Coco Chanel once said, “A girl should be two things: classy and fabulous.” Fortunately, a cruelty-free lifestyle prevents neither. Thanks to influential advocates like Tim Gunn, Donna Karan has recently joined the ranks of fur-free designers like Calvin Klein, Vivienne Westwood and Charlotte Ronson. American Apparel, meanwhile, carries no fur, leather or wool products and even features an organic cotton line.
If you need help navigating all your fashion options, turn to The Professional Vegan. Authored by a self-described “twenty-something ex-investment banker, now lawyer” on a budget, The Professional Vegan features information on the latest work- and weekend-friendly fashions for women.
But don’t think that men are being left out of the mix! Gents can garner fashion tips from the incredibly stylish Joshua Katcher and his blog, The Discerning Brute. According to his site, Brooklyn-based Katcher founded The Discerning Brute “as a resource for intelligent men who want to make ethical, informed decisions concerning their lifestyles.” Now vegan girls — and guys alike — can be both classy and fabulous.
Let’s not forget that the struggle for animal liberation – and the original basis for the vegan movement has a deep interconnectedness to the struggles against sexism, classism, and for social justice and environmental sustainability.
All of the clothing companies you have mentioned are notorious for horrible labor practices from running sweatshops to sexual harrssment and assault in the workplace. Further, all of those companies use the exploitation of women and perpetuate horrible standards of body image in their advertising.
Also, all of those clothes lines are for people with money to burn – they are not affordable companies for average working people… And as vegans – we hopefully all have a concern for the environment as well – we do not need to be encouraging needless consumption especially for something as frivilous as fashion.
What about listing some Fair Trade and Eco-friendly clothing companies? Why not focus on compassionate independent businesses instead of these fashion giants!
I agree that none of these companies are perfect, but let’s not ignore the good that they’ve done.
American Apparel has been a champion for immigration reform and promoting a worldwide minimum wage. Their sewers receive subsidized public transportation, subsidized lunches, free onsite massages, a bike lending program, a program of paid days off, ESL classes, affordable health insurance and access to an on-site medical clinic. A current line of AA shirts feature pro-gay messages. And, of course, I mentioned their green, sustainable line in my article.
Charlotte Ronson is a renowned leader in exploring fur-free, animal-friendly designs and has even teamed with the Humane Society to educate designers about the cruelty of the fur industry. She has also incorporated sustainable materials into her lines.
Vivienne Westwood is a political activist who has actively campaigned for nuclear disarmament and her fashions have included wearable poltical statements. I would add that Westwood and Ronson, by being successful business women, are providing a feminist picture, to an extent.
As for being clothing lines for people with money to burn, Charlotte Ronson recently launched a line for JC Penney. Shirts available now through American Apparel’s online sale begin at $12, tanks at $9. Even Natalie Portman’s line of shoes for Te Casan, which are normally very expensive, can be found for a bargain if you care to look.
Also, The Professional Vegan regularly features very reasonably priced items for women. Like many of us, the author is saddled with student debt and wants great pieces for great prices.
Of course, if you see fashion as frivolous, then I encourage you to look at DC Vegan’s earlier pieces on clothing. Personally, however, I find that I feel my best when I take care of myself and, in that way, have more of myself to give to the causes that I care about.
FYI: American Apparel now sells leather shoes. They are available on their website, unfortunately.
First, this criticism has nothing to do with demanding perfection. However I think you are using your tolerance as way of overlooking fundamental problems.
These are problems that I am arguing are incompatible with vegan ideals (that we need to try to preserve and keep in tact).
I see you have memorized the P.R. talking points of these companies to back up your support of them.
These companies do not need our support – they need our criticism. And if you want to recommend their clothes – as a lesser evil – then be my guest. But can we not point out the contradictions, in an attempt at honesty?
Wording such as:
“As vegans — we are about opposing injustice — these companies although they have their problems – at least make some vegan items…. If we must support any companies at all – these are better then many.”
