Join Top Shop In Saying No To Fur

by Marie - none Fri Oct 27, 2006 23:42

While I think it commendable that such a high profile company such as Top shop should overtly express a responsible political opinion I do not think this should distract from certain other practices which Top shop whole-heartedly embrace and which prove no less damaging than the fur trade. Namely, that of pròpagating images of malnourished young girls as iconic role-models. Considering Topshop´s images in particular seem to target young girls and the images themselves star girls looking as young as 14 or 15, the approach seems particularly insidious and downright malicious. It reminds me of McDonalds approach with the happy meal, get them hooked early and you have business for life. Before we commend a business perhaps we should look a little further below the surface.

by Ciara R Sun Oct 29, 2006 01:42 ciarams1 at hotmail dot com

Thats a good point you have made Marie. Worth pointing out perhaps, are the parallels that can be drawn between the commercial fur industry, how it exploits the bodies of various animals on a large scale and how the fashion industry exploits the body's of people, mostly women, by propagating an image of the ideal female body that is unrealistic, unhealthy and dangerous. The fur industry is an offshoot of the fashion industry and both exist for the purpose of profit.

In both cases, normality is distorted and pain in inflicted upon the body, for the sake of 'looking good'.

We need to reject the notion that size 4 is healthy for most people and we also need to reject the notion that keeping fox and mink in small cages for their short lives, unable to express their normal instincts to interact, mate, roam and hunt is acceptable, not to mention the cruel painful and unnecessary deaths they are given, for what? So some vain bint can wear a fur coat.

by D'other Sun Oct 29, 2006 10:15

It's at this point I part with the moralistic agenda of animal liberation.

I had a flat mate once who applied for work in Topshop.

She had to provide a pass port photo so the employing managment could oogle over her before deciding that she would fit well into the below size ten outfits staff in Top Shop are made wear as part of their uniform.

Of course the contract will state nowt about such body image requirements but it is blatently obvious to anyone in the know that it is routine to suchy stores. As usual, the relatively theoritically underdeveloped animal liberation brigade will cry joy at the sight of a group of bosses using animal rights to appeal to a certain demographic.

What was that Radiohead said about a rat, a cage, antiobiotics and being a target market. If you expect anyone to take animal liberation seriosuly you better tie it into something more than bourgeois sentiment.

Do you expect us to cheer because McDonalds have more salad on the menu than meat while workers still burn their arms cooking chips day in day out.

by John Carmody - Animal Rights Action Network (ARAN) Sun Oct 29, 2006 11:50 arancampaigns at eircom dot net ARAN, Po Box 722, Kildare, Ireland 087-6275579

We think this is a wonderful decision Top Shop has made in going fur free and of course promoting the anti-fur campaign, with this window display they will certainly bring to life the terrible cruelty and the hideous fur industry to countless people who may otherwise never know about the suffering. Once inside their store they also promote the anti-fur campaign with wonderful buttons and badges and of course leaflets and instore displays.

It's the only store we can think of that actually has ever done something to this extent and this is not the first time Top Shop has done a window anti-fur campaign, so please let's give them some praise for doing this, as it may very well encourage them to do even more possibly in the near future not only on the anti-fur campaign but much more. Remember the animals need everyone on their side including these companies as the forces fighting them are currently far out numbering the ones helping them.

It seems to be these companies don’t stand a chance whenever they do something positive, because they are always shot down for something else or indeed making it look as if they are out to get publicity. I think overall Top Shop have done the animals a good job indeed this week by displaying such a fantastic display that will go on to educate countless people about the suffering, media coverage on Top Shop window display has being fantastic again showing even more people that you can have a look that kills with out actually killing.

Why not send Top Shop a thank you for doing something positive and if you feel as strongly about other issues brought up then why not let them know about that, but for now, lets just go down the road of saying 'thank you' Top Shop for doing something positive in highlighting one of the most violent industry's on the face of this planet.

by Ciara R Sun Oct 29, 2006 21:11 ciarams1 at hotmail dot com

I can't see why you have such a hostile attitude towards people who wish to lessen the suffering of animals, in this case those being used for fur.

What moralistic agenda are you referring to exactly...?

By the way, I was in Top Shop the recently and there was a girl working there who must have been close to obese - I remember because I had my child with me and had to move out of her way.

I think it is good that TopShop are now anti fur, don't you?

by D'other Mon Oct 30, 2006 02:52

Did Topshop ever sell fur to begin with, I don't think it did so fur was never an issue for it. So rather than this campaign marking a brave turn around by a company dealing with challenging ethical questions it represents a cynical use of anti fur sentiment to gain advertising and credibility with the demographic that shops there.

by Ciara R Mon Oct 30, 2006 03:26

...I believe it did. In the form of cheap, possibly cat fur trim on some garments.

Either way, TopShop wll not be selling fur in the future and has thrown its considerable weight behind the whole anti-fur message.

