Hahaha, he's like a living stuffed animal.

Oh my god, he is such a nutter! I love when dogs make enemies of or get frightened of immobile, inanimate objects. Hee!

"Why have you given me a second and entirely different bone?"

Is death by cuteness possible?

"Oooh wazzat!? Can it eat me? Can I eat it? Why is it just sitting there? GET UP! GET UP! Why won't it play? Get it out of here! I'm bored. Oooh wazzat!?..."

No worries people, those breeds get their brains in the mail at 2 years.

For the present moment, expect stupidity and cuteness!

Cute!

Jessica,

Monty is adorable and I don't mind some puppy time on this blog, but as a feminist on a feminist blog, I think you owe your readers at least a cursory feminist analysis of your choice to treat another living being as a product of consumption.

I'm sorry, she's consuming Monty? Isn't that illegal or something?

I'm sorry, she's consuming Monty? Isn't that illegal or something?

Well, his cuteness does qualify him for edibility.

ZOMG cutest thing evar!

Stupid bone refuses to get up and go where Monty is telling it to go. How fwustwating.

I second Elaine's comment. There was an earlier thread about Monty where some very smart questions about feminism and consumerism were raised vis-a-vis a polemic about dog breeding. To simply ignore these questions AND to continue posting cute photos of the pup is an outright dismissal of a relevent point of view. Need I remind feministing bloggers and readers that the personal is political? I am too lazy to go back and find the thread, but Elaine's comments were smart and exacting. They were also completely ignored by Jessica.

Well, I think it's different if you've rescued a dog vs. bought a dog that's a result of intentional breeding.

Hi Sarah--

Definitely! That was the original issue as Jessica had Monty shipped from Florida so it's very unlikely that this is anything but a intentionally bred dog...intentionally bred and probably bought for a lot of money.

Ok, so we're not allowed to have pets?
I'm a hardcore animal lover--fuck, I belong to PETA--but can't we just enjoy the cute pictures?

What a cutie. I was watching it when my own puppy heard the bark. I pointed to the screen where Monty was. He barked again. She ran to the other side of my laptop, trying to find this other dog. She barked back.

At least he wasn't a puppy mill pup, or a pet store dog. Pretty much one in the same. Ideal, rescue or shelter dog. Second best, high quality breeder who loves their chosen breed and breeds to maintain what they love (of course there's profit too but the really good ones don't make much). Then there's the breeders who just breed for profit, backyard breeders, puppy mills, and so on.
Incidentally, rescues often need help transporting. Which is a great way to help out dogs (cats, too) in need even when you can't have your own. Like me.

thank-you moxie...shit i belong to PETA too! i see someone taking good care of the pet she chose...and enjoying it. treating her companiong as such...
i did look up the threads...and i didn't see anything to the effect of what was brought up here...some polite suggestions about sunscreen and subway rules...and one about how we should all post pics about our furry babies...
can't we just ever enjoy anything?
or do we always have to scold good people over every little thing? is jessica not allowed to make her own choices too?

Here's the thread url that I refered to...

http://feministing.com/archives/007371.html#comments

I am not saying that people can't enjoy animals, have companion animals, etc. I work for an animal welfare group and would be out of work if no one wanted cute puppies. I just think that feminism is the one social movement that spans all boundaries of race, class, and the public/personal split. Therefore, no, sometimes we "can't just ever enjoy anything" or we CAN enjoy it but is questioning bad?
Especially because this is a public forum and other people may think that Monty is such a cutie that they want one, and where can they get one. It's just good to have a counterpoint and to constantly be re-evaluating what we consider to be okay. And to echo Elaine this is also a feminist forum so to question someone's personal posting through the lens of feminism is not stepping over the line. It's a public, feminist forum! It's not Jessica's personal myspace page.

Seriously, I hope the people criiticising Jessica are;
-Vegans.
-Never wear leather, wool, cashmere, etc. if you knit, you'd best use synthetics.
-Don't take medication because some pills contain lactose bases.
-Don't go to the doctor or take advantage of any medical advances (I hate, hate, hate animal testing, but at this point, computer models simply don't compare with using animals).
-Don't use cosmetics, hair products, moisturizers, etc. Even companies that say that they don't test on animals, it just means that the individual ingredients are tested by a different company.
-Don't give to certain charities (March of Dimes comes to mind) who advocate animal testing.
Remember that whole saying about glass houses and whatnot? I suggest saving your time and energy going after people and corporations that are threats to animals, and leave an obviously loving pet owner alone. Jessica's a grown woman and is perfectly capable of analyzing her choices and it's no one else's business. Wait for the "Implications of pet ownership" thread.
It's really alienating when people scold every choice you make. It's like when you know someone who's all, "I'm a fifth degree vegan, I don't eat anything that casts a shadow."

Here's the thread url that I refered to...

http://feministing.com/archives/007371.html#comments

I am not saying that people can't enjoy animals, have companion animals, etc. I work for an animal welfare group and would be out of work if no one wanted cute puppies. I just think that feminism is the one social movement that spans all boundaries of race, class, and the public/personal split. Therefore, no, sometimes we "can't just ever enjoy anything" or we CAN enjoy it but is questioning bad?

Especially because this is a public forum and other people may think that Monty is such a cutie that they want one...and where do you think they would go? It's just good to have a counterpoint and to constantly be re-evaluating what we consider to be okay. And to echo Elaine, this is also a feminist forum so to question someone's personal posting through the lens of feminism is not stepping over the line. It's a public, feminist forum! It's not Jessica's personal myspace page.

