Fast Forward? More like Fast Backward

'It is disgusting that you promote fur fashion'
Published September 24, 2009  by Fast Forward Weekly reader in Letters

Re: Fashion off the grid, Sept 17-23, 2009.

The cover page and fashion article of the September 17 edition are a blight and an offense to human intelligence. Fast Forward? You should call yourself Fast Backward. It is disgusting that you promote fur fashion and especially a black bear fur with head on your front page.

We are now deep into the third millennium and have created a society that is far past the need to dress in “troglodyte moderne.” For decades now, people all across the western world have ostracized those who feel the need to cloak themselves in the hides of murdered animals.

“Indulge your wild side?” Indulge your environmentally insensitive, ignorant and irresponsible side is more like it. I once thought that your paper promoted what was beneficial for mankind and our planet. Now, it seems that you are just another lackey of the capitalist bourgeoisie. How much did you get for your souls?

Inka Lanser-Liebe,

Calgary


Comments: 20

ghuntington wrote:

Take a deep breath. Your point was made well before your hyperbolic closing insults.

We're talking about a FREE weekly newspaper that is generally very socially conscious. I think we should cut them some slack.

Obviously many people will think the photo shoot was a mistake (myself included). But I will continue to read FFWD - Inka, I assume you will not?

on Sep 24th, 2009 at 11:33am Report Abuse

Drew Anderson wrote:

I think it's also important to point out that the bear is not an item of clothing. It's a full skin awaiting taxidermy. This isn't a fur coat, nor designed to be worn. It was a funny use of materials to tell a fashion story.

on Sep 24th, 2009 at 2:17pm Report Abuse

ZacCrossismyalias wrote:

Regardless if it is wearable or not, I'd rather see natural furs being used as opposed to the fake alternative made from non-renewable resources like oil. We can breed more bears, but we can't make more oil. Not to mention the air pollutants that would have come from refining the materials.

on Sep 24th, 2009 at 5:16pm Report Abuse

pianoboy wrote:

Inka, do you braid your armpit hair or just let it fro?

on Sep 25th, 2009 at 12:48am Report Abuse

WW wrote:

I agree with Inka. I also think it's silly that most of the clothes came from Holt Renfrew. That store is a symbol of all that is insipid and status-symbol-consumerist. Again, not things that I think the indy paper in town should be promoting. There's enough of that within Calgary's mainstream.

on Sep 25th, 2009 at 5:07pm Report Abuse

Leah* wrote:

There were also lots of clothes from local boutiques and businesses. Like the leather supplier who loaned us the bear. Clothing from a source like Holt Renfrew isn't silly, it is fashion. The bear was silly. And PS, just because something is independent doesn't mean it only has one point of view.

on Oct 1st, 2009 at 12:26pm Report Abuse

Agent666 wrote:

I wonder if Inka Lanser-Liebe also thinks that Canada's First Nations, as well as other traditional societies, are vile troglodites, since they--*gasp!*--kill and eat animals, and then WEAR THEIR FUR. Nah--that'd be politically-incorrect. Then again, some wackos from the SPCA think that feeding of live mice to people's pet snakes is a cruel, horrible thing that should be abolished. Maybe, they can go into the wild and tell the nice rattlers that they should eat 'veggie-mice' (or, at least, pre-killed mice), instead.

A good rule of thumb is that animal rights activists are nutjobs. After all, Adolph Hitler enacted the first anti-vivisection laws in the world.

on Oct 3rd, 2009 at 7:49pm Report Abuse

Drew Anderson wrote:

Wow, comparing people who are against cruelty to animals to Hitler? I'm getting pretty tired of everyone summoning the ghost of Hitler for every crazy thing. Hitler should be kept in the closet for when things are really screwed.

Rwandan genocide? I think it's OK to bring out Hitler.

