Dang it, animal rights activists, look what you've done: I'm writing another blog post in defense of Kim Kardashian! Geez, someone had to go and flour bomb Kim's fur coat. She was all cool about it at first, but now she's pressed charges (probably to keep anyone from trying it again) and defending her right to wear fur. And you know what? I have to agree.
What were they expecting? An announcement from Kim via Twitter: "U win obnoxious flour-bombers! Thanks to UR assholery I have changed my fur-struttin' ways." So not happening, people. (Was that over 140 characters, by the way?) Here's what Kim's really saying.
It’s just a little odd to me that their whole message is non-violence towards animals yet they’re being violent towards humans. I don’t think that assaulting someone is appropriate at all [...] We cautiously don’t carry fur in our DASH stores anymore and I don’t carry real fur in my QVC line or my Sears line.
She's kind of exaggerating there with the "being violent towards humans." It's not, really. But it's definitely overly-aggressive and counter-productive. And! (Pardon me while I yank this hackneyed phrase out of my back pocket.) As we all know, two wrongs do not make a right.
Not only that, it's not like Kim sends out her Fur Minions daily to bonk another batch of baby seals for a new coat every week. Some of the furs we see her wearing are from her great-grandmother. What else do you do with old antique furs? Give them back to the animals? Animal spirits don't need no mink stoles.
Don't get me wrong. The fur industry has a history of cruelty and people are wearing less fur these days because of smart non-violent awareness campaigns. But with all the horrible things going on in this world, a handful of wealthy people wearing fur is pretty far down on my list of Things We Should Be Concerned About. Wear your damn fur. I don't give a fox's ass.
Do you agree with Kim, or do you think it's fair to attack people who wear real fur?
Image via Pacific Coast News