portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article oregon & cascadia

animal rights

Showing Skin To Save Hides In Eugene

In Eugene PETA activists show skin to raise consciousness of animal cruelty
Showing Skin To Save Hides In Eugene
Showing Skin To Save Hides In Eugene
Activists Show Skin To Save Hides In Eugene

Motorists and pedestrians alike were treated to a display of skin and slick vinyl this afternoon in Eugene during the lunch hour at the corner of 10th Willamette. PETA Campaign Coordinator Lisa Franzetta, Rachel Wolf, and an anonymous local activist cow led a demonstration protesting cruelty to animals and advocating the use of substitutes to leather.

Clad only in skimpy black outfits and waving to passing cars, the protestors attracted much attention, as they have in many other cities on their national tour. They passed out pamphlets and raised consciousness concerning the availability of products not derived from animals, but that function as and have the appearance of leather.

Pamphlets included "PETA's Shopping Guide To Nonleather Products", which lists stores and companies worldwide that sell leather substitutes. This and other information is available at www.pleatheryourself.com and from PETA (www.PETA.org or 757-622-PETA.)

Why Not In Eugene? 09.May.2002 16:40

His Motha

So why won't the Eugene Indymedia site publish this? Or are they STILL down?

plastic is no answer 09.May.2002 16:59

e. lake

Plastic is not so kind to the earth. This whole stradegy is not that well thought out. And exhibiting yourself like this is hardly getting any memorable mission across. Let's go back to the 1950s? No thanks.

Pleather Pleasure 09.May.2002 17:53


It's probably true that plastic is not kind to the environment ... though it would be interesting to see if it could become a more-guilt-free alternative. Re: the skimpy outfit tactic PETA seems to favor, i still like it. One way or another we fit outselves into a paradigm of sexuality partially created by consensus, thus created by others. I often feel more oppressed by those seeking to limit appropriate modes of sexual expression for my gender (F), than by the skin-peddling mainstream. I suppose this makes me brainwashed. I guess my point then is, everybody's brain is "washed" one way or another.

The bottom line for me is that PETA makes activism look a little more fun than a lot of our normal protest techniques. Regardless of whether it's Pepto Dizmal, the Anarchy Cheerleaders, the PDX Drum Brigade ... or PETA's pretty poster protestors ... a little more fun can do us some good.

Better idea 09.May.2002 18:34

Robin Canaday antayla@hotmail.com

I have a better idea.

Instead of baring skin to protest the killing of animals, it seems like a better idea to bare more than a little skin at your local international airport to protest the draconian measures they plan to use in airport security.
Given that a person can be arrested for running around in public butt nekid, where do they get off suggesting that they virtually strip search everyone who gets on a commercial plane? At what point do we call BS on this?

I am considering organizing a "nude" protest concerning this matter of civil rights... I am sure that this should concern the more conservative among us at the least (I mean, even if women are veiwing women, you can't have some potential lesbian oogling your gawd-fearin' wife >:)


huh? 09.May.2002 18:59


I thought that most leather was taken from animals that are already slaughtered for consumption. Is this true? If so, then where's the harm in leather? It's a very nice material and I imagine fewer oil tankers leak for every pair of leather shoes than for plastic ones.

Leather rules 09.May.2002 19:23

Robin Canaday antayla@hotmail.com

About every year to year and a half I buy a new pair of black leather boots. I have a few other pairs of shoes I've had for years (for dressing up, job interviews etc.) but I don't buy new Nikes or whatever every few months. Leather is durable, renewable, and causes little environmental impact. It's better to use the whole cow than toss the leather (which is what they'd be doing.) As for it being evil to kill animals... HELLO. WE ARE ANIMALS. ANIMALS KILL OTHER ANIMALS AND EAT THEM. I don't agree with the squalid condition our livestock endures in factory farms, that is why I'm going mostly vegetarian until I can buy meat from a good local butcher or grow it myself.

Plastic vs. leather 09.May.2002 19:54


I encourage people to not purchase leather,animals do die to make stuff that could be made out of other materials,and they suffer before they die from being caged up and mistreated but I would like to point out that the production of PVC garments is very toxic. I have heard that cancer rates in areas within a quarter mile of PVC plants are sky high, because Dioxins are emitted in great quantitys. I have nothing but respect for the PETA activists calling attention to the plight of our animal friends, I just want to tell everyone out there DONT BUY PVC-IT'S VERY VERY TOXIC and the production of it makes humans and animals suffer.Wear hemp instead,it's more comfortable and way more enviornmentally nice.

