On man's best friend... and offspring

[diaryofarider]

So got into an argument with a friend on facebook the other day. She was furious about an article written by a woman who is annoyed by people who refer to their dog as their "baby" or "fur kid". I agreed with the POV of the woman in the article, which of course did not go over well (ever wonder why there is no "dislike" button on facebook? Because people only want you to agree, or to STFU).
Anyway, I explained my point of view, her other friends explained their point of view, and I was surprised, disturbed, and very curious. I was pretty sure there were a few people who were kind of out there- there always are- but, like when George Bush Jr. got elected (especially the second time?!!) I wondered what might actually be going on in the world. I wanted to try and find some facts, or at least widen my scope and broaden my experience.
So what I found is that this trend toward treating dogs like children, is indeed much more widespread than I thought, and it seems to be pretty recent- as in the generation just after mine seems to be where the growth really takes off.
What seems pretty consistent, is this-
This seems to be most common among women without children (yes, not surprising)
These women tend to say they love their dog(s) as much as a mother loves her child (even though they do not have children- my friend felt this argument was irrelevant, I felt it was extremely relevant) and get very angry if someone says a mother does/should love her children more.
They tend to talk about how dogs are better than people (dogs love unconditionally, don't talk back, etc)
They talk about how much they hate people with children wanting them to have children, and talk about overpopulation . I think most of the mothers annoyed by the "my dog is my child/fur kid" thing, don't actually want to see these women reproduce, they just want them to stop saying their dog owner/dog relationship is just like a mother/child when they have never mothered a child.
A certain population of these people immediately gets furious and nasty about human offspring.
They always mention people who can't have children, and women who are bad mothers.
They are very irritated by "quantifying love" even though they will usually say things like "I love my dog as much as/more than".
It tends to be more dog owners, not cat owners. They may have a cat also, but they almost always have a dog.

So anyway, from my internet guesstimations, about 1 in 3 childless women ages 30 or so and younger seem to be of the pro-furkid persuasion. I found that shockingly high.
What I think bothers me is that what was once commonly accepted, "your family is more important than your pets" seems to be less common, and I think that some valuable relationships between people can be lost because it is easier to have a dog. I don't think all human relationships are good, nor do I think we should forgo relationships with our pets. Just taking a general approach of "Relationships with dogs are better than relationships with people" or straight on "Dogs are better than people" is a bad thing in my opinion- sometimes for the individual- definitely for humanity in general. We need some compassion and empathy for one another. Don't write off our entire species.

There does seem to be a little selfish guilt "dog moms" actually key in on "my dog loves me unconditionally/I have more freedom/it costs less than kids", and then counter via the "overpopulation/bad mother" arguments. But it's not really logical. Because, again, I don't want everyone to have kids, and I hope a lot of people don't have kids- but if every couple in the world only had 1 kid- we would have a declining population. Perhaps there is a perception of an expectation that they should have kids, and "dog moms" feel the need to prove they are "just as good" as a person who has actual kids, in fact, they are better. But I don't think parents are actually trying to be superior individuals, they just feel the relationship is deeper and more precious. Sort of the difference between "you are a bad kid" vs "you did a bad thing". But I'm clearly biased, so this could just be from me being in the "enemy camp".

Some things I think I get- They don't want people to think less of them for not having children. I don't. They don't want people to think they are incapable of love. I know that. They might actually be trying to relate to parents. OK- this one is harder. I just...don't like...furkid, and I would prefer "I love my dog." and let's just try to relate as animal lovers, or even just as people who love stuff (people, dogs, chocolate, books, whatever).

Anyway, it was an interesting thing to think about. I would love to see someone do a large, widespread study/survey asking women with children and dogs whether they value their children more than their dogs (I think this would come back at about 90% yes, they love their human children more) but I haven't seen an official poll anywhere. I do find it interesting to see the way people bond with animals, and am curious what the future holds- I hope it is good things- that this is actually a solution to a problem for the human race, without being too problematic for the human race itself.

