Born to be LEFT in The Wild

Today's rant comes from a letter I felt compelled to write to Vogue magazine today. Now, say what you will about Vogue (and I will, so stay tuned!) but I do read it every month religiously as it satisfies my fashion fix, and keeps me informed about what's going on in the world of culture. They have beautiful fashion spreads and insightful articles from some of the best authors and essayists out there, and they are probably more "with the times" than you might realize.

Take the March 2009 issue - usually one of two extra-fat issues throughout the year (hello, spring collections!) - with Michelle Obama on the cover. Now, I don't mean to be a sheep here and jump on the "Obama-bandwagon" just because everyone else is, but it must be said that Michelle is a poised, intelligent and yes, stylish woman who I think is a refreshing and exciting choice for the cover, as opposed to the usual "flavour of the month" celebrity. In addition, I found page after page of "drool-worthy" features and articles inside to quench my need for colour and creativity.

However my delight quickly turned to revulsion when I turned to p. 411 (yes that's right I said 4 HUNDRED 11 - this issue is not quite War and Peace but it's close) and to an accessories feature entitled "Born to be Wild". And, no it was not about a Steppenwolf reunion (sadly) but about the "newest accessories of the season in feral prints mixed with exotic skins". Page after page of python purses, ostrich bangles (which cost over $650 each, I might add) and tons of animal prints. At my estimates (which are probably extremely conservative) there had to have been at least 10 snakes killed just to make this one fashion story happen!

I am consistently disgusted every month to pick up fashion magazines and see dead animals hawked as the newest trendy thing. I don't understand how someone can walk around knowingly wearing a dead animal on their body - it's morally wrong in every way but particularly in this day and age where there is wide access to fake materials that can be substituted, and the awareness of threats to our environment is only growing. I would never think it's ok to kill something in the name of fashion. I don't even really think it's ok to kill animals for any reason, but of course (like most others in the world) I eat chicken and fish and don't think anything of it. But at least eating an animal provides a purpose, i.e. nutrients and protein for my survival, while a calfskin clutch or leopard stole serve only to provide sustenance to your appearance (or at least some people think so). Would you kill your housecat or your pet hamster in order to make yourself a cute, fun purse or wallet? Of course not - so why is it ok when it's snake, zebra or leopard? Where do we draw the line?

Of course, for every fashion magazine feature about the latest fur coats and exotic-skinned accessories, there are 5 animal rights and welfare groups that are standing up against such practices. The "Fur Free Alliance" is an international coalition dedicated to stopping the killing and exploitation of animals for their fur and there are countless Human Societies and SPCA's around the world serving as advocates for animals. In my research, I even discovered an event that pretty much made my life, that being the "Cool vs. Cruel" fashion design contest. For four years now, staff from the Humane Society of the United States have travelled to Art Institutes across the country and spoken to fashion students about the problems associated with fur for fashion. According to their website, the students were shown 4 runway designs that used real animal fur and were asked to re-invent these designs, sans cruelty. An online vote and a subsequent awards dinner are held to recognize the winners and contributers. One of the judges is my-future-gay-husband-to-be-but-doesn't-know-it-yet, Tim Gunn of Project Runway.

At least I know I'm not the only one shocked and appalled by the blatant marketing and promotion of these innocent creatures who died for fashion; it's comforting to know that there are many people out there who are as mad as I am and who aren't going to sit by and watch it happen. I'm only one person with one laptop and it's such a giant problem, but if we all take small steps we can start to see big changes, so I figure I'm doing my small part writing letters and articles such as this one, even if I feel I could be doing more.

And that's the point isn't it - that these creatures are innocent. Human beings think that because animals can't talk to or communicate with us that we are superior and we, as a society, do everything we can to demonstrate this power. But we are missing the point - not only that many animals are actually intellectually and physically superior to us in countless ways and that we should be proud, fascinated and awed by the number and variety of wonderful species we have on this planet; but also that BECAUSE animals can't talk, it is up to US to be their voice. It is up to us to speak on their behalf and interpret their needs and wants and try our best to give that to them, rather than take it away. The last thing they need from us is to destroy their habitats, families and way of life. So, maybe Vogue's title "Born to be Wild" is in fact appropriate, considering that chances are if animals did have a voice, some of them might choose to slither, bound, run, or crawl up to the folks at Vogue and elsewhere that don't respect their role in our world and our relationship to them, and repeat some of the lyrics: "...I'm a true nature's child, we were born, born to be wild, we can climb so high, I never wanna die..."