PETA is sexist 09.May.2002 20:22


It's nice to see people using good old-fashioned sexist cheesecake to sell the cult of animal rights.

What's next, posters of Hitler with the motto "Vegetarianism, part of the final solution?"

How about encouraging diabetics not to take their insulin, since insulin often is of animal origin?

How about encouraging children to drink beer instead of milk? Oh wait, they already did that.

reason to not buy leather 09.May.2002 21:47

common sense

My reasoning for not consuming the leather are several

1. if we do not support the leather industry then they will then have to pay to dispose of the carcass thus adding expense to the slaughter industry

2. by purchasing vegan items we support and further develop these industries

*My religion is Veganism*

I love this planet, do you?

not common sense, actually 09.May.2002 23:11

someone who hates to bust your bubble

1. If nobody bought leather, farmers would make less money, but the leather still would be profitable, as they would just grind it up with the bones and other parts for feed (in some countries) or fertilizer. Boycotting will hurt "them" a little, but not much. Regardless, the dominant factor in the quantity of beef grown is food, and not leather. If you hurt the farmers by not buying leather, the price of beef will go up to compensate (good for you, since we'd eat a LITTLE less beef) but not all that much since not buying leather won't hurt them all that much.

2. Cotton is grown with copious pesticide (far more than most crops), depletes the earth, and really isn't the answer you want to leather. Hemp growth is illegal in most places. Plastics are bad on the environment. IE, most vegan alternatives still carry a heavy price or are not ready. Support hemp, but cotton, PVC, etc? I would urge you to support only SOME vegan alternatives. And also to consider that US foreign policy harms millions in its quest to procure oil, so plastics suck as well. Choose carefully, friend! :)

Basically, no contest. Being more humane to livestock is a worthy goal. Boycotting leather isn't much of a step down this path. Your efforts could be spent by persuading the world to eat less meat, which would just mean that FEWER animals would suffer, but just as much. Maybe your best action would be to promote awareness of livestock sentience. Of course, I love my leather...

And to the poster who thinks PETA is sexist: Let me get this straight--these scantily clad activists know that sex sells, and choose to use it? That sounds like effective advertising to me. Maybe you're the sexist here. Or maybe I am, for giving more attention to their message just because it comes with a pretty picture (note that I don't think anything in their campaign implies women are less than capable, so I'd say I'm not a sexist).

women for sale 09.May.2002 23:28

this girl's body not for sale

can peta please grow up, rise up and start using tactics that do not use women's bodies, for pete's sake! using women's bodies to sell things is fucked up, whether it's for slick shiny new cars or a plea to protect animals. And i'm having a hard time beliving that those who are feasting on the bodies of peta women are going to suddenly and miraculously be redeemed, so why do it! and another thing, why is it only women who bare it, why not peta men?

also, plastic is about one of the most dangerous products in our environment. the petro in it is responsible for the xeno-estrogens that are causing cancer, especially breast and prostate cancer, since these synthetic estrogens have a prediliction for and tend to lodge in the fat cells of the body. plastic is ecocide and is far from a responsible choice as an alternative to leather. plastic does not allow the body to breathe, and also causes the accumulation of positive ions. stinky, sour people is what ya end up with.

as a (compassionate) vegetarian i do not like the idea of leather, but have not found a reasonable alternative. someone mentioned hemp, but thus far i have not found hemp footwear that is comfortable, so suggestions are helpful here.

the suggestion for nudity at the airport, where we are already being stripped of our rights, seems an appropriate use of public nudity.

PETA are sexist and pro-war!! 10.May.2002 06:51

down with PETA

Treating women like meat

How PETA is missing the forest for the trees
in its sexist campaigns

PETA has praised the military's operations in Afghanistan, because its propagandistic food drops were, more or less inadvertently, vegan.
What's gotten into PETA?