Because, let’s be real here – Capitalism, is unsustainable. Capitalism is based on a utilitarian worldview that sees world in terms of resources to be exploited for profit. The vegan ideal – and the ideals of capitalism, like it or not, are at odds with each other.
And if your idea of women climbing the business ladder is somehow feminist – we have different definitions of the term. Women joining Men in status positions in a system that should not exist in the first place is simply an answer to the wrong question. Good for building the personal capacities of those women, perhaps – but maintaining and perpetuating an unjust system in the process.
I would agree that I also feel best when I take care of myself – however your implication that if one is not dressing in the latest trends and high fashions, they are somehow doing their personal well-being a disservice is a bunch of crap.
So, please take care of yourself however you see fit – but please don’t pass it off as the only approach; and please point out your own contradictions and inconsistencies or else we risk watering down what it means to be vegan. That we can not afford.
Kara,
I agree that we have different terms regarding feminism — and I would say the same of our views of veganism. At its core, veganism is about limiting the exploitation of, and cruetly to, animals. But, I believe very strongly that there are many ways to live out this choice.
Absolutely there is a place for anger and for criticism. But so too is there a place for celebration — like when a major designer such as Donna Karan decides to give up fur — and for a lighthearted conversation about animal-friendly fashion.
My original post in no way meant to indicate that dressing in a certain manner or wearing certain designers is the only choice for vegans. In fact, my point is quite the opposite: dressing fashionably is an option even for vegans. This is an important idea for those who are interested in lessening their impact on animals but would like to maintain a certain style and don’t yet know that they can have both.
Veganism isn’t some sort of exclusive club, and I think that unfortunately many vegans earn their stereotype as angry and unwelcoming. If we all took a different mindset — that of the joyful vegan, as Colleen Patrick-Goudreau describes so eloquently in her podcasts — we might influence more people to make pro-animal decisions. And those who aren’t ready to do everything might start doing something.
Dustin,
Thanks for the tip. That’s an unfortunate development. But, as those shoes are hideous, here’s to hoping they don’t sell and AA drops them!
Amber,
Fair enough. Thanks for your thoughts. Please understand, there’s no anger here.
I agree that Veganism is not an exclusive club and it shouldn’t be.
Capitalism however, _is_ indeed an exclusive club.
As vegans we should be careful not to prop up the system that is responsible and at the roots of the exploitation that we as vegans seek to withdraw our support from.
Also, by continuing to support sweatshops, sexist, and other unjust labor practices and the like – we risk our movement being unwelcoming to those who believe in workers rights, feminism, etc.
I’m all for the movement being welcoming – I just want it to be welcoming while in solidarity with other social justice movements. That, in my opinion is really crucial.
Amber McDonald,
Actually at the core of veganism is the principle of nonexploitation (period). That means anyone, humans or other animals.
Leslie Cross was a founding member of the vegan movement. In 1951 she wrote -
“Veganism, however, is a principle – that [humans have] no right to exploit creatures for [their] own ends – and no variation occurs.”
Therefore, and this is only logical for people concerned with the plight of others, we vegans avoid the exploitation of ANYONE for our own ends “and no variation occurs”. If a company no longer makes clothing with animal hair, but at the same time exploits humans in the process of making that product, that does not make the product “vegan”.
In my opinion there’s really no moral difference between someone openly endorsing companies that exploit humans for the sake of fashion (taking care of yourself?) and someone openly supporting eating other animals because they “like the taste”. The similarlity lies in the fact that in both instances living, sentient beings are being commodified and exploited for the interests of other privileged beings.
Hi Lucas,
Thanks for your input. I can clarify that I was relying on the definition of “vegan” as provided by the Vegan Society (which was of course founded by Elsie Shrigley and Donald Watson):
The word ‘veganism’ denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude – as far as is possible and practical – all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.