Therefore, no, sometimes we "can't just ever enjoy anything" or we CAN enjoy it but is questioning bad?
Questioning is great, but EVERY SINGLE TIME a picture of Monty is posted it turns into this whole big thing. Why don't you start your own blog, or get together with the people that agree with you and start a blog, instead of hijacking one of the few happy threads that we get?

"Incidentally, rescues often need help transporting."

It seems to be getting more common now that more people are spaying and neutering dogs in some parts of the U.S. (hence fewer local strays to adopt) and now that petfinder.com lets people browse more shelters (hence people going "I want *that* cat!!!" about an out-of-state animal).

Moxie,

"Remember that whole saying about glass houses and whatnot?"

But regarding the glass houses thing, that's like saying street harassers don't have a right to say rape is wrong. They're harassers too, so they should just let other adult men make their own choices and shit.

I doubt most of the omnivores here eat cat. Would they be out of line to comment if someone they respected decided to eat cat? Or should they just let adults make their own choices?

My point is, there are degrees. We all have our own level of commitments. Some feministing readers are daily outspoken feminists and some are just weekend warriors. Some are new and aren't sure they even consider themselves feminists. Some have been feminists for years.

"Jessica's a grown woman and is perfectly capable of analyzing her choices and it's no one else's business. It's really alienating when people scold every choice you make."

It's only her private, free choice if the puppy lived in her uterus. It doesn't.

I don't think I've scolded anyone. All I've done is ask questions and offer my opinions. If you feel scolded, that's your problem. It's not my duty to make sure you feel comfortable.

EVERY SINGLE TIME a picture of Monty is posted it turns into this whole big thing.

And have you noticed how Jessica NEVER responds? She just ignores the entire discussion. It makes me wonder if she even reads the feministing comments.

She won't even publicly admit Monty is from a breeder. So, if she truly thinks she's made the right "choice" why won't she fess up about it?

PS
This movie, Earthlings, is really great:
http://vegansoapbox.blogspot.com/

People who are criticizing Jessica's decision to use a breeder (assuming she did); what is the purpose of your criticism? Are you attempting to shame someone? Or are you attempting to bring light to an issue that is important to you?

I do not think it is necessary for Jessica or anyone else on feministing to do a specific post on breeders because I think the threads on this and other monty posts have sufficient raised the level of awareness about this issue.

It seems like the only thing that would make you happy is if Jessica issued some sort of public apology for the choice that she made and then with every monty post she makes in the future adds a disclaimer about the dogs origins.

And that to me, seems to have more to do with shaming someone then raising awareness about an issue.

So, she got him from a breeder. What should she do? Give it back and get a dog from a shelter? Perhaps she did consider getting a pup from a shelter, but felt it was best for her to go through a breeder (if she wanted this particular breed). I don't think she has to justify her decision to anyone, and I don't think she should be pushed into a guilt trip either.

I also think it is wrong to throw all breeders into the "puppy mill criminals" category. Many breeders are ethical breeders who genuinely do love the breed that they sell and make sure that the pups are taken care of to the highest degree.

He's beautiful, big and healthy. He's her baby; I bet she's an awesome "mommy" and that's what matters.

How can you say

I don't think I've scolded anyone.

She hasn't shown that she's capable of analyzing this choice. She just ignores all criticism whatsoever.
It's only her private, free choice if the puppy lived in her uterus. It doesn't.

Once the puppy is in existence, it is her private free choice whether she'd like that puppy or a different puppy/dog/animal. I highly doubt there was call to a breeder where a request was made to tie down a dog in heat so that dog would be forced to mate with whatever male she so desired in order to specifically produce Monty. Jeezus.

Elaine, I do indeed read my comments--there's no need to get snippy because I haven't answered your questions. On the original thread, the whole breeder, etc. conversation started when I was leaving for CA for two weeks and honestly I just didn't want to get into it while I was on break.

Yes, Monty came from a breeder. And no, I don't think of him as a product of consumption, he's a part of my family. (As is Neidra who at the moment is eyeing me suspiciously.)

After reading that past thread, I understand folks' concerns and objections and I certainly respect that point of view. And the conversation did make me think of things in a way I hadn't before.

That said, I don't feel the need to have to defend my choice--mostly because it's clear that there's no real conversation to be had. Some think that it's just awful that Monty came from a breeder and that's that. I struggled with the idea of getting a dog from a shelter but ended up deciding against it--and I don't think that I owe anyone an explanation of how I came to that decision. While this site isn't my "personal MySpace page," all of the Feministing writers will from time to time write about stuff from their lives--birthdays, pets, (anti-cat blogging!), what have you. I think that Feministing readers enjoy knowing more about us--and likewise. That doesn't mean that I need to have a feminist explanation for every single thing going on in my life.

I understand that for some people, their beliefs on animal rights and feminism are intertwined. I don't necessarily feel as strongly as them. And I don't think I did anything wrong with Monty. I love him, he's my heart. And while I'll continue to respect and think about the opinions of folks like Elaine, I'm not going to be bullied into getting into a no-win conversation. I hope that most of the readers will understand. Thanks!

Elaine, I don't understand the reference to suffragettes in the movie "Earthlings," where they are equated with being "sexists." Indeed, the definition given says (paraphrasing) that anyone accused of one of the -isms (racism, sexism, speciesism) is guilty of putting the needs of their own group ahead of another. I don't understand why suffragettes, thanks to whom I can proudly vote in the upcoming NY primary, are the example given for sexism. Wasn't that a good cause? And don't we connote "sexism" as bad?