Animal rights activists and groups can be notorious for the single-mindedness of their advocacy, willfully ignoring on other oppressions in order to highlight and change our society's shameful abuses of animals. And People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the country's largest and best-known advocacy group for animal rights (as opposed to more service-oriented groups like the Humane Society or PAWS), has always had an unsettling habit of pushing the envelope in inappropriate ways in order to draw attention to its issues -- and of exploiting and mistreating its young, often female staffers and volunteers. But PETA's recent embrace of the exploitation of women's bodies to agitate for animal rights is beyond dubious. It's a level of offensiveness that would raise an uproar if it were coming from a right-wing political group.

PETA's treatment of women is more than a one-time error in judgment, and it's more than a trend. It's a clearly calculated campaign to stand out in a saturated media environment by appealing to the most prurient possible tastes. Consider:

A television ad in which a woman is being beaten to death with a bat in a subway, with a man ripping off her fur coat, and the inscription: "What if you were killed for your coat?" The ad was pulled by PETA as "too violent in the wake of September 11," but it remained on PETA's web site.

Another ad, this one print, with a blonde woman in an Uncle Sam outfit -- unbuttoned with cleavage showing -- and the inscription "I want YOU to go vegetarian." The woman, it turns out, is Playboy's Kimberly Hefner. The ad was distributed as a cutout poster in "Stars and Stripes," the newspaper of the nation's armed forces, distributed around the world to soldiers as they bomb away. PETA has praised the military's operations in Afghanistan, because its propagandistic food drops were, more or less inadvertently, vegan.

Another ad, with another young, blonde woman in a come-hither centerfold pose and the bizarre inscription "Pleather Yourself."

Another ad, featuring yet another young blonde woman, this time naked, in a classroom setting, only partly turned to the blackboard (underdeveloped cleavage showing) on which she is repeatedly writing "I'd rather go naked than wear fur." The model, it turns out, is Dominique Swain, star of Lolita, and a PETA press release touts her as "the youngest star ever to pose au natural for PETA's anti-fur campaign."
For decades, feminists have linked animal rights with women's rights; some of the earliest modern women's liberation protests involved beauty pageants in which women explicitly decried being treated like meat. Animal rights groups have always relied upon women for the bulk of their organizing, and any serious critique of patriarchal values has always described male dominance and mistreatment of everything: women, animals, the environment.

It's more than a little surreal to have the country's best-known animal rights group seemingly endorsing male violence in virtually all its forms: militarism, male violence against women, objectification of women, even, with the use of a naked actress associated with Lolita, statutory rape -- in the service of ostensibly encouraging people not to commit violence against animals. It's also extraordinarily discrediting, not just to PETA, but to the entire animal rights movement.

PETA's ads would be bad enough if they had been executed by, say, The Gap or some auto company. They would be incomprehensibly offensive promoting a right wing political cause. But in this case they're being trotted out in the service of an ethic that is supposed to oppose oppression, not embrace it. The ads lend unfortunate credence to the long-standing, often spurious rap against animal rights activists -- that they care more about animals than people. Moreover, it makes the rap specific to 51 percent of humanity. The modern-day PETA, it seems, loves animals; it just hates women.




Disappointed in Portland IMC 10.May.2002 06:58


How can the Portland IMC give this shit coverage on their feature wire -- the same wire that has an article on "women and the fight for global justice?

This is soooooooooo hypocritical. Portland IMC is simultaneously given activist women a voice and treating them like meat! PETA are part of the American fascist-misogynist culture and you guys are giving it coverage??

I am deeply disturbed. I was proud of you guys for covering "what really happened on 9/11", but I am seriously having doubts as to where you guys stand on one of the most important issues affecting humanity: the treatment of women as sexual and work objects.


one alternative 10.May.2002 07:10

e. lake

There is one alternative which hasn't really been canvassed here and that is used clothes, thriftstore clothes, recycled garments or if you wanna be cool about it, vintage.

The stuff exists already. There is plenty of it. Some of it is all the rage anyway. It does not cost a lot... even when it is at a vintage clothing store, I'll bet it is much cheaper than these plastic alternatives. It has already been worn and has value just in that.

The older pieces are made much much better than anything you find today, unless it is designer, which is still made by well-piad workers, union workers. The older garments were made by the culture who wore them and that made a huge difference in the intergrity of the garment.