Based on their definition, I would stand by my statement that, its core, veganism is about limiting the exploitation of, and cruetly to, animals. But, it’s all semantics; your definition works for you just as mine does me, and both are aimed at limiting animal cruelty. All of which goes to my earlier point — there are different ways to live out veganism.
The foregoing isn’t meant to imply support my of the exploitation of humans. It is, however, an expression of my opinion that statements like “we vegans,” which imply only one path or one “right way” are extremely detremental to the cause of lessening animal suffering. Let me borrow a bit from Vegan Outreach:
It is imperative for us to realize that if our veganism is a statement for animal liberation, veganism cannot be an exclusive, ego-boosting club. Rather, we must become the mainstream. Fostering the impression that “it’s so hard to be vegan–animal products are in everything,” and emphasizing animal products where the connection to animal suffering is tenuous, works against this by allowing most to ignore us and causing others to give up the whole process out of frustration. . . .
We want a vegan world, not a vegan club. . . .
No matter how many chants we shout, no matter how many sound bites we gain, no matter how many labs we vandalize or “enemies” we defeat, animal liberation will not occur until we join with everyone in a vegan world. If there is to be a fundamental change in the manner in which other animals are viewed–if there is to be animal liberation–there can be no “us and them.”
http://www.veganoutreach.org/advocacy/path.html#veganexample
So, for some people, eliminating leather is what works for them and it can serve as their entree into a vegan lifestyle. For others, they’ll seek out wearing political messages or organic lines. My 80-year-old grandmother has decided to make her impact by drinking almond milk instead of cow’s milk. Is she “vegan”? No. Is she making a difference, however slight? Absolutely. My friend has recently shifted to (as she describes it) being a vegan at breakfast, a vegetarian at lunch and a flexitarian at dinner. Bravo to her! Anything that can lessen animal cruelty is a great step in my book.
At Vegan Drinks, I would love to speak with vegans in the strictest sense of the term (or most expansive, depending on how you look at it), but also vegetarians, pescetarians, “flexitarians,” omnivores and — bring it! — “meatatarians.” As long as we can all engage in a respectful, welcoming dialogue than we have a better chance of impacting others’ choices with respect to animals.
Hi Amber,
For some reason I cannot see our recent comments. I see that they were posted in the “recent comments” section but I cannot view them in this thread. Perhaps there’s a problem that can be corrected… Perhaps it’s my fault (very likely).
Thanks
Lucas, I can still see them, but I’ll give Tim the head’s up. Thanks!
Amber, I absolutely agree that, as vegans, we should be understanding of where non vegans are coming from and that engaging in respectful dialog with them is imperative. I haven’t suggested otherwise.
However, I don’t believe that vegans, or any other social activists, should water down our message of compassion, peace, freedom, and justice for other beings (which is at the core of veganism) just because some other people or “the mainstream” will think that message is a turn off, or is too radical. In a world of hyper consumerism where people think it’s OK, or even natural, to exploit humans and other animals (as well as destroy the environment) just so they can feel pleasure, of course a message of personal responsibility for our actions and unlimited compassion for all other beings seems radical or “too much” for people. Apparently so much that even people actively taking a stand against animal cruelty can see that message as too radical and damaging to “the movement” (VO, Peter Singer, Wayne Pacelle, and many more).
I don’t think it’s too much for people to consider at all and having these values doesn’t mean I’m being exclusivist or disrespectful or ignorant as to where others (non vegans, people not concerned with human rights issues or the environment, etc..) are coming from.
By definition, and I think we agree on this point, vegans reject the exploitation of animals. OK well, humans are animals. Therefore, “as far as is possible and practical “, we should not be promoting the exploitation of human or nonhuman animals, especially for the sake of personal taste (e.g.-fashion).
I don’t think that by holding this commitment that I’m “ego boosting” or trying to define “the right way” for vegans to be vegans. Hell, how is it “ego-boosting” when the message is all about having compassion for other beings? (I’m, of course, saying this in response to the VO paragraph). It’s only logical that veganism means applying the principle of non exploitation and anti-oppression to our daily lives. If not, then the stand against animal oppression is pretty meaningless if we are encouraging people to buy from companies that oppress humans (e.g. – JC Penny, Calvin Klein). It’s totally contradictory.