Some links I came across:

http://nypost.com/2014/04/10/more-young-women-choosing-dogs-over-motherhood/

http://community.babycenter.com/post/a34151140/parents_who_love_their_pets_more_than_their_children

http://www.wired.com/2015/04/people-care-pets-humans/

Comments

[re-vised.livejournal.com]

I think I am one of those who chose dogs over motherhood. Not because it's "easier" to have a dog, I just... don't want kids. (And if Isaac and I decide we do, we will adopt.) I love my dogs, and horse and cat, very much and will do all I could to protect them and provide the best care. Does that mean I love them like a mother loves her children? I don't know. I'm not a mother, so I cannot compare. Though I do know there was a study (I think you reference it - my phone won't open your links. :( ) that showed woman monitored with fMRI's show the same levels of brain activities in the same places when shown photos of their children and dogs.

Anyway, I do think every few couples only having 1 kid would be a good thing, our worldwide population is huge and growing; the planet isn't going to be able to sustain our needs at the rate we're going. So in the respect, fewer people (in my opinion) are good. I don't want laws against reproduction or a mass killing of anything, just saying the earth only has so many resources to give us.

[diaryofarider.livejournal.com]

This-
"I think I am one of those who chose dogs over motherhood. Not because it's "easier" to have a dog, I just... don't want kids."

I don't understand. Here is why- I don't see it as an either/or thing with kids and dogs/pets. Lots of people have both. I guess I think they are separate things and there is no reason to say "I don't have kids because I have dogs."

Thing 1: choosing not to have kids.
Thing 2: choosing to have pets.

Like I get that you choose not to have kids, and it's cool. I get that you choose to have dogs, and it's cool. What I don't really get is why the dogs would BE your kids, or instead of your kids.

I know the study you were talking about- it was referenced in several places.

http://www.today.com/health/your-moms-brain-babies-dogs-science-shows-love-2D80192080

A bit of detail behind it- yes, the women in that study did have areas in the brain that lit up when shown pictures of their children and their dogs. The thing is- that was all that happened really- and the study was of 14 women. That is a pretty small sample. I'm curious to know what thousands of women would answer (anonymously, so they don't have to worry about being judged) if asked do they love their children more than their pets. I'm curious about age range and geographic location too- I sort of think that north american and british women would be highest on the "I love my pets as much as my kids" thing, and that certain age ranges would vary as well.

[re-vised.livejournal.com]

Yes you're right - the choices are two different things. I didn't mean to lump them together like I did. It's very much a "I want dogs" and ::big space:: "I don't want kids". My reasons are not connected. And I don't know why people do lump them together, actually.

That study sample was really small, and I only skimmed through the article when I originally read it. I'm curious to see what a large group would say, too.

[diaryofarider.livejournal.com]

Cool- thanks for clarifying-
It does seem to get lumped together, and I do find it odd, but interesting.
I don't quite see how it got from "I'm not having kids" and "I have dogs" to "I have dogs and they are my kids and so I am their mom." I mean, I see it in a joking, analogy sort of way, but I don't quite get how it got to be not-a-joke for a lot of people.

[buymeaclue.livejournal.com]

I don't know how generalizable this is, but I think the upping makes perfect sense in at least some situations. Not everyone can afford to do both even if they want to. I'm using "afford" there for all kinds of resources: money but also time, energy, support system, bandwidth, etc. it's a little clearer if you look at it in terms of horses, but I think it can apply to smaller critters as well, especiallly if you have multiples and/or are very involved with them. If we're talking about a latchkey kid and a dog that never gets walked, okay, but if you have limited resources and are committed to doing right by your dependents of any species, it can -- doesn't have to in every single case, but can -- be a zero sum game.