Nowadays, most clothes are made by someone in a faraway land and they are paid very little for the trouble and it shows. Meanwhile, we have all these other garments to choose from, which are so much better in nearly every way, and that includes ...yes, leather. A thriftstore or vintage clothing store is really a recycling center. Plus it supports, generally, smaller business. When you buy something from the 40s or 50s especially, you are buying something very well made which you could pass on to someone else. It still has great value and appeal. Can anyone say that for the plastic clothes made today? What are they worth 6 months later?

And by the way, ever spent 16 hours of your busy day in plastic? Surely we are not going back to the idea that women don't do anything but look good? We work, we get around, we need clothes that function well.

Light up folks 10.May.2002 07:59


These PETA adbuster-like antivertisments are FUNNY and they make people think. Look at all the issues raised in the posts here; that's the point. What basically comes across is the message "we like and defend animals".

These women are activating an Aphrodite-like archetypal quality in human consciousness. Don't have a cow, man.

response to 'Disappointed in Portland IMC' 10.May.2002 09:46

portland indy activist

For the last couple months or so, some of us who upload features to the center column for portland indymedia have been attempting to automatically make into a feature any newswire item that is original reporting, like this PETA story is. We believe the newswire is the heart and soul of indymedia, and we have been thinking about the features column as primarily being a tool to *promote* the newswire as a place to post original material. That is, the newswire mostly contains re-posts from other publications at this point, and while they are valuable in their own right, and often provide great information, they have already had their "day in the sun" in their original publications, and it is unfortunate how they "push" original stories off the wire. It's been our hope that by highlighting every original post in the features column (or trying), that more people would post original material. It feels like this strategy has been working, and that there's been more original material posted. Which is great.

Now, portland indymedia has no official political ideology (other than being a supporter of free speech) and the posts that we make into features are not vetted to pass muster with any particular philosophy. In the case of this PETA story, there is a wide range of opinions about PETA's tactics, and whether they are ethical or effective, etc. It is not up to portland indymedia to take a stance in this discussion. It is up to portland indymedia to provide a forum for it to occur. That's it.

Please remember, portland indymedia does not exist to give people the news. portland indymedia exists so that ANYONE may give people the news, using this particular web-based interface.

Anyone who would like to have a voice in the process that leads to features being uploaded to the center column (a process that is contantly evoloving), may join the editorial team. Editorial folks meet every Saturday at 4:00 p.m. at the Red and Black Cafe. Discussions about features also take place on a listserve, which you can join at:  http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-portland-editorial

Like most indymedias, portland changes as different people come and go, and as the content on the newswire changes. indymedia is an open project and everyone is always welcome to participate.

light(en) up?! 10.May.2002 09:59


light up? do you think that women using their bodies is en-light-enment? you ask us to light(en) up when there is a clear, proven correlation between pornography (which much of peta's stuff is) and violence against women? shall we light up about that, look the other way so that peta can try and convince people not to harm animals, whilst risking the welfare of women?!

social activist groups need to be beacons of light, responsible and thoughtful in their choices, choices that have a big impact on the way that their messages are viewed, how seriously their message is taken. peta casts a dark shadow on the work that many of us are striving to do.

holy shit, i hate liberals!!! 10.May.2002 10:06


silly liberals, singel issue campaigns are for reformists!

peta sucks-sexist, lame, liberl, pro-governement (if it means they will address animal issues) the list continues...

yes, lighten up! 10.May.2002 12:36

not the same poster

To enlightened: Actually, I've seen a body of scientific evidence which suggests that pornography reduces violence against women. So that's up for debate. However, what's not up for debate is that there's nothing inherently wrong with being naked in public. What IS wrong is that people get all worked up about it. What IS wrong is the way people TREAT other people just because of the way the look, dress, etc. The sexism lies strictly with the people who buy into the notion that women are first and foremost objects. That would not seem to be PETA; although they could go with a few nude guys as well, they don't objectify women.

My personal opinion is that scolding people for their behavior (oh you're so sexist don't talk to me) as opposed to engaging them (I think it's sexist BECAUSE...) is counterproductive to your goal of fighting sexism. In fact, by getting all worked up about it, you're helping out "team sexist" by assigning negative worth to publicly nude women. If you'd take a moment to stop and address the cause (people's perceptions) rather than the symptom (naked women in advertisements) you'd be doing us all a huge favour.