Ladies and feminists, there-in lies your discussion of "feminist analysis of your choice to treat another living being as a product of consumption."

I don't mean any offense in saying the following, just an interesting note: funny how you started comments about Earthlings on another blog when discourse didn't happen on Vegan Soapbox.

Uh oh, DOG PILE!!!11

Hahahaha, haha... oh mercy. Oh lawd.

L-K, while not all breeders are puppy-mills and some breeders may be "more ethical" than others, to me a breeder is a breeder is a breeder. All profit from creating new animal lives while other perfectly worthy animals languish in shelters. Some die in their cages and others are euthenized. Many live the majority of their lives without companionship or affection.
As long as those conditions and situations still exist - as long as animal rescues and shelters are still overcrowded - breeding dogs on purpose for profit is unethical. Some breeders may be "nicer" to their bitches/puppies than other breeders, but they're still creating new dogs while others suffer. Once all the adoptable dogs in shelters have been adopted, fine. But you're not a real dog-lover if you ignore that situation in favor of breeding.

SarahMC-
I am quite aware of the many implications of breeding and the issues of concern. I am a big animal rights person myself, so I do know. Just as I have seen bad breeders, I've seen "good" breeders. I myself would never acquire a dog from a breeder, but again, I know not all breeders are monsters.

Jessica,

Strong opinions and sincere criticism are not bullying, particularly when made by someone not in power.

This is your blog, you have the power to censor or edit my comments.

I have no power to demand anything of you. I just had a simple request that you respond to my criticism.

I haven't bullied anyone. I haven't demanded anything other than respect from anyone here.

Thank you, Jessica, for finally answering my first question. And thank you for explaining how you believe you have a right to a puppy.

I disagree. I don't think humans have a right to anyone's life but their own.

My belief, even though it is different from yours, is NOT bullying, nor is it scolding.

Now that our positions are clear and since you've expressed a desire not to comment further, I'll drop it here. And if you continue your Monday Monty blogging then I will try to ignore those posts.

However, if you're open to more discussion, I am as well. That goes for other readers here. However, I think it makes more sense to take it to my blog if Jessica does not want to participate in the discussion.

Sarah, I understand what you're saying, but I really don't think that going the un-PC route in getting your dog makes your love for that animal any less real or powerful than that of any other dog owners.

Going with a breeder over a shelter might certainly mean you're not a real animal rights activist, but to say it means you're not a "real dog lover" is kind of over the top, in my opinion.

Why are you calling adoption/rescuing the "PC" route, Daniel? Do you mean that to be an insult at "political correctness" (i.e. respect)? What gives?

People who buy from breeders may indeed love their dogs, but doing so doesn't really show a love for dogs as living creatures. Know what I mean?

"As long as those conditions and situations still exist - as long as animal rescues and shelters are still overcrowded - breeding dogs on purpose for profit is unethical. Some breeders may be 'nicer' to their bitches/puppies than other breeders, but they're still creating new dogs while others suffer."

Hmm.

What about when the alternative to getting a dog from a breeder is getting a cane from a closet, instead of getting a dog from a shelter? I heard that not just any random dog or horse can guide blind people down the street. Hence programs like this:

http://www.guidedogsofamerica.org/breeds.html

There's no equivalent breeding program for horses, though:

http://www.guidehorse.org/misconceptions.htm

Mina, I think you know we are not talking about service dogs. Breeding service dogs is valid because they work for a specific purpose and must be "qualified."
But the vast majority of breeders are not service breeders. The vast amount of people buying from breeders do so not because of a handicap or out of necessity.

I really resent the implication that people who breed dogs are unethical.
My family used to breed rottweilers. My dog Max had two litters, then we decided to stop. Max (Short for Maxine) and those puppies were absolutely first in our lives. My parents chose the best dog for her to breed with, to ensure a minimum of genetic problems (Rotties are prone to hip problems). We worked tirelessly to properly socialize the puppies. I literally spent hours a day with these dogs, and they were like our babies.
It was really important to not just sell them to anybody, because people tend to use rotties for fighting and other brutal things. You couldn't just answer an ad and leave with a puppy, we did everything possible to ensure that these dogs were going to loving, safe homes.
Two of the dogs in my life have been purebred, and the other two have been mutts. I like mutts more than purebreds, but there are benefits to getting purebreds. With our dogs you could get a full medical profile which you can't really get with a found dog.
I know that not all breeders are like us, but not all breeders are twirling their black handlebar mustaches just waiting to flood the market with unloved puppies.

Sarah-

Yeah, I understand you. I didn't mean it as an insult when I said un-PC.

I agree that getting animals from shelters is the right way to go, and it's certainly a wonderful thing. I hate to think of what might have happened to my own cats if I hadn't chosen to adopt them.

But in my opinion, just because somebody chooses not to go that route doesn't mean they don't really care about animals. It just means their priorities are different from mine. And I'm not gonna fault them for that, although I might try to inform them that it's not the best option out there if I feel that they don't understand that themselves.

Moxie, I never said no breeders love their OWN dogs or sell them to the most loving homes possible. But it all happens at the expense of shelter dogs who already exist and who desperately need homes.