A move in the right direction methinks D'muppet.

by Ronan Harding Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:40 ronanharding at hotmail dot com

just writing to say that Top Shop made a fansastic decision and i agree with Ciara, John and Stephan that fur is horrifically cruel. shame on fur wearers and of course animal abusers alike.

by sharon - Animal Rights Action Network (ARAN) Mon Oct 30, 2006 20:04

well said ronan, see you soon.

by hedgehog Mon Oct 30, 2006 20:08

Animal rights and human rights are not in competition with each other. Both are important. Both can be pursued at the same time.You don't see animal rights activists on these threads begrudging human rights activists their opinions and actions because animals are still suffering in the world. In fact often the same people, being ethical right minded people, are also involved in human rights issues.

Personally I do not consider the dress code in top shop a human rights issue. If you don't like it, don't work there. If they can't get employees then they will have to change their policy. Especially if people write in to complain and tell them why. So get writing if you really care and stop blaming animal rights people. They don't decide on the dress code of topshop. Perhaps topshop don't have everything right but they do have some things right and a commercial stance against a cruel industry is to be applauded and animal rights supporters have every right to do so, in the hope that it will encourage others to take a similar stance.

There are a lot of injustices in the world, both animal and human. Right thinking ethical people should be concerned about both.

If human issues concern you more then off you go and do something about it and best of luck to you.

But dissing animal rights people because they happen to focus on a different injustice to the one you are most interested in is not at all constructive and Animal rights activists are not the cause of such injustices. They just happen to be focussed on a different set of injustices. Leave them alone to get on with what they are doing and go and get on with whatever you are doing for the cause you care about. (fuck all I suspect! but i hope I am wrong)

by Mr.Farmer - Elmer "Liberation" Fudd Wed Aug 15, 2007 23:21

Why is fur cruel? I'm not being a smart alec - I would really like to know. I know this is a highly emotive area for some people, and I'm not trying to provoke them; but I have never heard a public explanation of why it is okay for us to wear poor dead cow skin everywhere from head to toe, but not not that of vicious little minks. I've really never heard an explanation of this, and I think that partially the reason there may be such a hostile reaction in some quarters to anti-fur people, is that many other people have not heard an explanation either; it just seems to get taken for granted that it is obvious, and it isn't.

I appreciate that there are vegans who don't wear leather, and fair dues to them for their consistency, but there are plenty of back-to-nature types who either eat some meat, or wear leather, or both. So why does fur seem to get picked on, but not leather? Is there something that I am missing?

by Shop Steward Thu Aug 16, 2007 00:40

Hedgehog: "Personally I do not consider the dress code in top shop a human rights issue. If you don't like it, don't work there."

Fucks sake hedgehog, that sounds like an IBEC press release. Whether you consider it a human rights issue or not, its no way to treat workers issues.

Lets see. Are you low paid? ...... If you don't like it, don't work there
No sick leave, no pension scheme? ...... If you don't like it, don't work there
Suffering sexual harassment at work? ...... If you don't like it, don't work there
Intimidated if you join a union? ...... If you don't like it, don't work there

Get the picture?

While AR activists do good work they are hopeless at reaching out to potential allies. It seems like their enthusiasm for our four legged friends blinds them to the issues of the human two legged animals.

I see this as no more than a stunt by Topshop to appeal to a very soft trendy liberal left wishy washy demographic. They didnt even sell hardly any fur products to begin with ffs. Topshop couldnt give a fuck about animal rights, human rights or workers rights, they're just interested in profits on the back of flogging overly sexualised misogynistic clothes to women and young girls.

by KIRSTY Sun Apr 19, 2009 20:28

I am replying to the question about why animal fur is cruel.

There are many reasons, but let me direct you to this website: www.animalsaviors.org

China as well as other disgusting countries skin animals, mainly cats and dogs ALIVE. This means they are alive when these bastards skin them. The life they have beforehand is horrifying too, been chained up and watching the other animals have their legs and backs broken so they cannot move, they have to watch the other animals being skinned alive, knowing they're next. Its absoloutely disgusting and this needs to stop NOW.

People who are wanting fur are supplying the demand, people in US and UK need to stop buying fur, open their eyes and actually see the reality of their vainess, defensless animals are being killed, in a complete inhumaine way, and im sure if they were aware of this, they would change their mind. It's truly horrifying, please sign the petition on this website anyone who reads this, and help stop this as soon as possible.

by Ciara Roche Sun Apr 19, 2009 21:57 ciarams1 at hotmail dot com

Let's unite to curtail cruelty against all sentient beings in the world. Be the beings in question human or non human animal, rather than subjecting our differences to micro analysis.

by Roger Yates Sun Apr 19, 2009 23:07

Dear Shop Steward,

I agree with the thrust of your contribution but you may also have made a mistake. Do not assume that the use of the word 'rights' has any fundamental meaning within the prevailing animal protection movement, inspired as it is by utilitarian philosophy.

This is why the majority of claims by 'animal rights' advocates is about cruelty and hardly ever about rights violations. In fact, the animal movement is currently undergoing a paradigm shift in terms of its philosophical thinking. Since the 1980s, rights-based animal advocacy has been effectively marginalised and silenced in favour of the inconsistencies of ultitarian thought.