I think sexism sucks, so please stop supporting it.

pornography vs prostitution 10.May.2002 13:32

fact girl

pornography by its nature leaves a person high and dry, so to speak. if there is no outlet for the arousal that pornography provides, then unwitting women can and do become targets for that. if you want to talk prostitution, which involves sex, than yes, that may alleviate violence against women, simply because ones physical needs are getting some attention.

for those who are unwilling to look at the impact that using women objectively has, both on them, on men, and on society, then we are doomed to stay stuck in inequality that will keep us divided and separated.

public nudity is a completely different thing than wearing a bit of cloth to cover ones "private parts". this is one helluva lot more enticing than complete nudity.

what we are talking about here is oppression. women get far better pay using their (sexual) bodies because society devalues them by not paying them thier worth in other jobs. keeping women stuck in these positions continues the cycle of devaluement, where they will be continually seen and used as sexual objects.

to fact girl 10.May.2002 18:10

not the same poster (again)

I beg to differ. I'll do it paragraph by paragraph, matched to yours.

The utilization of pornography often results in orgasm, which DOES lower tension and reduce arousal. It is an outlet. And it's safe. I'd rather masturbate than risk disease with a prostitute. So, by your own logic, since masturbation (which is what we guys use pornography for) and sex with a prostitute both alleviate sexual tension, then pornography may actually alleviate violence against women.

Using women objectively (or men, for that matter) is just wonderful so long as people viewing these women understand that the women are much more than objects. For all the Joe Sixpacks out there who don't realize they're being manipulated by gorgeous women, and that these women are much more than objects--these Sixpacks need education. You could even make a case that Joe Sixpack is the victim here (albeit largely to his own stupidity).

Some people thought that the Victorian Woman, with only her ankles and face showing, was by far the most enticing of all... At any rate, I only used the word "nude" because it was a faster to type than "scantily clad", and because the issue here is about the woman's body turning heads for a message.

Same with black males dealing drugs--society doesn't pay them enough so they get their money elsewhere. It's a tragedy that they, and women, are discriminated against. It is this cycle of discrimination which must be interrupted--I agree. However, drugs have a market value, and so does sex. I would say that it is not the woman serving as a prostitute that keeps the cycle of oppression going (a prostitute can make far more than most of us), it is the perception of the power majority that does. The woman's body will always have market value, so you may as well encourage people to realize that serving as an object of sexual desire is not ignoble and does not equate with stupidity. As a guy, let me just tell you even though this may disgust you that I'd know this; there are many pornstars who belong to MENSA!

leather alternatives 10.May.2002 18:16


some excellent non-leather alternatives can be found at:
www.vegetarian-shoes.com or www.ethicalwares.com

it is true that plastic is polluting. but so is the tanning process of making leather. so are the cows themself. so is the entire environmental rape that occurs in the name of beef.

cotton is grown with pesticides? try organic. your cows' feed is grown with tons of pesticides as well.

yes, the leather may come from cows that have been used as beef but that is entirely irrelevant. it is still another creature's skin. another living, breathing, creature that suffers. would you wear rabbit fur? someone probably ate the meat...what about cat? dog? one could just as easily argue that their cow would've been killed anyway for the leather so they're just making sure that all the parts are used by eating it. they are the one and same industry. stop supporting any facet of it.

and yes, animals kill and eat other animals. it is in fact part of nature. but you are not controlled by primal animal survival instinct. you have a conscious choice. use it.

leather alternatives? 10.May.2002 19:23

someone who hates to bust your bubble

Whoa, what a mess!

We people are polluting! You could do a comparison of pollution from plastic vs leather, and go from there. My take is that the cow is going to be raised for food--leather or not. So, don't start your bashing of leather's pollution until the cow has been slaughtered. I refuse to debate all you've said about cattle feed and pesticides (because you've started to leather vs plastic debate a few steps too early in the process). And yes, cotton is one of the very WORST products out there for pesiticide, and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay 3x the price for organic cotton--it'd be cheaper to buy silk! Are your cotton items organically grown? And do you know the evil committed to make your plastic shoes? Millions of human beings are harmed in America's quest for oil so plastic is no better than leather in my mind. AMERICA SOMETIMES TREATS HUMANS WORSE THAN LIVESTOCK, AND IF YOU'RE NOT PROTESTING IT, YOU'RE PART OF IT!