By sticking to this commitment of non-exploitation (of anyone) we can still very much be “joyful vegans” and “take care” of ourselves. Indeed Colleen Patrick Goudreau, who(m?) you previously mentioned, takes a clear stance against human exploitation and oppression and only openly promotes ethical companies with good labor practices. She also has said that one reason she went vegan is, and I’m paraphrasing, because she can’t stand seeing someone suffering at the hand of another. Now picture that hand holding a newly bought Calvin Klein dress that was made under terrible working conditions.
I’m certain that you mean well, Amber. I just disagree with you.
Also, if you are interested in reading more about the connection between the oppression of humans and other animals, please read David Nibert’s book, Animal Rights/Human Rights – Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation.
Lucas,
Excellent points, truly. I think where I differ, however, is that I don’t see the message as being “watered down,” so much as I see it being tailored to individuals or broken down into digestible bites. As someone relatively new to veganism who has also seen friends, very recently, come to the realization of where their meat comes from (to say nothing yet of other animal products and by-products), I know well how overwhelming the realizations can be. I hope that DC Vegan can be a resource for them as well as for people who have been living a vegan lifestyle for much longer. Just as all the “Vegetarian Food Guides” (which just about saved my life when I realized that everything I ate had milk in it) suggest that we move in steps toward our ultimate goal of a cruelty-free diet, so too would I suggest doing the same with our clothing, etc. Certain readers, in fact many of my friends, aren’t ready to give up fashion for…well, anything…but if they can maintain their style while lessening (if not eliminating) the cruelty that went into their clothing, that’s really great info for them. Someone such as yourself, who has moved past the obvious of “fur is bad” into the additional issues of welfare regarding clothing doesn’t necessarily need a post like mine or isn’t struggling with how to continue dressing a certain way while not wearing leather goods. But we’re not all at your point. We’re taking our steps to get there and gaining awareness along the way.
I will add that I generally believe that Ronson, Westwood and AA are responsible companies — at least until I hear differently, Donna Karan is moving in the right direction but isn’t there yet, and I was unaware of the allegations against Calvin Klein until the great comments here. See, still learning!
I’m really interested to hear more on your view of Wayne Pacelle. I’ve had the pleasure of meeting Wayne and I think he’s very kind person and very sincere animal advocate. He’s vegetarian (or vegan, I’m not sure) for starters, but I also think that his and the Humane Society’s stance are very calculated. They try to make an impact where they know the public will be most receptive. I think it’s a very intelligent approach (but I’m certainly biased by my own views as expressed in these comments). Rather than being seen as extremists like PETA, of which the public at-large can be very critical, they tailor their message (or water it down, as you might say) and are still able to lessen cruelty on a phenomenal scale.
Thanks for your reply, Amber. We all still have a lot to learn. I totally understand that.
Now, this is another can of beans to be opened here, but I’ll go ahead and do it anyways since you’re interested in my opinion.
I don’t think that Wayne Pacelle isn’t a kind person and I’m sure he is a sincere animal advocate. I am aware that he is a vegan and that’s obviously great. However, I could point out many instances in which he has undermined veganism as the best, most effective step to ending animal exploitation. He instead erroneously believes, as many animal welfare advocates do (and have in the past), that constant (expensive) reforms will eventually lead to the abolition of animal exploitation.
Here’s a recent Pacelle quote about those who don’t (didn’t) support Prop 2 (which, as I will point out, does next to nothing for other animals) – “For people who want a vegan revolution–that’s too passive for me.” WTF? Really, Wayne?
Ok, let’s explore his (non-passive) strategy then.
