat yesterday put animal rights back 50 years at an occasion which was putting civil rights AHEAD 50 years. SHAME ON BOTH OF THEM...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
poliscibabe
Another Patriot supporting Pres. Obama
10:34 AM on 01/21/2009
I am an African-American female who was in Washington, I wore my fur because it was cold outside and I love my mink coat. My advice to the PETA people is to stay away from any AA with a fur coat on. You may find that your message is not only rejected, but defacing the fur is a definite mistake.
12:54 PM on 01/21/2009
Are you making some distinction between African Americans wearing fur and Caucasians, or Latinos?

Just wondering if you're saying that this group of people are more prone to violence .... cuz you sure do sound threatening.
03:39 PM on 01/21/2009
As others posted below, what would you do if you saw someone wearing a t-shirt with the N-word or a swastika? Would you just say, "What they wear is their choice and none of my business"?

Another "AA" poster, Solja, clearly stated that black women are more prone to violence: "They'll take the beatdown of their life, and not just by one black woman, but all of her girlfriends with her (who will also be wearing their fur). LOL! They mess with white women and throw paint on their coat but they won't outrun a black woman who will beat that azzzz for that one. LOL!"

I think it's worth pointing out that Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey don't wear fur.
07:06 AM on 01/21/2009
I work in China, and the point "Poli" is missing is that China is where the West's most diabolical and backward industries are put out to pasture. Like tobacco. While most Western countries start to move forward and educate their people about smoking, tobacco companies have pushed into countries like China. Here they can freely package up our most disgusting products, and sell them (without conscience or regulation) to Chinese consumers (whose government is complicit) as 'Western cool'.

The fur markets I have seen in Beijing and Harbin are grisly places full of dodgy Russians and unscrupulous Chinese party members. And your American furriers are slaughtering animals so these guys can make a profit off their misguided countrymen's appetite for an antiquated Western status symbol? Ew.

And the people who are assembling your 'high-quality' pelts to send back to your 'salons' in America are the same people who are running dog, cat and bunny kill-facilities here in China, a lucrative side business in 'low-grade' pelts that are attached to cheap c@*p made for Western and Asian markets. Buying American-farmed furs assembled in Chinese sweatshops only serves to funnel money to the same Chinese companies that are killing domestic pets without regulation. Wear fur, and you're killing more animals than just the 'American-farmed' mink on your back.
12:51 PM on 01/21/2009
Interesting. Wondered about their lifestyle over there. I know a man who just married a chinese woman. He moved over there temporarily, pending her coming to America. Anyway, to his surprise he found out she smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day. All her friends smoke. He can't stand all the smoking!

They just seem not to have any emphasis on quality of life there, except they have exceptional medical care (better to keep them working!).

So, that's it. They work.
12:53 PM on 01/21/2009
You know all of this has me wondering if we really want to be owned by China. Because we are, in a huge way. What a frightening idea. They throw their own babies away, skin animals alive and live with animals in their homes (that's where our flus come from) out in the country.
06:55 AM on 01/21/2009
These "fur is back" stories have been popping up EVERY YEAR for the past 20 years. Here's a sampling of a few of those years:

2005: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18725080.300-fur-not-flying.html

1997: http://www.iht.com/articles/1997/12/02/fash.t.php

2000: http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/2000/0313/india.leopards.html

2007: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elayne-boosler/fur-is-back_b_37579.html

1998: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/8414/fur.htm

2003: http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2003/03/04/fur_030304.html

1993: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/fullarticle/1G1-14723347.html

2002: http://www.abc.net.au/landline/stories/s610570.htm

2000: http://www.iftf.com/iftf_3_1_1.php?id=87

2004: http://articles.latimes.com/2004/aug/15/magazine/tm-fur33

1997: http://www.iht.com/articles/1997/12/02/fash.t.php

1999: http://www.maninnature.com/AFibres/Fur/fur1c.html

1993: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE7D6153AF93BA25756C0A965958260

1995: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE7DF173BF93AA35750C0A963958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/F/Fashion%20and%20Apparel

1992: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/61111929.html?dids=61111929:61111929&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Aug+9%2C+1992&author=DONALD+SMITH&pub=Los+Angeles+Times+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&edition=&startpage=11&desc=Fur+Fanciers%2C+Animal+Activists+Remain+at+War

You get the idea. Next we'll be hearing about the "Macarena" making a comeback. And "Friends." And that '90s cigar fad. And AOL! And "Seinfeld!"
05:58 PM on 01/21/2009
That is striking, isn't it. I've noticed the annual "fur is back" claim too. Those stories, especially the ones in the fashion rags, look like the same fur industry press release printed over and over. And they defy logic. How can it be back this year if it was back last year and the year before and the year before and so on?