As for wearing leather, I have no problem with it so long as the animal was raised and killed for food. In the case of cattle, which are raised for food, one cannot turn the argument around and say "one could just as easily argue that their cow would've been killed anyway for the leather so they're just making sure that all the parts are used by eating it". I would never wear harp seal fur, and the day we stop eating beef and start raising cows for leather is the day I stop buying it.

It's a harsh world out there, and you seem like a bright spot in it, but my body craves red meat! Yes, I buy eggs laid by free range chickens, but my body craves meat every now and then--I just don't feel right without it!

Pleather Yourself 14.May.2002 00:22

Meat is Murder

I would like to first thank Indy media for covering PeTA's anti leather demo. Unfortunately the mainstream media doesnt cover important events like this and the story most often goes untold.

I have read a lot of interesting, frustrating, ignorant, and well thought out comments on this subject. I would like to add my own and you can classify them as you see fit.

First of all, the use of leather in our society is slowly killing the environment. From the chemicals used at a tannery, to the waste the cows produce before they are killed, to the tons of wasted grains that the cows are feed, to the the millions of acres that are used as "grazing lands". Leather is not a necessity in our society it is a luxery. It is a status symbol and part of the cruel capitalist machine that runs our country. Look at my new Lexus with the leather seats! Look at my new Kennith Cole shoes! Look at my calf skin leather coat! There are more compassionate and less harmful alternatives!

Secondly, CHEERS to PeTA for having the most effective marketing campaigns I have ever seen. Their ads arent about objectifing women. They are about grabbing peoples attention and giving a voice to the voiceless. Animals can not speak for themselves, they have no choice in what is done to them, people do. The "objectification" of women argument is a little hard to swallow when women continue to willingly participate in these acts of objectification. Our society is based on supply and demand. Sex sells and sells well! Do we blame the people who are putting the message out there or do we blame the people who keep buying it? Guns dont kill people, people kill people. Pornography doesnt rape women, power hungry assholes rape women. Song lyrics dont make kids kill themselves, pressures of everyday life do that. Bottom line is this, dont shoot the messanger! Solve the problem, dont fight the symptoms. People have free will and the ability to make choices, animals dont! Dont try and take away from this important message because PeTA has pretty woman to get their point across.

the pleather vs plastic debate rages on :) 15.May.2002 01:43

someone who hates to bust your bubble

Meat is Murder, I'd have to wholly agree with your opinion of these postings, though I imagine my postings fall more into your ignorant or frustrating box. Be that as it may, I think there's still quite a bit to debate about leather vs pleather.

Your basic take is that leather is worse for the environment. Mine is that it isn't. Let's all begin meaningful discussion.

First, I don't think anybody's done a study of chemical and energy analysis comparing the harm of leather vs plastic. They both suck in their own special ways.

One thing to your argument (and someone else's up above) that is completely lost on me is why you choose to consider the inhumane treatment of cows, along with the pesiticides used in the feed and the sheer quantity of wasted grain, in your analysis of the leather vs pleather debate. I am not incorrect in stating that the cow is primarily raised for food and secondarily for other things. With this in mind, why is it valid to consider the negatives involved in raising a cow since it would happen with or without leather to consider? Those are all very real arguments _against_ _eating_ _beef_ but have no bearing on leather vs pleather if you step back and look at this dispassionately. As a side note, aren't most of the grazing lands arid and not suitable for growing produce?

So the way I see it, all we really need to look at here is the energy and chemical cost (ie pollution cost) of leather versus the pollution cost _and_ the humanitarian cost of oil. My personal guestimate is that more pollution is generated making plastic. My personal experience is that plastic wears out much sooner. I've had some of my leather shoes resoled several times. None of my plastic shoes have lasted that well--to the point that I don't even bother buying them any more. Has the quality changed in the last five years? Looking towards an idyllic future, leather and pleather will both be made with renewable energies. When that happens, you'll still need oil for the pleather, and the humanitarian cost of oil is incontestibly horrid.