Regular reader, first time commenter. I just had to say that while Monty seems to get some people quite stirred up, I adore the updates on him and hope you decide to continue posting them.

personally, i have always gotten my animals from shelters. it was a good choice for me, at the time. i haven't had any animals since, as i am military, and we move a lot, recently to hawaii, and they have very strict laws about importing animals, and the regulations for getting around it are costly, and would have cost me $2000 at the time...but that is OT...
given my personal situation (of which i won't go into) i can see why some people would choose a breeder. if you take a companion into your home you need to know he/she fits into your life, and you into his or hers. maybe you want one w/ a good, mild temper, or who can be trusted w/ small children. perhaps you prefer a dog that you know isn't going to shed all over no matter how many times you brush or vacuum. these things might not only be for your convenience, but for the animal too. if you live in an apartment, you want to make sure the puppy will be appropriate size. (i personally wouldn't want a large dog who needs to run and play a lot cooped up in a house where he/she couldn't do so) some dog breeds have a tendancy to be more aggressive. i have fiercely loved every animal i have ever had. i give to PETA, i abstain from things that i know to be cruelty to animals. i have fought to take animals out of abusive situations...would i consider a breeder vs a shelter puppy...perhaps...can a shelter guarantee how big the dog will grow, the temperment or even what breeds are in the mix? that hasn't been my experience.
thank-you to jessica, who, on her own blog, doesn't need to explain herself. she gave an eloquent response, and went beyond what should be expected. if you don't like the monty posts...go elsewhere...most of us realize that the heart of feminism is trusting women to make their own decisions.
personally...i love the monty posts...and will continue to be happy w/ this blog...
and pretty much won't comment on this topic again...

thanx again, jessica. at the end of the day, you are changing lives...

Once in awhile even the judges are judged.

But it all happens at the expense of shelter dogs who already exist and who desperately need homes.
My issue with what you're saying is that you're making things very black and white--shelters=good, breeders=bad. I just think it needs a deeper analysis than that.

What more needs to be said, Moxie?
Some people do need specific, trainable, healthy dogs for service purposes; breeders are the best places from which to obtain such animals.
I think it IS pretty black and white when you exclude the service dog issue. Anyway, I still like the Monty pics and updates; he is just a dog, afterall. All dogs are wonderful; they all deserve love and attention and oohs and aahhs from us people.

I think it IS pretty black and white when you exclude the service dog issue.
Well, what if you have kids and want a dog? You may not know why a dog is in a shelter but you can get a more complete history with a breeder. If the dog was abandoned because of a temperament issue, then you could be endangering the children. I'd rather buy from a breeder and know everything possible about a dog than endanger my hypothetical child.
I hate the idea of more puppies going into shelters and possibly being killed, but people aren't going to stop breeding them. I think a better, more moderate stance would be to condemn the puppy mills and chain pet stores that get puppies (And kittens and other animals) from them--those are the dogs at risk for sickness and maltreatment instead of condeming all breeders.

Breeding animals and buying animals from breeders is completely, totally, 100%, unacceptably unethical. End of story - there just isn't any wiggle room on this one. Sowwwwwyyyyyyy!

That isn't to say I hate people who do these things or think they're terrible people (well, some breeders are) - I just think they happened to make a morally repugnant decision. It happens to the best of us. Nobody's perfect.

Ok, SoyMilkConspiracy, so blind people should just get rid of their seeing-eye dogs? That's fucked up.

Breeding animals and buying animals from breeders is completely, totally, 100%, unacceptably unethical. End of story - there just isn't any wiggle room on this one.

To second Moxie, what about service dogs, which constantly consist of Golden and Labrador retrievers and German Shepherds? Guard dogs, such as Dobermans or Rottweilers? Search, rescue and tracking dogs such as Bloodhounds or St. Bernards? Or police dogs, which usually are German Shepherds as well? These dogs are bred for specific services and tasks because the breeds are known for particular behavior and traits. To say that breeding is "100% unacceptably unethical" and state that there is no wiggle room on the subject is a bit much to declare.

To say that breeding is "100% unacceptably unethical" and state that there is no wiggle room on the subject is a bit much to declare.
I'm used to that kind of bollocks from the religious fundamentalists.
It's a shame. I love Feministing, but lately, I've found that richarddawkins.net has more logical discussion of feminist issues than here.

Jessica,

I agree with you. There does not need to be a feminist explanation for every single little thing in life. I understand too that feminism is intertwined with many aspects of life...but sometimes a picture of a dog is just a picture of a dog. I can see why some people feel it's out of place on a feminist blog but honestly, there is a TON of feminist content on this website, and some puppy pics every now and then don't do any harm. If anything, they put a smile on our faces (especially when we're reading about depressing things!).

I know breeders can be (and often are) very unethical...but if you decided NOT to get him from a breeder...how would that be helping him at all? It wouldn't. He has a loving, caring owner now and a happy little puppy life. And you I can tell are happy with him. It's a win-win in my eyes.

Wow....people sure do get judgmental here. Not to imply that dogs are equal to humans, but ...

"it all happens at the expense of shelter dogs who already exist and who desperately need homes."

What about all the children who are in desperate need of homes. Is a woman selfish for getting to pick the genetic material (her mate's) that goes into the child she raises, or that enters her family? Some would say yes. I say no. Some (pet) breeders are awful, but there are many who are, in my view, caring, ethical, and fulfilling a demand, while at the same time doing something they love.

I'm also curious to know about peoples' opinions on pets like ferrets and hedgehogs, animals that must be acquired either from a breeder (if you want them well socialized) or a pet store, as they are less frequently found in shelters, and taming a wild weasel does not sound like a fun activity. Is it morally wrong to have this sort of pet?

