Gwyneth

Gwyneth Paltrow was recently approached by PETA, who were complaining that she, as a eco-conscious vegetarian, should not have appeared in a Tod's advertisement wearing fur. Here is the ad:



So, Gwyn replies, "That was awkward. And I’m glad you asked, because I do not wear fur at all. It was a daylong photo shoot on a boat near Capri, and there were all sorts of poses with all kinds of clothes — none with fur. During one set-up, a stylist came up from behind and draped a stole around my shoulders... I know it’s not a great excuse, but I hope you and your members understand.”

Man, this makes me so irritated. It's not that I'm some big fan of hers or have any ill will either. I really felt very meh towards Gwyn up until this. But the fact of the matter is, this reply is pandering to Peta, trying to keep any popularity she might have with their members. It's very smooth, the way she distracts with her mentions of Capri, and then blames it on a stylist. But let me poke a few holes in this idiotic line of b.s. that Gwyn doled out. Firstly, I'm pretty sure Gwyn has a good idea about the company Tod's , since she is their spokesmodel. I mean, they are known for their leather boots, so you would think she might assume they use animal products. Is fur not leather with the hair still on?

In her own newsletter, "Goop" , Gwyn recently suggested we all purchase a Tod's cashmere trench coat, because it is classic and we can all afford it, right? Anyhow, I doubt very much PETA is fond of the use of rabbit hair in making coats. That is what cashmere is, isn't it?

Oh Gwyn, this is my point. If you are so anti-fur, perhaps you shouldn't be hawking leather boots and cashmere coats, you sell out! And, if you like the leather and the cashmere, then stop kissing PETA's ass, please.