[diaryofarider.livejournal.com]

I think there are some cases where the resources can be that limited, and certainly with horses it is more expensive and there have been two times in my life when I sold horses because I didn't have the time or money, or both.
However I think in most cases, the people that can afford a kid have enough cushion that they could do the dog too. They have enough money to have a kid if they wanted, and the financial trade off might be not getting a brand new car, or taking as many trips- it isn't like they would have to go on food stamps. I think it's still pretty typical that the couple is married, both folks have decent jobs and a house with a yard- and it's possible to feed the dog a couple of times a day, let the dog out a couple of times a day, and still pet the dog while it curls up next to one person or another while watching tv, feeding the baby, whatever- and the baby part only lasts a couple of years, at which point the kid interacts with the dog in a way similar to its mother and father. Around here it is pretty common to see a mom jogging behind a stroller with a dog on a leash. Kibble is cheap- I can see if you're hiring a dog walker, or doggie daycare, or whatever, doing some kind of grooming, and so on, that that would get expensive. But compared to the cost of a baby (dr. appointments, diapers, formula, clothing, crib, carseat, etc) or child daycare- dogs are generally pretty cheap. And once kids are out of daycare, it tends to free up several hundred dollars a month- plus by then they are a lot more self sufficient- so it's not unusual to see people get dogs at that point.
Single mother- I can definitely see where it would be harder there (everything is) and where it would definitely be a "cannot afford both" situation.

And as I've said before, I'm not trying to argue that everyone should have kids. :)

[buymeaclue.livejournal.com]

and the financial trade off might be not getting a brand new car, or taking as many trips- it isn't like they would have to go on food stamps. I think it's still pretty typical that the couple is married, both folks have decent jobs and a house with a yard...jogging behind a stroller...out of daycare, it tends to free up several hundred dollars a month

I...think there are some assumptions built in here. I'm nnnot going to get into the ethics of what folks should and shouldn't do while living close to the edge, but I would submit that what you describe above is a lot more privileged than the norm.

And like I said, when I say "afford" I'm not just talking about money. Time, energy, bandwidth. "Eat cheap kibble, go out to pee, lay around house, repeat," is relatively low-impact for the person, sure. It's also not everybody's idea of a great life for their dog. If you're *doing* stuff with your critter, the commitment adds up fast, just like it does if you're taking your kid to the playground and making it possible for them to learn violin and want to figure out why they're suddenly limping all the time.

But I don't think parents are actually trying to be superior individuals, they just feel the relationship is deeper and more precious.

Isn't this exactly what the folks who are annoying you are saying about themselves?

[diaryofarider.livejournal.com]

"Isn't this exactly what the folks who are annoying you are saying about themselves?"

Touche! That is a good point.

If I attempt to analyze my feelings I guess my feeling upset comes down to two things-
1. It's not fair
2. It's not accurate

It's hard to explain, because I can't really think of an analogous situation where this happens.

Think of something you are really proud of- something you worked really hard for, that defines you as a person. Then someone who hasn't achieved that, says that because they know all about it, they are just like people with that achievement. Would it bother you? Also, should you feel ashamed that it bothers you?

You went to one college and did your undergrad. You attended a different university and earned your PHD. Anne and Laura are friends of yours. In conversation and on facebook, they call themselves "Dr. Anne BS" and "Dr. Laura BA". They say they are just like you- they went to the same university where you did your PHD for 4 years, they are hard workers, they are smart, they are very interested in the subject they studied, etc. Would it bother you?

You and John both work at a company. You have been working there for 10 years, working really hard on many projects. John is a recent high school graduate. He is smart and has a great personality. He works really hard on a project for a year. You both get promoted- same salary, same title. Your boss says you are equals. Do you feel like this is unfair?

Joan says she is an Olympic hopeful runner. She runs 5 times a week, she has run a mile 2 or 3 times in her life. She was middle of the pack when doing the 200m in high school. She never races and will never sign up for a race. Do you think someone who has actually trained for the Olympics and gone to the Olympics might be annoyed by Joan when Joan says "I am just like you. I run, I get up early in the mornings to run, I have running shoes. This one time I totally sprained my ankle."