Closing words: it is unfair to say that the inhumane treatment of a cow is related to leather. It's about food.
Mink are a whole different ballgame. I'd never in a thousand years support that fur industry. Same with the harp seal and the fox and anything else that is violated predominantly for the fur. Let's go and be nice to animals, us included.

lots of interesting comments 15.May.2002 16:16


one major point i have not really seen mentioned, and which is a significant problem for US citizens, is the amount of consumption, whether it is leather or plastic

use less. . .live simply

the mind has been conditioned to huge amounts of consumption, and is taught to buy buy and buy. . .

one can live beautifully, and own very little, consume very little.


Pleather vs Leather cont... 16.May.2002 02:57

Meat is Murder

TO: someone who hates to bust your bubble...

I think that the majority of your argument has some merit. I think unfortunately either way you go, leather or pleather, we are going to do some harm to the enviroment. But by going the leather route you are doing two evils, one harming the enviroment and two contributing to cruelity to another living being.

To answer one of your questions, cow are not solely killed for meat, although it is that way the majority of the time.

Here is some information that will explain it a little better...

Most leather produced in the U.S. is made from the skins of cattle and calves, but leather sold here is also made from horses, sheep, lambs, goats, and pigs who are slaughtered for meat, as well as from dogs and cats killed in Asia. When you buy leather, you can't tell where it comes from or who it was made from. (See A PETA SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: INDIAN LEATHER.)

Although leathermakers like to tout their products as "eco-friendly," leather production actually harms the environment, and tanning prevents leather from biodegrading. The Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology states, "On the basis of quantity of energy consumed per unit of product produced, the leather-manufacturing industry would be categorized with the aluminum, paper, steel, cement, and petroleum-manufacturing industries as a gross consumer of energy." (By contrast, plastic wearables account for only a fraction of 1 percent of the petroleum used in the U.S.)

I hope that information helps. You can find this info and much more at www.cowsarecool.com

thanks MiM 17.May.2002 10:38

hate to bust

I did not know that all these animals are sold as simply "leather". That's too bad about cats and dogs (if they're not being used for food), but I still will wear leather. I know a guy who grows "free range, organically fed" cows who doesn't find the money from the leather to be very meaningful. With testimoney like this, I cannot really feel any worse about eating meat simply because of the leather factor. Still, it's a shame that cats and dogs get slaughtered while cow leather goes to waste.

Regarding the scientific fact that "On the basis of quantity of energy consumed per unit of product produced, the leather-manufacturing industry would be categorized with the aluminum, paper, steel, cement, and petroleum-manufacturing industries as a gross consumer of energy."

I don't contest this as fact, but I do have something to point out. If you have a car that gets 32 miles to the gallon, then a cup, 8oz, of gas will drive your car two miles. That's a lot of freakin' energy. So if your shoes have 8oz of plastic, I am guessing that makes them every bit as bad as leather (and not as durable).

I appreciate that you've been an informative voice, but I really do think we're screwed either way and that leather is the lesser of two evils. If you don't accept that oil is quite an evil, I'd be glad to point you to some dubious information.

Fond regards,
hate to bust

Come on now... 23.Feb.2004 18:21

Smells Like Teen Spirit

PETA is known for going over the top. It seems that every protest they have points out some fact that, while it may be quite horrible when presented alone, leaves out some of the, usually, more important facts. Even if I don't stand one way or another on a subject, after following PETA's campains against it, I usually sway the other way. They are vile and have almost violent protesting. I have never seen a physically violent protest but I almost got violently ill after watching one about hunting and trapping in Madison, WI. They just go to far, they loose their audience. Its not that they are too radical, its that they go about it the wrong way.

Wood or Plastic 21.Jun.2005 08:18

HorsesareVegetarianstoo!!! HollywoodHorse77@aol.com

Okat Im 12 years old and am apart of many different animal rights organazations, and vegetarian boards. Here is the thing my friends HIGHLY dissaprove of my beleifs, saying Ill go to hell because I have gone against God's will. So they are always "O, you cant sit on that its wood" or "You want a hamburger?" But my point is should I use more plastic or paper. Can use wood to build my house in the future. I want to live naturally, not wasting anything, please, please, please help me.