Jessica-
Thank you for answering whether or not Monty was purchased from a breeder. A lot of the "if" questions are no longer.

No one said he wasn't adorable. (I think most animals are adorable, anyway)

Regarding the people against breeding dogs being "judgmental"...I think it's ridiculous that just because they (and I, in the former thread) brought up parallels between animal oppression and human oppression, we are suddenly "judgmental". I think it is more of a case of not wanting to hear something you actually have to think about and consider. How is it when the tables are turned, and some people stand up for feminism? Aren't you always the "bitch" or the "feminazi" or the "irrational female". I would have hoped that the people on this site would empathize!

And I disagree with the fact that everyone who is against breeding dogs while 3-4 MILLION animals are killed each year in shelters has to be vegan. I am vegan, but it doesn't mean that I am the only one allowed to stand up for animal rights and welfare. Jessica legally has the right to buy from a breeder, and I (and others)have the right to point out why it's incredibly selfish and wrong, in my opinion, especially when every week it's "look how adorable my puppy is"...while others like MY adorable dog are getting drugs pumped into their bodies and then incinerated...because people are buying from breeders (amongst other reasons).

You know guys, humans have been breeding dogs for thousands of years. If humans never bred dogs, we wouldn't even /have/ "dogs." We would just have wolves, which of course humans around the world have mostly killed off anyway to protect their families and their lifestock.

And strays breeding on the street are probably responsible for more surplus kitties and puppies than human breeders are. Should we go around and fix most animals so they couldn't reproduce? If that was women we were talking about, wouldn't we say that was a horrible way to handle the situation?

I think PETA is an effed-up organization, personally. I used to intern at a zoo, and the zookeepers /loved/ their animals and did what they could to improve life quality, but when a couple of animals died (a couple from natural causes, one from possible poisoning by someone on the outside) PETA members started harassing the zookeepers (who were already really upset about the animals dying). If zoos didn't exist, far more wild animals would have been killed off by humans by now. Part of the purpose of zoos is to raise interest for conservation, and many zoos do what they can to mazimize the life quality of the animals.

Do you think women who choose to have their own children instead of choosing to adopt one of the millions of needy, neglected children out there are making horribly immoral decisions?

Millions of animals die from reasons other than old age every year. Animals kill other animals all the time. Suffering and death are a part of life, and you're never going to eliminate them completely. Do you think Jessica's dog is happy? I'm inclined to think yes. And I'm inclined to agree with the Greeks that happiness is the best measure of a worthwhile life. So really, I don't like puppy mills but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with dog-breeding. And I think Jessica's decision was fine.

The first cat my family ever had was a stray before we adopted her at 9 months old. She retained more of the wild personality for most of her life, and was always somewhat likely to scratch and never as receptive to human love and affection as were the kittens we bought at a pet store years later. The world is not a perfect place. You do what you can. And how are you all to say that Jessica isn't giving this one puppy a better life than it might have gotten had someone else bought it? That hypothetical would also result in a net increase in worldwide animal welfare.

The End

"while others like MY adorable dog are getting drugs pumped into their bodies and then incinerated...because people are buying from breeders "

Could you explain why /your/ dog is being pumped full of drugs and incinerated, please?

Sometimes this whole line of discussion doesn't seem worth it. Nina-- WOW...I am amazed at how many nonsensical arguments you linked together in one post. WOW. Just for one point-- Pamela means shelter dogs LIKE her dog are being killed because there is no space for them partially because of breeders. Backyard breeders, "respectable" breeders, accidental breeders, puppy mills-- they are the cause of the vast majority of shelter animals. Most animals in shelters were owned at one point.

I think that Elaine has the right idea. This is Jessica's blog and if she wants to continue posting about Monty, that is (of course!) her perogative.

I go to work at an animal welfare org every day and see the results of this sort of consumerism. It is very hard to not argue or want people to understand how purchasing dogs is, yes, and anti-feminist act. So, I think I'll bow out (no pun intended). Forget it.

Regarding the people against breeding dogs being "judgmental"
It's not so much your opinion that makes me think you're judgemental, it's the tone. If you, Elaine, etc. would get off your vegan soapboxes and stop scolding everyone who disagrees with you, then I'd be more able to take you seriously. But instead, everytime a Monty pic is posted, it's like this high-pitched whine; "You know breeders are evil? HITLER was an animal breeder." (Before anyone says anything, I know I'm being hyperbolic).
And how can you talk about animal consumption without talking about where we get our food, medicines, clothes, cosemtics, and entertainment? I don't appreciate being lectured about where my dog comes from by someone supporting factory farms (And if you eat most meat, you prodbably unintentionally do), something so much worse than dog breeders. It's hypocritical--why are some animals worthy of saving and not others? Or, why is it wrong to "consume" one animal and not another?
I seriously hope that the people so "worried" about Monty--I say "worried" because it certainly doesn't come off as worry, it comes off as self-righteousness--have never been to the circus. Or the zoo. How is keeping animals caged (Or at fake safaris like at Six-Flags) so that tourists can take their pictures NOT a form of consumption? Or a movie where an animal is in it, or tv. Nope, no Frasier-dog for you.
So, just to reiterate, it's really not what you say, it's how you say it. The tone that's coming off of most of the anti-breeder sect here is very, "I'm right, you're wrong, I know what's right & you must be fixed." I know that passions run high when animal rights are in question, but if you step back and look at your tone, it's akin to being trolled by the Fundies. The tones are remarkably similar. Would you listen to someone who sounded like; "I'm right, you're wrong, abortion is 100% morally wrong, premarital sex is 100% morally wrong, not obeying your husband is 100% morally wrong?" And honestly, if someone spoke to me about feminism in the tones that they're using now about animals, I'd be put off from feminism.