PETA? Maybe not so much.

on Oct 3rd, 2009 at 9:55pm Report Abuse

fang wrote:

Godwin's Law - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

on Oct 4th, 2009 at 10:21am Report Abuse

Agent666 wrote:

Hitler's animal rights policy:
http://www.hitler.org/links/NAP_5.html

on Oct 4th, 2009 at 2:20pm Report Abuse

fang wrote:

ACS,

That link you provided argues against your point. It basically says: "The fact that one man who was against animal cruelty happened to also be for human cruelty doesn't mean everyone who is against animal cruelty is equally crazy."

Why would you link to something that undermines your point - unless you were being sarcastic. In which case I applaud you because your sarcasm was so clearly conveyed in textual form.

See that? That was sarcasm too - but it's impossible to tell.

I'm with Drew on this one.

on Oct 9th, 2009 at 1:41pm Report Abuse

Agent666 wrote:

Just wanted to provide a backgrounder. Like cat-clutching, childless women, people overly in love with 'fur people' are misanthropes. Animals are food, clothing, tools, or vermin--NOT something to 'love' on par with people.

on Oct 9th, 2009 at 3pm Report Abuse

Lindsey Wallis wrote:

I have to agree with WW, although not for the same reasons. And I suppose it depends on what FFWD was aiming for.

If it wanted to do a "artsy" spread just for the sake of taking a bunch of pictures of clothes, then goal achieved. However, I don't think a large percentage of FFWD's readership shops at HR (or has even ventured in the store?...maybe that's stretching it).

So, if the goal was to promote Calgary's fashion scene and create a visually appealing layout of clothes its readers might actually go out and purchase...well, not so much. I don't remember HR even being on the short list for Best of Calgary. That would tell me that your readers might enjoy a fashion spread with clothes from Purr or Blame Betty may have been more appreciated.

Just sayin'

on Oct 10th, 2009 at 4:44pm Report Abuse

Lindsey Wallis wrote:

Apologies for my terrible grammar in the last sentence

on Oct 10th, 2009 at 4:45pm Report Abuse

dirtyernie wrote:

the magazine sucks too, i believe the contests are fixed

on Oct 13th, 2009 at 11:11pm Report Abuse

kikiembryonic wrote:

ACS SAYS: "Like cat-clutching, childless women, people overly in love with 'fur people' are misanthropes"

Childless women are all misanthropes. That's not at all misogynist or ridiculous. BARHAR! It takes a special kind of skill to move so seamlessly from animal rights to sexism though, so kudos on that.

I'm surprised more people aren't willing to listen to you, what with your even handed tone and all.

k

on Oct 14th, 2009 at 10:19am Report Abuse

Leah* wrote:

Hi Lindsey! I was the stylist for this shoot and I was working to up the fashion quotient for this issue. If you read the credits you would see the local boutiques that were used also, Primitive, Worth, and the Rocket for example. I may not have used YOUR favorite stores but I would hope you could then take some of the ideas and the approach used to stretch your ideas of fashion or style. As far as creating "a visually appealing layout of clothes its readers might actually go out and purchase...", I think that would be an "Advertorial" as opposed to an :Editorial" aka boring. I never expect anyone in real life to actually wear the items in the way I style it, we are expressing our point of view.

And PS, what is wrong with art?

on Oct 20th, 2009 at 10:44am Report Abuse

McCommunist wrote:

Art? Don't flatter yourself Leah.

on Oct 20th, 2009 at 11:37am Report Abuse

calgaryhumper wrote:

Who made you the authority on what is or isn't art McCommunist? Asshole.

on Oct 20th, 2009 at 6:45pm Report Abuse

Leah* wrote:

For the record Mc Communist, I never said it was art, Lindsey said it was. And I flatter the photographer!

on Oct 23rd, 2009 at 10:02am Report Abuse


Post comment: (Login or Register)


All Content Copyright © Fast Forward Weekly 1995-2011

About Us Contact Us Careers Privacy Policy Terms of Use