The same day that I posted about PETA's fur-free ad, Gilbert Arenas was hosting PETA's free fur give-away to (formerly) homeless women at Rachael's Women's Center here in DC! (The furs are donated by people who decide it is unethical to purchase and wear a fur.)
Arenas' relationship with PETA dates back to early January when he posed for their "Ink, Not Mink" ad.
Arenas, who has been suspended by the NBA and drop-kicked by Adidas, is apparently happy that PETA is not abandoning him in response to his arrest for carrying guns into the locker room.
So many issues come up for me with this story. Here are a few:
1. Is it ethical to wear fur even if you don't buy it?
2. I am uneasy about using the image of the furs because they serve to desensitize us to the unseen but very real violence within.
3. I am also uneasy about using Arenas' ad because I disagree with PETA's general philosophy that it is acceptable to deploy sexism, racism and other isms in the name of the almighty animal rights. Although, I understand it.
4. Is PETA implicitly hoping that the coupling of fur with homeless women will lead to the decoupling of fur with celebrity/wealth and, therefore, will lessen the cultural cache of wearing fur?
5. Did any of the women at Rachael's Women's Center refuse a fur on ethical grounds?
What do you think? Any other issues come up for you?
photos: Arenas' "Ink, Not Mink" here. Arenas w/ Rachael's Women's Center unidentified client here. Rachael's Women's Center logo here.
0 comments:
Post a Comment