First, I don’t consider any welfare reforms, such as Prop 2, to be an effective way to end animal exploitation, nor do I see welfare reforms as benefiting the animals involved one bit. Not one bit. (Check out http://www.humanemyth.org/, http://www.peacefulprairie.org/freerange1.html, and abolitionistapproach.com.)
As Professor Gary Francione has pointed out (or has basically been screaming for the last couple of decades), there is NO evidence that animal welfare reforms are leading to the abolition of animal exploitation, but instead, they are helping to increase the amount of animals used for human purposes and in the most horrible ways possible. We have had animal welfare, as we know it, for a couple centuries now and the amount of animals used is steadily rising. That is the proof that animal welfare reforms, such as Prop 2, do not work. There is no evidence that they help other animals but there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. (Check out Francione’s books, Rain Without Thunder, Introduction to Animal Rights, and Animals as Persons).
I have to agree with Francione that all animal welfare (reform) does is make people feel like the animals are being treated better and then that in turn increases the demand for “humane” animal products. Companies such as Whole Foods, and others, have created niche marketing schemes to cash in on the privileged people who can afford the mark up on “humanely raised” animal corpses and secretions. These people who buy these corpses and secretions think, because of efforts by PETA, HSUS, etc, that they are doing something helpful for the animals they consume! George Orwell’s head would be spinning if he were alive today! “War is peace” and consuming animals is helping them… 2 + 2 = 5, right?
So by not confronting people with the question, “Is it morally acceptable, or even necessary, to use other animals at all?” Welfarists, especially Pacelle and HSUS, are avoiding the moral question and are saying, “As long as you support our expensive campaigns to ‘lessen’ animal suffering you can put your conscience to rest and just eat animals that suffer ‘less’. That’s morally acceptable. No need to go vegan. We’ll help the animals for you! All you have to do is donate and vote.” The former question is never asked because it’s seen as “asking too much” out of people or as a “turn off” to the public. So here we go again with why it is detrimental to the cause of animal advocacy to water down the vegan message.
I could get into why Prop 2 , which I’ve read several times in disgust, is a total joke and won’t help other animals (if it even ever comes into effect in 2015! – Where’s the helping animals now, HSUS, PETA, etc?) and that how many organizations, such as the AVMA, American Veterinary Medical Association, didn’t support it (Quote – “The AVMA believes Proposition 2, ‘Standards for Confining Farm Animals,’ is admirable in its goal to improve the welfare of production farm animals; however, it ignores critical aspects of animal welfare that ultimately would threaten the well-being of the very animals it strives to protect.” Word!!!), but instead I’ll just leave it with the point I made above; There is no evidence that welfare reforms significantly help other animals or that they are leading to the abolition of animal exploitation. There is plenty of evidence to show that it helps humans feel better about eating the (still) tortured, mutilated bodies of other animals. The same animals that are enslaved, raped, tortured, and murdered (all the atrocities committed ethical vegans, like Wayne Pacelle, object to).
Pacelle runs HSUS which sits on top of reported revenues of $124,000,000 and assets of $223,000,000. Stunts like Prop 2 (I keep using Prop 2 because it’s a perfect example of how impotent animal welfare is) are great for HSUS media attention and fund raising, but are horrible for the other animals involved.
Veganism, however, is a rejection of the exploitation of other animals for our human interests. If HSUS would advocate veganism as a moral baseline, and spend just a fraction of the ridiculous amount of money it did on Prop 2, just think about how much animal suffering it could end by decreasing demand. Instead Wayne Pacelle continues to delude himself into believing that veganism is an optional, or even unnecessary, step if one truly cares about animal suffering and that supporting the laughable, pathetic, and impotent efforts of large national organizations (corporations) is actually doing something helpful for other animals. I see absolutely no proof of that. Instead I see cars with Prop 2 support bumper stickers parked at steak restaurants.
I guess there’s no money to be made in advocating personal commitments to veganism, so I can see why doing so is “too passive” for a large animal welfare organization (corporation) that depends on donations to stay in business.