I think it's natural to feel insulted if someone tells you that they have rejected what you chose, or what you have deeply committed yourself to, but that they are still the same as the thing you chose, and therefore are entitled to call themselves the thing they rejected when it suits them. "I like dogs better than children, and so I reject being a mother of children to be a dog mom, and it's OK, because if you protest this it will hurt MY feelings."

WTF? Why is it I have to justify my feelings, which are, by the way, harmful, according to you, but your feelings are OK because- you're a good person? Is it wrong for me to infer from that that I am a bad person? After all, I'm overpopulating the world with an inferior species, and I'm lazy because I have nothing better to do than disagree with you. I not only need to respect your choice, I also have to agree with you to avoid upsetting you, or I'm a bitch. You can say your opinion all you want, (dogmom furkid all over the interwebz and casual conversation) but I can't say mine.

Anne and Laura chose not to earn their PHD, because they say they didn't have the time or the money, are they being punished for that if you don't want to call them Dr. Anne or Dr. Laura, or if you don't acknowledge them as being the same as someone who has a PhD?
Does someone who doesn't make the sacrifice, and doesn't go through the process, still deserve the title, as long as they do make other sacrifices, and go through some other process, and they have the potential and personality traits?

In the end, it probably boils down to the fact that people can say whatever they want, and that doesn't make it true- I might try to change minds, but I probably can't. Being an adult means life isn't fair, people lie, put on airs, pretend to be something they are not, etc. And a lot of things are a judgement call and subject to POV. There may be some issues with self that some of these folks are grappling with, or they may just have a different point of view and be trying to relate in order to connect and support others. I don't need to assume they are trying to minimize my accomplishment, I can try to assume that they want to connect with and relate to me, and that would probably be the best way to try to curb my annoyance.

/end rant

[feather-armor.livejournal.com]

If you're *doing* stuff with your critter, the commitment adds up fast, just like it does if you're taking your kid to the playground and making it possible for them to learn violin and want to figure out why they're suddenly limping all the time.

This, exactly. I actually fiscally cannot have any more animals, because my horse and dogs and their housing, feed, care and vet insurance have my budget maxed out.

[feather-armor.livejournal.com]

And let's all just agree it's different. It is. However, by the argument that "you can't possibly know until/unless you have kids..." then it follows that, since I will never have kids, isn't my love and devotion to my dogs the deepest I will ever know? Am I supposed to feel constantly like I have some stunted or untapped capacity for love? And it's of course different than the love I have for friends or family, the love I had for my mom, but they are the only living things that will ever be entirely dependent on me. Why does it have to come down to a more than/better than competition? I've only had Ruby for two years and I can just look at her sleeping and see her whole too-short life pass before my eyes and know the magnitude of heartbreak I've signed on for by loving her this much. It surely pales in comparison to what a mother feels for her child, but it's what I know. And I sound like a crazy dog lady and that's okay, because that's what I am.

[skitty-kitty.livejournal.com]

I hate the pets as kids mentality for a different reason: Dogs are not kids, they should not be treated like children, stop anthropomorphising your animals people! People never bother to learn and understand the species' behavior and instincts and you get screwed up animals that are all nuts in the head and/or spoiled rotten, and just mentally and physically unhappy.

[buymeaclue.livejournal.com]

You = me and I claim my 5 pounds. This. Exactly this; it is not good for anyone.

Beyond that, I guess I tend to believe other people's reports of their own experience. i get why the tension here is irritating and invalidating for folks on both sides and I do in fact think that very vocal folks on each side can be awfully superior and nasty about the virtues of their position. Not everyone! But I've seen it happen; I can understand being reactive.

[diaryofarider.livejournal.com]

Agree that it is unhealthy to treat them as children and anthropomorphize- and I agree that the arguments can escalate really quickly - it seems as polarized as a lot of political/religious arguments.

[feather-armor.livejournal.com]

I don't consider my dogs my kids, but I DO consider them family.

