Did you know that your version of Internet Explorer is out of date?
To get the best possible experience using our website we recommend downloading one of the browsers below.

Internet Explorer 10, Firefox, Chrome, or Safari.

Protesting Kylie Jenner’s Use of Fur Doesn’t Help Animals

Like us on Facebook:

Another day, another useless anti-fur protest makes the news.

TMZ had the gossip on a recent run in Kylie Jenner had with some confused welfarists. At the grand opening of Sugar Factory in Vegas this past weekend, the infamous celebrity was bum-rushed on the red carpet by a mob of laminated photo carrying activists. Although Kylie’s fuzzy jacket could have been real or faux animal fur (she’s been seen in both), the throng of animal advocates supposedly cut her photo-op short by shouting about the blood on her hands.

No mention of any leather, wool, or silk products in her clothing. None of the lanolin or beeswax in her beauty products. And who cares what she had for dinner, right? Or will everyone begin protesting the more “mundane” animal uses once all the Kardashian’s clan members have given up fur first? Which celebrity will be the next baby step?

Campaigns against fur, whether that’s at the PETA level or a small mobbing like this, don’t work because they promote the use of other animal products. When the focus is honed in on one use, it’s perceived as being a worse or more immoral use than the countless others. But using animals to make a jacket is no more frivolous or inconsiderate than using an animal for a snack; neither are necessary. So when a non-vegan hears of Kylie’s run in, they can take away that she’s wrong for wearing fur and they’re right because they don’t.

While we can suppose that these advocates have good intentions, they’re negatively continuing the prevailing welfarist symphony that seems to swirl around all animals rights conversations these days. But for there to be real rights for all animals, they have to be given freedom from all use, not just the flashiest, most expensive, most in-your-face version of it. Getting one celebrity to denounce fur won’t have as much impact as making one person vegan. 

Veganism and promoting an objection to all animal use equally is the only hope animals have. Asking for any less sells animals short.

Like us on Facebook:
0 Comments
  • David Giardina

    You know what really doesn’t help animals? Kylie Jenner’s (and any other public figure’s) use of animal fur. When something is that unspeakable it is indeed good to speak up about it. The argument of this excuse for a “news” story cum editorial i.e. “Well the activists didn’t even mention leather shoes or lanolin or beeswax and those are just as bad as fur – so they’re not helping” is almost as ludicrous as telling a vegan “well, plants have feelings too” or “what about abortion or the starving children in the world?”. We can’t resolve the enormous multi-layered issue in one bite. The vast majority of Animal Rights activists I know do not choose one form of atrocity over another to speak up about. We know that it is ALL needless and inexcusable. Still – animal rights activists are in the minority. There are only so many of us and so much that we can do amidst such widespread, normalized depravity. So we do our best in every moment to heighten public awareness – including when we see a “celebrity” promoting something made from animal cruelty addressing them specifically. The adage “if you see something, say something” comes to mind here. It is the very least that one could do (aside from being vegan) to end human exploitation and abuse of animals. Think about the severity and ubiquitousness of the atrocity and imagine if you’d want to be treated the way animals are treated for human pleasures, comforts and profits. I don’t think you’d feel it was out of turn for someone to speak up on your behalf nor would you be so critical that they didn’t mention every single other person being abused. There is no excuse for animal abuse. Wake up. Stand up. Speak up to animal abusers.

  • If I decide to “speak up to animal abusers”, I need to correctly identify who the animal abusers are first. The 99% of the nonvegan population who eat, wear and use animals perpetuate animal abuse. They are the ones who create a massive demand for all the billions of farm animals brought into existence, tortured and killed with an enormous moral, environmental, health and social cost. These otherwise decent and honest people of whom some happen to be our friends or relatives eat meat, dairy and eggs, wear wool, leather and silk, and occasionally may go fishing or buy pets and then drop them to be killed once the novelty is warn off. All of these actions involve just as much injustice, torture and death as one of many fashion products on the market that this particular female celebrity happen to wear this time. We witness the abuse of gigantic proportions around us all the time and most of us say nothing. We don’t even know what we would say because we have not thought things trough properly and have not taken the time to learn how to address the issue of animal injustice and veganism. Instead, we go and target one selected “animal abuser” whose actions are not in any way different from the actions of our friends, relatives, and even of some vocal participants in anti-fur campaigns. We call it “raising awareness”.

    I have some news for you: the non-vegan public is already aware that wearing a fur coat is immoral while wearing wool and eating meat, dairy and eggs is normal. Trying to convince them that wearing a fur coat is immoral is a waste of time because they already believe that. Trying to convince them that wearing fur coat is immoral does not convince anyone that eating meat, dairy and eggs is immoral too, especially when we emphasise how those animals killed for fur are killed for vanity while completely failing to even mention that killing animals for meat, dairy and eggs is equally unnecessary.

    In conclusion, when I explain to someone who does not wear fur anyway that wearing fur is immoral, I have achieved nothing. However, when I explain to someone with a logical argument the fact that eating meat, dairy and eggs is immoral, many of those who care will get it. Not only that, but the person who gets to understand that eating meat, dairy and eggs is immoral will instantly understand that all animal exploitation is morally wrong. As Prof. Francione often tells us, until we stop eating animal products nothing changes; once we stop eating animal products, everything changes.

    For animal charity organisations anti-fur campaigns work brilliantly because for them, success means the more supporters (vegan or nonvegan) the better. As the majority of the population consists of nonvegans, not mentioning veganism translates into more supporters and more donations. Bingo!

    What is on your agenda?

    We do not need animal charity corporations, single-issue campaigns or campaigns advocating for larger cages. All we need is read Eat Like You Care: An Examination of the Morality of Eating Animals, go out and teach what we have learned, and keep reading and learning until the day we leave the planet.

France’s ban of faux-meat branding won’t stop veganism

I’ll take “mycoproteinous food tube” over a tube of dead pig any day.

Concerned about endangered animals? Stop eating them

Methods of animal conservation that support the exploitation of animals don’t exist for the animals, they exist for human profit.

What you can do if live exports disturb you

The outcry should go further than importation and should be directed at the fact that the animals in question were on their way to slaughter in the first place.