Thank you Moxie! It's the tone that's the real issue – coming to Jessica's blog to give her a sanctimonious smack on the wrist about something like this.

"And how can you talk about animal consumption without talking about where we get our food, medicines, clothes, cosemtics, and entertainment? I don't appreciate being lectured about where my dog comes from by someone supporting factory farms (And if you eat most meat, you prodbably unintentionally do), something so much worse than dog breeders."

For that matter, what about the meat in some pet food and the animal testing that is used in designing some veterinary medicines?

Do you think women who choose to have their own children instead of choosing to adopt one of the millions of needy, neglected children out there are making horribly immoral decisions?

Humans have a biological urge to reproduce. Adopting is good; I think more people should do it. Especially when the choice is between IVF & adoption. But I understand the desire to have bio children.

Humans DO NOT have a biologial urge to buy purebred dogs. Breeding dogs is not necessary for perpetuation of the human species. It's not necessary for anything other than creating service dogs.
It's just not the same.

Nina, nobody has claimed or suggested that Monty isn't happy. It's not really about Monty. Breeding isn't wrong because the resulting puppies are mistreated (although runts and other "defective" pups often end up discarded into shelters...); it's wrong because there are ALREADY thousands of worthy dogs languishing in shelters. THEY need homes. Until THEY are no longer homeless, breeding is selfish and callous.

Ninapendamaishi -

I really don't know where to start. Suffice to say...you missed the point, and you should re-read my post before commenting further. You are saying we said things that we didn't even say. Who said Peta has anything to do with this?

Your whole argument is based in human-pleasure as the ultimate deciding factor, so there's nothing I can do to change your way of thinking. You also bring up things that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

YES, I do support fixing animals so they can't have more animals. Unless you'd like to make dog condoms and provide sex ed for them...it's called spaying and neutering.

Regarding animals hurting other animals, etc. Oldest and lamest argument out there. Animals hurt other animals in the wild and most of the time they don't have an option. Lions kill for food, for example. That is the silliest excuse for puppy-breeding I have ever heard. And just because something has been around a long time doesn't make it okay. Ever heard of rape or murder? Oh, it's been going on so long, it's okay. (please)

Regarding zoos- obviously some zoos have conservation programs but a lot of them are really, really, messed up. A lot of those animals are taken from their homes in the wild, their families are separated, and they are put in spaces much smaller than they would be in were they in their real home.
I'm done with Ninapendamaishi because I know I won't get anywhere.

Moxie- you bring up good points. All I am saying is that you don't have to be 100% vegan do think that breeding dogs is wrong. Just like you don't have to attend pro-choice rallies to be a feminist. It's not about "sanctimonious slap on the wrist". Jessica got a dog from a breeder when she could have saved a life and she didn't. I will not be called the bad guy for pointing this out.

No one is saying Monty won't be happy. I don't doubt that Jessica truly loves him. I don't doubt that she will take care of him. (From the picture I can tell she's not buying crates too small, for one thing).
None of us can eliminate 100% of suffering. I wouldn't say someone who takes life-saving diabetes medication can't say that puppy-breeding and buying from breeders is wrong. I DO see your point, and I agree that animal activists who aren't even vegetarian may not be taken seriously, but I think it is all about making connections one at a time. I feel feminism isn't just for people, and that profiting and contributing to the view of female animals/their reproductive systems as commodities by a feminist is hypocritical also.
I hope if Jessica gets Monty and brother or sister somewhere down the road, that she adopts instead of shops.

No one is saying anything about Jessica being a bad PERSON. This is not an attack on Jessica, it is a disagreement, a very heated disagreement about one of her DECISIONS. This doesn't negate her good qualities, it doesn't make her a monster. I think people are viewing this as an "I hate Jessica!" thread and it's not. I like this site, I like Jessica's input, I think she's an intelligent person, and I think she has a lot of good qualities. However, I am allowed to disagree with her, just as the people here disagree with those of us who are voicing our opinion.

Would you listen to someone who sounded like; "I'm right, you're wrong, abortion is 100% morally wrong, premarital sex is 100% morally wrong, not obeying your husband is 100% morally wrong?" And honestly, if someone spoke to me about feminism in the tones that they're using now about animals, I'd be put off from feminism.

What if someone said "Taking away a woman's right to choose is 100% morally wrong" or "Condemning women who are not subservient to their husbands is 100% morally wrong"? Would that, then, be an agreeable argument in your eyes? Would you listen to someone making that argument?

Sometimes moral absolutes are applicable. It just depends which side of the debate you're on. In fact, those statements are more relevant to the discussion of feminists taking on similar approaches as animal rights advocates than the reverse statements you posted.

As for Monty, I think he is utterly adorable and I'm happy that he has a loving home with Jessica. I, too, would agree that the atrocities at factory farms are a far greater injustice to the animal kingdom than dog breeding, and if you are not a vegan or do not buy 100% of your animal products from local family farms, you are supporting that industry. I'm not trying to be preachy, that's just exactly how it is.

Companion animals are generally fiercely protected but humans, but those consumed rarely get the same consideration. I could go into all the reasons why this is, but I'd be veering far away from the relevant discussion.