The truth is that fur's image has been seriously tarnished for the past 20 years. Of course some heartless people still wear it, but it's controversial and animal rights is always mentioned with fur. That wasn't the case in the 1980s "Dynasty" days or old Hollywood.

And thank you Michelle and Oprah for not wearing fur! The two most influential women in the country have said no to fur!
06:21 AM on 01/21/2009
If anal electrocution is so widely used as some of you claim, please provide me with a list of AVMA farms that use this method. Please give me the name of the farm, it's location, contacat information, and when you were there and saw this occuring so that I can verify this with the owners of the farm.

I eagerly await a list.
08:21 AM on 01/21/2009
I doubt I will make your list a priority today. But you can hold your breath waiting ....
04:24 PM on 01/21/2009
The waiting comment was obviously sarcasm. The point being that those claiming that anal electrocution is used widely used is based on their own willful ignorance, hatred, and gullibility to believe hook, line, and sinker what groups like PeTA and the HSUS have to say without so much of an ounce of critical questioning on their part.
01:40 AM on 01/21/2009
Great points made all around. Seems to me that if you do not like fur, you should not like leather. Fur is just leather with the hair left on--no? So, take off your shoes, give away your purse and remove your belt. Oh, and don't tuck into that goose-down comforter and get out of your car with leather seats. And I hate to tell you what is in your natural fertilizer that makes your produce organic--animal by-products. Eyes wide open mates. What do you think about www.Wild-Wool.com? Is it fur or is it a 100% natural fiber product that is softer, warmer and lighter than wool and prevents an inhumane alternative?
03:37 AM on 01/21/2009
Oh look, it's the old, "You're either an extremist or a hypocrite" dilemma. How clever. Some veal-eating hunters who wear fur might try to intervene if they saw someone beating a dog or torturing a cat. Does that make them hypocrites? Who cares! Should they stay silent in order to avoid having their own shortcomings highlighted? I hope not.
08:21 AM on 01/21/2009
Excellent catch!
06:00 AM on 01/21/2009
This post looks bogus. Did you just come here to plug some commercial site?

The production of leather is extremely destructive to the environment. Tanneries use chromium, which invariably pollutes water supplies.

And while we're plugging sites, http://www.savethesheep.com has information on wool.
09:13 PM on 01/20/2009
Shame Kate Capshaw, for wearing fur at the swearing in ceremony. So much for a compassionate Hollywood liberal!
12:21 PM on 01/21/2009
I noticed that too. I was hoping it was fake. Wearing a dead animal on your body is the height of ugliness and insensitivity.
06:33 PM on 01/20/2009
With specimens like these fine upstanding fur-wearing folk I'm beginning to think maybe Buffalo Bill had it right.
06:29 PM on 01/20/2009
I find that the more homely and/or overweight women tend to have a need to try to beautify themselves superficially, in various fashions.

So for the fur wearers here, defending their right to wear the skin of what was once a beautiful animal--it's okay. Just work on your self esteem. It will do a lot more for you than fur ;-)
06:13 PM on 01/20/2009
This probably encapsulates the issue, thanks to Poli:

"Those who resort to lies, force, and intimidation to achieve their ends do so because they can not achieve them through reason, truth, and morality."

Why couldn't those in sympathy to humane causes such as animals rights, achieve their ends through reason, truth and morality?

Clearly, the population who cannot be reasoned with must then be blind, ignorant, and immoral.
06:25 PM on 01/20/2009
Lies force and intimidation? Are you kidding? Who does that? Animal rights groups are working towards basic humane standards for animals. Like, um, don't bulldoze downed cows in slaugherhouses. Don't skin dogs alive. It's pretty basic stuff.

Yes, "AR" activists work through reason, truth and morality. There is no greater morality than compassion, when we degrade it by torturing animals who are at our mercy, then we lose our humanity.

Lies force and intimidation, blind ignorant and immoral--you are not speaking about people who are working for basic humane standards for animals against overwhelming odds. I don't know where that comes from.
06:32 PM on 01/20/2009
Please see Poli's post below. I quoted the last line and gave it a little thought.

I totally agree with you.

