The first in our “Fur Hypocrite” series, this post features British Vogue and its editor in chief, Alexandra Shulman. I took a look at their “no fur” policy, and found some very interesting…hypocrisies.
I was quite surprised to hear that British Vogue had a “no fur” policy for their magazine, considering fur plays a huge role in the luxury fashion world. Alexandra Shulman, editor of British Vogue, claimed in a Telegraph interview earlier this year “We have a no-fur policy, but the odd cuff and collar creep in.” Creep in? Either you have an anti-fur policy, or you don’t.
However, in an interview for the Guardian, Shulman claims “I wear the odd piece of fur; I don’t have strong personal feelings against it, but I would feel uncomfortable swathed in a mink coat. It would seem unnecessary, ostentatious and somewhat unfeeling, though I can’t explain it more than that.” Can’t explain it? Wow, that’s pretty articulate for a Vogue editor.
The article continues to explain “Shulman says that, ‘broadly speaking’, British Vogue does not feature fur, other than fur advertising, which is not in her remit. ‘However, there is an element of common sense to my policy on this which dictates that since we are there to report on fashion trends, if those trends include fur we will, for instance, show catwalk images that include fur. We do carry some skins like sheepskin, and occasionally a fur trim creeps in.'”
I find it incredibly hypocritical that British Vogue would have a so-called “no fur” policy in order to satisfy their animal activist readers, while still including catwalk images that feature fur, to satisfy their advertisers. Shulman should really do some research into the fur industry, and make an educated statement, rather than “not being able to explain it.” On top of that, she admits she wear fur herself, but it isn’t good enough for her magazine? You can’t have you cake and eat it, Alexandra. Either take a stance against or for fur, by learning some facts. But don’t sit on the fence with a hypocritical policy like this.