Puppy mills/breeders are not something to adamantly defend, however, and I would suggest that anyone considering bringing an animal into their home adopt one from an animal shelter. There is really no good reason not to, as many shelters are able to discern whether an animal is suitable for homes with children/other pets/etc.

It is far more likely that any given animal at a shelter--as opposed to a breeder--will be euthanized. Monty and other breeder dogs are in a controlled environment there are not the issues of space that shelters face. Just something to think about.

You know what's really fun? ragging on people for -maybe- doing something you dont beleive in. Also, then ragging on them for not arguing about it with you. Sounds like a Good Time to me.

Do we feminists not "rag" on people for doing stuff we disapprove of all the time? Why is it OK for feminists to protest stuff that harms women but not OK for animal lovers to protest behaviors that harm animals? Seriously. These, "But that's what I want to do and nobody can stop me!" arguments are the same types of arguments used by anti-feminists all the time!
"But I like porn so nobody should examine or criticize it!" etc.
How can anyone be offended by this discussion? None of us advocate outlawing buying from breeders (I don't think). So nobody's being "oppressed" here. Listening to our opinions/viewpoints is not hurting you.

What if someone said "Taking away a woman's right to choose is 100% morally wrong" or "Condemning women who are not subservient to their husbands is 100% morally wrong"? Would that, then, be an agreeable argument in your eyes? Would you listen to someone making that argument?
Actually, I wouldn't listen to an argument like that and would pity the person who put it forward. I'd much prefer an argument based on logic and reason instead of morals.

I think it is more of a case of not wanting to hear something you actually have to think about and consider.
I don't think that this is necessarily the issue. I believe that there has been a general consensus in this thread that the preferred method of getting a pet is through adoption, than through a breeder. However, I think that the issue of breeding is being oversimplified. The overall tone of the conversation sounds condescending, where her act is deemed as selfish and wrong. But honestly, who absolutely needs a dog? People want dogs, not need them (of course for the exceptional cases). For example, when I see a person with a border collie, on the streets of NYC, I ask myself "Why the hell does he need a border collie for? Does he use it to herd the neighborhood rats?"

Breeding also oversimplifies the issues of overcrowded shelters and the killing of many shelter animals, that also result from: the selfishness of owners, no matter of how they acquired their pets, to take on more than they can handle and then abandon their pets; people who think that pets are accessories (a la Paris Hilton) instead of a living being; lack of public funding that allow shelters to continue having these "kill-policies" intact; people don't spay or neuter their pets, etc.

It's always interesting to discuss the issue of animal rights and how/if it relates to feminism, but I honestly just like the puppy pictures. There are always so many depressing and infuriating stories that I enjoy the reminders that there are still places of innocence, cuteness and love in this world.

"There is really no good reason not to, as many shelters are able to discern whether an animal is suitable for homes with children/other pets/etc."

Some shelters even test the animals themselves to figure out who has which behaviors (and with that info, figure out who's good for which kind of home). That's got to be more reliable than just knowing what their parents' behaviors were!

Some shelters have the capability and expertise to test animals before they let them go to a home, but many, probably most, do not.

Shelter dogs, let's face it, are a crapshoot. The stress of the shelter environment might be masking great behaviors or bad ones. The shelter may not have the resources to hire a behavioralist. And rescue groups are often run by people who are well-meaning, but have a perfect type of home/family in mind and reject large numbers of prospective owners out of hand (I don't know about you, but I can't be home 15 hours a day just to watch my cat).

Actually, I wouldn't listen to an argument like that and would pity the person who put it forward. I'd much prefer an argument based on logic and reason instead of morals.

Pity we haven't gotten one in this thread. Just a lot of moral absolutism.

By the way, people who are castigating Jessica for her choice to get a dog from a breeder: what are you trying to accomplish, other than shaming her? Are you trying to get her to send Monty back? To a shelter? He exists, and all of these demands to justify and apologize for where he came from aren't going to change that.

Pity we haven't gotten one in this thread. Just a lot of moral absolutism.
I haven't had a problem with the feminist bloggers, but some of the commenters at the blogs I go to. I really don't care about an argument based on how you feel, or your moral beliefs. Sometimes, you can get better quality discussion of feminist issues at richarddawkins.net or at the Brights webpage.

So, Zuzu and Moxie, on what do you base your argument that women deserve the same rights and responsibilities as men? I want logic and reaosn only, remember. No morals or ethics.

Why so pissed, Sarah?
*Shrugs* I just think that men and women are equal, just like the different races are equal. Therefore, it's stupid to treat women differently than men.
But if someone says that something is 100% morally wrong, well you can excuse me for being a little suspicious. There are people who think it's 100% morally wrong to work on the sabbath, because a several thousand year old book strung together for politial purposes by authors unknown says it's wrong. On the Weekly Feminist Reader, someone said that abortion is the same as murder because of the 10 Commandments. Would you even bother arguing with someone like that? Because I wouldn't.

To Zuzu, Moxie, et al.

Please cite your sources and your expertise.

You say you want logic and reason, not moral absolutes, so here you go:

25% of shelter dogs are purebreds. Many come from "reputable breeders" via irresponsible owners.

So the argument that purebreds are better than shelter dogs doesn't hold water. Purebreds ARE shelter dogs.

Shelter animals didn't do anything wrong. Their owners died, were incarcerated, abandoned the dog, divorced, moved, didn't spend the time or money to train the dog, had allergies, etc. The vast majority of dogs in shelters are perfectly fine dogs. It's hardly a "crapshoot."