Obviously being in the dog blogging community I've seen this article and seen it debated ad nauseum.

I have more to say about it, but not on my phone.

[diaryofarider.livejournal.com]

I figure you've probably come across it- interested to hear your thoughts.

[feather-armor.livejournal.com]

I decided to just write a blog post response. Too many thoughts!

[diaryofarider.livejournal.com]

:) It is interesting how thinky this topic is! I was surprised too by how much I thought about it and the information that I found.

[feather-armor.livejournal.com]

It turns out I had a lot of thoughts.

http://myrubicondays.blogspot.com/2015/06/i-don-call-myself-dog-mom-but-i-don.html

Interestingly, after I wrote the first draft of that yesterday morning, I was at the annual meeting for our organization and the guest speaker (who was a brilliant Canadian woman) talked about the changing workplace, shortage of middle management and skilled workers, and the declining population of the educated (because education predicts birth rate, conversely). I felt the tiniest bit guilty for a minute that Ruby and Boca weren't going to become contributing members of society, but just for a minute :) I'm honestly not too worried about population decline on a global level considering the strain on natural resources, climate change, etc. I'm also reading a book about living alone, historical and sociological implications - really fascinating! Funny how all these things converge.

My status of child-free by choice was not arrived at easily. I think I would have been a great mom - I had the very best example in my own. When I was with my ex-husband, I actually thought I wanted to have a child, but only if it didn't have to be raised in daycare, which didn't seem like an option. E. made it abundantly clear that he was not going to have any more, so I had to do a lot of serious soul-searching in order to be certain I /didn't/ want kids and instead wanted to be with him. Now we've split up and I'm approaching 40 - if it WAS a priority or something I badly wanted, I would have to get on it, like, yesterday. I was really interested in adoption for a while, but at the time it was not financially feasible. I don't regret that decision, as I think it was the right one for me. Losing my mom took away any last shred of desire as I wouldn't want to have a child without her here.

[diaryofarider.livejournal.com]

This was the article btw "http://www.yourtango.com/2015275999/your-dog-is-not-one-of-your-kids-insult-to-moms" I don't see where in the article she wrote this?
"I loved my dogs, and then I had kids"?
I think the picture in the article looks angry, but other than that I don't know why people say she is angry. She sounds annoyed to me, and like she is trying to be funny with exaggeration.

I don't have any issue with people choosing not to have kids. I would prefer that having dogs not be tied to not having kids. I don't think having dogs and having kids is the same.

I'm not angry. :)

[feather-armor.livejournal.com]

"I have a dog. Two dogs, in fact. We got our puppies before we got our kids, and we loved them. We kissed them. We cuddled them. We bought them too many toys; we overindulged them with treats. We gave them silly pet names and let them sleep in our beds."

All in the past tense...I had a supervisor at my last job who told me after I extolled my affection for my dogs "just wait until you have kids...I loved my dogs too, now they live outside." I'm pretty sure that's what happened to my Norwegian elkhound Freya, too, who was dumped at DDFL at five years old when they no longer "had time" for her.

Insult implies anger. The tone of the editorial is condescending and bitter. Her description of parenting her kids doesn't make it sound all that appealing, to be honest. I think it was written to get attention, and it certainly succeeded at that.

I agree with you that it's not the same, but nor is every human child parented the same. Some people take less responsibility for their kids than many do for their pets. Giving birth doesn't make one an automatic candidate for sainthood.

[feather-armor.livejournal.com]

At the heart of what bothers me about that piece is this: it is joy-squashing.

She is taking something that brings others joy and which does not affect her - doting on and loving their pets - and criticizing it.

On a much smaller scale, and I'm sure I've been guilty of this, too, but if someone posts something like "I loved movie xyz!" and doesn't ask for opinions, and someone just has to jump in and go "I hated it."

I guess it's a pet peeve of mine, no pun intended. What this discussion has done is stretch my compassion muscles (I hope) and made an effort in my own blog post to focus on the positive.