And, I don't even have a problem with ALF. They are heroes in my eyes. That's the group that got the worst rap. PETA is tame.
06:01 PM on 01/20/2009
Notice the strange jargon and syntax in some of these posts? "PeTA" "AR" and links to the "activist cash" website. Smells like Richard Berman's misnamed "Center for Consumer Freedom," a notorious "astroturf" organization. http://www.consumerdeception.com

Legally we can wear fur, and we can also wear t-shirts that say the N word. Wear something offensive and you're going to get comments. Free speech is a 2-way street.

Even though I'm a Democrat and an early supporter of Obama, I'm really put off by this gauche inauguration. We're the ones who criticized Nancy Reagan's china and the McCain/Palin wardrobes. Get ready for a backlash!
05:02 PM on 01/20/2009
If anyone watched a video posted by Neo-Nazis about the NAACP who would believe it? So, what's the difference between a video by PeTA about fur farming? There is none.

The fur from most full fur coats sold in North America and Europe are NOT raised in China, it's raised on farms in North America and Europe. Take a little stroll through a furrier's salon and read the label and see that the overwhelming majority of furs are only manufactured in China and not raised there. China is the largest buyer of raw fur pelts at international fur auctions. What fur that does show up in our markets from China is usually cheap raccoon or rabbit for trims. China does not raise quality fur because it has poor standards, and most of the fur it raises is consumed in its domestic market.

If you don't like fur coats then fine, that's you're opinion, but opinions are not facts. I'm sure there are plenty of things in your lifestyle that others may object or disagree with, but who is trying to tell you what choices you should make? Is it compassionate, progressive, and tolerant to preach morality to gays and homosexuals like the AR groups do to fur wearers? Make your own choices and allow others the same courtesy.

Those who resort to lies, force, and intimidation to achieve their ends do so because they can not achieve them through reason, truth, and morality.
05:12 PM on 01/20/2009
I don't permit myself to have an opinion about other people's choices, tastes and lifestyle, as long as they are not hurting, maiming, or damaging others, physically, mentally, emotionally. This includes gay people and their right to marry or do whatever they want to do together. This includes religions that do not harm others (can't find many zealots that fit there). You get the idea.

On this matter, I permit myself to have an opinion. They're causing suffering and it exhibits the shallow, callousness, and violent sadism that seems acceptable to this "civilized" society.

The fact (and not my opinion) is: They're causing suffering, pain and killing -- innocent sentient beings with no regard.

Maybe one day you will "spiritually" grow to understand this humane concept. Humane. Human.
06:13 PM on 01/20/2009
I've seen videos of animals electrocuted in the US and animals gnawing off their limbs in steel jaw traps right here at home. I guess from your posts that you're a furrier or something. Somehow you must have lost part of your brain that creates compassion so you don't see that it's not really a matter of opinion, it's a moral position like opposing dogfighting. Animals deserve our mercy. We are graced with compassion and we have an obligation to use it towards animals who are at our mercy.

Some people have the spirit of life, some have the spirit of death. You have so many false parallels. Homosexuals? Are you serious? That is so totally irrelevant. We are talking about the fur trade. We are talking about skinning dogs and cats alive or electrocuting animals, just for starters.

It's a moral position. Either you have empathy for life or you don't. Obviously you don't.
07:55 PM on 01/20/2009
Now that's just great psychology, why don't you just say something bad about my mother? And no, I'm not a furrier.

After removing your opinions and attempts to define me as sub-human (a nice technique used by groups like the Nazis), your only rebuttal is that you watched some videos. That's not a rebuttal at all, nor is it factual or verifiable. How quickly would you accept any video I post about the fur trade? You clearly let your agenda determine your facts.

Ah, yes, the electrocution claim. New York recently passed a law banning anal electrocution as a means of euthanasia, but they also admitted that no legislator could name a single farm that would be impacted by this law. Ninety-five percent of all fur farms in America are certified under a program developed by the American Veterinarian Medical Association, and farms are recertified by an independent vet. Why would the AVMA develop a cruel program? The AVMA does not sanction electrocution of any type. Are there some farms not involved with the AVMA program that may give sub-standard care? There most likely are, but they are the exception, not the rule.

Your morality is exactly that, yours and yours alone. It is not a metaphysical fact. Preaching morality to others in principle is the same, the circumstance of whether it involves those who wear fur or homosexuality makes no difference. It's immoral either way.
09:12 PM on 01/20/2009
Hear, hear Camper320.
photo
PatA
Pink is a 4 letter word
03:21 PM on 01/20/2009
Solja, you've sold your soul for vanity. I'm sorry.