This means that the organisation involved in this Top Shop initiative use 'rights' rhetorically - and openly as a 'convenience' - but they do not really mean it. This allows them to talk about animal rights while killing nonhumans themselves and working with industry to modify modes of killing. Subsequently, their thinking does not really incorporate the foundation of human rights: while encouraging women in the main to 'go naked' at the drop of a hat, their understanding of rights - or commodification - within patriarchal culture is weak.

By contrast, genuine rights-based thinking about human-nonhuman relations, articulated by philosophers Gary Francione and Tom Regan, reject utilitarian thinking. These people base their philosophy of animal rights on human rights thinking and thus make the connections you understandably say are lacking in the 'AR' community. We'll see in the coming years who will win the 'battle of ideas' about animal rights: the rights-based advocates or those who just like and want the label.

best wishes

RY

by ciara Sun Apr 19, 2009 23:39

Perhaps someone could clarify how the advocates for animals movement uses the concept of** 'rights' rhetorically - and openly as a 'convenience' - but they do not really mean it***

And how encouraging women to go naked is somehow......undesirable?

Tom Regan is pretty spot on, to my knowledge of his ideas and utterances on animal welfare issues he would in no way disagree with Topshop stopping fur in their stores.

best wishes to all

CR

by Roger Yates Mon Apr 20, 2009 13:33

Ciara,

You asked for clarification of the idea that many animal advocates use the notion of rights rhetorically and as a convenience.

The organisation involved in the Top Shop issue is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. They are the prime example of the rhetorical use of rights. You may be aware that the philosophy they follow is that of Peter Singer whose ground-breaking and influential book, Animal Liberation, was published in the 1970s.

Singer is the only philosopher PETA recommend in their online bookstore: https://www.petacatalog.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BK390 However, it is not controversial to point out that Singer is not a rights-based theorist. Regan explains with an example from Singer: http://books.google.ie/books?id=Y0tWjRmxFE4C&printsec=f...19,M1

Even though it is well known that Singer is a utilitarian philosopher, PETA write of Animal Liberation: "Referred to as the animal rights "bible," this book includes in-depth examinations of factory farming, animal experimentation, vegetarianism, and animal rights philosophy. If you read only one animal rights book, it has to be this one." This is highly misleading and untruthful.

Essentially, what happens is that organisations like PETA insist on the label 'animal rights' while not subscribing to the theory of animal rights. This is like Amnesty International not believing in human rights.

Many people like what PETA do - and that is their right but we should not pretend that they stand for animal rights as articulated by animal rights philosophy. How many times to we see them claim that nonhuman animals are rights bearers or describe what we do to nonhuman as rights violations?

I hope that has clarified the issue.

RY

by Roger Yates Tue Apr 21, 2009 14:46

Ciara,

I now have time to address the two other points you made.

For example, you said: "And how encouraging women to go naked is somehow......undesirable?" I am not prudish and not opposed to nudity per se. However, in the context of this discussion, and in the light of continuing sexualised violence against women (overwhelmingly) and, indeed, the trafficking of human females into Ireland for exploitation, including exploitation as forced sex workers, I am really surprised you say this.

Anything that serves to commodify women in a patriarchal society should be worrying to anyone who opposes oppression and violence. The animal groups that encourage women to show their bodies claim that they use sex, not sexism but that is very naive to say the least. They also claim that their male supporters appear in the nude too - but they clearly prefer (young) women to do it and, anyway, a nude woman has a different meaning and cultural significance in patriarchy than does a nude man.

You also said: "Tom Regan is pretty spot on, to my knowledge of his ideas and utterances on animal welfare issues he would in no way disagree with Topshop stopping fur in their stores." There are two points in relation to this. First, my initial contribution was in answer to Shop Steward - it was not an attack, as such, on a shop not selling furs. Second, Tom Regan is critical of animal welfarism and is famous for saying that empty cages are what's needed not bigger ones. His 1985 book, The Case for Animal Rights, is still regarded as a classic in the literature. As the title implies, Regan explores a rights-based position on human-nonhuman relations.

best
RY

by wageslave Wed May 06, 2009 03:36

"For example, you said: "And how encouraging women to go naked is somehow......undesirable?" I am not prudish and not opposed to nudity per se. However, in the context of this discussion, and in the light of continuing sexualised violence against women (overwhelmingly) and, indeed, the trafficking of human females into Ireland for exploitation, including exploitation as forced sex workers, I am really surprised you say this."

so are you making a link between the trafficking of sex workers for exploitation and a few committed animal welfare activists voluntarily taking off their clothes for a cause they believe in? (often not completely, just to the same degree they would at the local beach or swimming pool!!)
I detect a SLIGHT bias here!

"Anything that serves to commodify women in a patriarchal society should be worrying to anyone who opposes oppression and violence."

I take it you are against most reality TV and advertising then? So when does your internet campaign against that start? Have you ever even posted ONE thing on the internet on that topic? I detect a SLIGHT bias here too.