A decrease in demand of all animal products, even ‘humane” ones, is the most effective way to end animal exploitation. That decrease in demand can only be achieved with veganism. And, as we, as vegans, know all too well, it is not asking too much to ask someone to try veganism if that someone cares about other animals. If it was too much to ask then I may not be a vegan right now and maybe neither would anyone else who is reading this.
I tried to make this a short as possible. I swear!
Peace
Amber,
Your perspective is certainly understandable. But just like the portrayals of veganism you are trying to differentiate yourself from, it is also going to turn some people off from veganism. I came to veganism via the social justice and human rights movements, not the other way around. I began buying vegan merchandise because vegan retailers were more likely to carry sweatshop free/fair trade products. The thing that turns me off from the animal rights movement is the impression that animals are more important than people. I’ve come to realize that is not how most vegans feel and that most vegans (like Kara and Lucas) are interested in stopping exploitation of all beings. However, that sentiment is very apparent in your post and in your comments. Had your view been my introduction to veganism, I don’t know if I ever would have become a vegan. I realize I am not who you are trying to attract, and I have no idea whether you will draw more people with your approach. But you will also alienate some. Peace.
MT,
I really take issue with your statment that the sentiment that animals are more important than people is “very apparent” in my post and comments. Quite to the contrary, I’d point out that some of the criticism of my post is that I value humans – and human desire – too much. Moreover, my statements regarding the good those companies have done/continue to do for humans as well as my statement that I was, until now, unaware of the poor business practices of Calvin Klein until Kara’s comments prompted me to do additional research. Rather, I saw multiple sources praise them for their anti-fur practices and added my praise for the same, nothing more. I have never, and would never, say that animals are more important than people. I will, however, say that “non-human animals” (thank you, Lucas and C.P.-G.) embody the very best of which humans are capable. (And, for your benefit, I like my dog more than any person I’ve met.)
I think, MT, that one point we can all take away from this is that there isn’t one definition of veganism. I state the obvious when I note that one person isn’t wholly representative of a group in any situation — race, religion, anything. Nor can a 10-sentence post portray an entire ethical lifestyle choice for a group or even one person’s complete belief system. Personally, I had a terrible experience with a disgusting human being — who also happened to be a vegan — and still found my way here. I hope none of us forget the danger of generalisms.
Lucas,
Your comment has given me a lot to think about (and I feel compelled to “defend the honor” of Wayne and the HSUS if I can) but, unfortunately, I’m furiously typing away on my blackberry before boarding a flight. I will certainly come back to our discussion when work/travel allow me to.
Amber, I hope my comment wasn’t seen as a personal attack against Wayne Pacelle. That was not my intention. Rather, I think it’s necessary to question and criticize the “leaders” of the animals rights/animal avocacy/animal welfare “movement”, especially when they undermine veganism and their tactics, in the words of the AVMA, “ultimately would threaten the well-being of the very animals it strives to protect”.
Lucas,
I think then that maybe we agree (sort of) on the HSUS and my beloved Wayne to the extent that we all act with greater compassion than the minimal protections put in place by things like Prop 2 require of us. I would imagine that WP and the vast majority of HSUS employees would still find conditions after Prop 2 horrific, but — I hope — they’re at least incrementally better for the animals subject to factory farming. Of course, this is your point — that we risk people becoming complacent or feeling ok with their consumption of animals because of more humane conditions. But this is where HSUS (and COK and PETA and the rest) will continue to educate the public that better doesn’t mean ok.
Have you seen Milk by any chance? Seeing it between reading your comment and writing my reply has certainly impacted my response. There’s an interesting contrast between the “rich old queens” and Milk’s in-your-face approach. I think there’s certainly a place for both — and they’re both important in my opinion — but I’m re/considering where I want to align myself.
[...] than have people be able to spot my special needs lifestyle by looking at my feet.”) Andrea and I share a love for dressing stylishly vegan. Apparently, we also share a desire to do so without emptying [...]