[diaryofarider.livejournal.com]

No, giving birth doesn't make one a candidate for sainthood, and I don't think I ever argued that it did. Unfortunately being a bad person doesn't typically render one incapable of reproduction either.

[spirithorse21.livejournal.com]

I think the hard thing is, you can't really understand or quantify the difference unless you have children. I don't mean to lessen the point made by advocates of the furbaby camp, I think they are quantifying their feelings in a real way. You just...can't *really* know that mother/child bond until you have one.

For the record I don't think of my dog as my child, it makes me squeamish to think of her that way, and this was especially true before I had my child. Same for my horses. They are, as featherarmor says though, family. I know in a heart beat that I love my child more than any of my animals, but i also know I'd do an awful lot for my animals too. Also, i was not always sure that I'd have a child or want one. I came to the decision slowly, so I'm not just biased here. God, that sounds a little arrogant, but i can't think of a better way to say what i mean...

[diaryofarider.livejournal.com]

Well, and that was one of my arguments too- you can't know until you experience it. I don't normally like kids, and hadn't decided to have one- my birth control failed, and as far as I was concerned, that meant I was having a kid. And I think nature took over, and I love him more than anything.

[slobberpuppy.livejournal.com]

I've never given it any thought, to be honest, and even now I don't care one way or the other. I do find it amusing that children are referred to as "kids" which is actually the term for a baby goat, tho. I mean, one could choose to be offended over equating human children to immature goats, if one wished.

Meh. Have kids, don't have kids, have dogs, don't have dogs, call them fur kids or don't... Doesn't matter either way to me. I personally don't want kids, but I don't use the term "fur kids" either. I do love dogs, tho. Our family has always loved dogs and treated them as family members. I remember my folks saying that our dogs were our little brothers. I like that, they ARE our family members, whether they are human or not... Just as we have chosen family who are not blood relatives... It's all about the bond and the connection. And I did call Pogo my "dogter" (a humerous riff on the word "daughter") and told my folks she was thier "granddogter" and we all laughed and enjoyed having her as such.

Let other people do what they want - I'll do it my way to be happy, and you do it your way, and really - who cares if those two things ever meet up or not? We are all free to love whom we choose. (Well, ideally, at least.)

Guess what I'm trying to say is that it's a non-issue from where I stand. ((shrugs))

[diaryofarider.livejournal.com]

Well, and issue or not- (I don't think I've ever called anyone out on the "furkid" thing- rolled my eyes maybe, but since I tend to come across it on the internet, that likely goes unnoticed)- I think it's an interesting mental shift/social phenomenon- that dogs went from being a friend, to family, to a surrogate child. And perhaps that has always been the case to a certain extent, but I do not think it was so prevalent. Perhaps I was simply not so exposed to it, I don't know.

[slobberpuppy.livejournal.com]

People are definitely more indulgent of their pets these days... More disposable income is part of that, perhaps, altho I don't have such things, and didn't bathe my dog in bottled Evian water even when I did, altho there are people who do... The rise of "purse dogs" who "don't need training bc they are so small" (that's my eye-roller right there) and are treated more as lifestyle accessories than animals is a weird thing in my book. But people do as people do, I guess.

For me, I have never known animal friends to NOT be a part of the family, so anything else is foreign to me. Our canine "little brothers" did not dine at the table with us or any such thing, but they were afforded the same respect, care, love, and dignity as the humans in our family. To live with an animal friend any other way would be bizarre to me. Of course they have their own rules and boundaries to be established, but that is so for human friends as well.

I don't dig on the term fur kid (fur goat?) but I'll definitely continue to use the word dogter as it tickles me in just the right place. And if that ticks some people off, well, that's thier own issue to sort out.

[feather-armor.livejournal.com]

My mom called our girl dogs dogters also, and my dogs her granddogters :)

[slobberpuppy.livejournal.com]

:-)