If you take the time to learn about dog behavior and visit the shelters yourself, you can easily figure out if a dog is suitable for you or not. And just like reputable breeders, reputable shelters will let you bring the dog back if things don't work out. The argument that breeders are better than shelters doesn't hold water. You have to do your research and find reputable people no matter which option you choose. When it comes to shelters, well, you can volunteer, so you can get to know the place and the dogs REALLY well before you choose to adopt.

Millions of dogs are killed every year because no one adopts them. Dogs only have a 50% chance of survival at a shelter. 50% are killed. When you adopt from a shelter, you are saving a life. When you buy from a breeder, you are creating a consumer demand for a product.

Sources:
http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=pro_so_fastfacts
http://www.billfoundation.org/html/cold_hard_facts.html
http://www.bestfriends.org/nomorehomelesspets/pdf/adoptionoption.pdf

So, Zuzu and Moxie, on what do you base your argument that women deserve the same rights and responsibilities as men? I want logic and reaosn only, remember. No morals or ethics.

The laws of the country where I live and a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, which provides for equal protection under the law to its citizens.

I'm still trying to figure out where's the logic and reason in shaming Jessica for getting a dog from a source you don't approve of, that doesn't itself harm dogs? Because I don't see a lot of reason in your statement that there is no issue, it's black and white outside the service-dog industry, or this statement:

Breeding animals and buying animals from breeders is completely, totally, 100%, unacceptably unethical. End of story - there just isn't any wiggle room on this one. Sowwwwwyyyyyyy!

No logic, no reason, just a flat tautological statement.

Again: what's the point of the shaming?

Again: what's the point of the shaming?
It makes you feel better about yourself?
I just can't debate with someone who says stuff like that.

Moxie, stop pretending you're debating. You're not. You're just putting down someone with a different viewpoint.

Go back and reread your arguments. You don't use logic and reason. You don't cite sources or give actual information. You say you think we're making it too black and white, that it needs a "deeper analysis" yet you fail to give it.

Let's see your deeper analysis. Let's see your argument.

(PS - I made another comment earlier, but it's been spam filtered. Perhaps it will show up later.)

"Nina-- WOW...I am amazed at how many nonsensical arguments you linked together in one post. WOW. Just for one point-- Pamela means shelter dogs LIKE her dog are being killed because there is no space for them partially because of breeders. "

That's one point, which was made in it's own post. It was the only point in its post. You didn't address my main post.

"YES, I do support fixing animals so they can't have more animals. Unless you'd like to make dog condoms and provide sex ed for them...it's called spaying and neutering."

"Humans have a biological urge to reproduce. Adopting is good; I think more people should do it. Especially when the choice is between IVF & adoption. But I understand the desire to have bio children."

Do humans have a biological urge to reproduce, or just a biological urge to have sex?
Whichever one it is, I'm pretty sure animals like dogs and cats (and humans) all have that urge. Unless you're going to argue that pets don't have emotions, I get the impression dogs and cats enjoy being mothers to babies. So how can you say that spaying and neutering doesn't affect quality of life?

"Your whole argument is based in human-pleasure as the ultimate deciding factor"

Please explain to me how you arrive at that. I think most of what I talked about was overall animal welfare.

"it's wrong because there are ALREADY thousands of worthy dogs languishing in shelters. THEY need homes. Until THEY are no longer homeless, breeding is selfish and callous."

I just think this line of reasoning is being taken to extremes. Does this mean that every person only has a moral right to the bare minimum of belongings they need to survive, so that everything else can be given to suffering people in other countries? (I'm a bit of a socialist, so I agree with that to an extent, but I don't practice it to the extreme in my own life. I mean, I own a computer, I own a Sansa and a nice camera. Think of all the puppies and/or people I could help save with that money). So is that the way the world should work, we should always do whatever we can to alleviate suffering (short of resulting in our own death) or else we are immoral beings? Have /you/ adopted all of the puppies and kitties from shelters that you can possibly afford to do?

"Regarding zoos- obviously some zoos have conservation programs but a lot of them are really, really, messed up. A lot of those animals are taken from their homes in the wild, their families are separated, and they are put in spaces much smaller than they would be in were they in their real home."

I think you completely misunderstood my point. Zoos play an incredibly important role in raising money for the conservation of wild animals. Without zoos most people would not care about conservation of animals (because they never would have seen them). A lot of conservation heros like Jane Goodall understand this, which is why she works closely with zoos (and has been largely responsible for saving chimpanzees in the wild).

If you think zoos (at least well-funded, modern American zoos with caring keepers) don't take good care of their animals, I am skeptical of how familiar you are with the inner-workings of these zoos. (Note: I'm NOT saying that a zoo is an ideal environment for an animal) But really, do you think animals in the wild do not suffer or don't get stressed? Animals in the wild starve, are eaten, get diseases, die of injury, etc. etc. Animals in zoos are protected from a lot of these natural stresses... I just don't see how you can make a conclusive comparison about the two qualities of life. I conclude your convictions are founded on a belief about how animals must feel.

"I'm done with Ninapendamaishi because I know I won't get anywhere."

Maybe that's b/c you aren't interested in discussion and drawn-out reasoning.

"Regarding animals hurting other animals, etc. Oldest and lamest argument out there. Animals hurt other animals in the wild and most of the time they don't have an option. Lions kill for food, for example. That is the silliest excuse for puppy-breeding I have ever heard. And just because something has been around a long time doesn't make it okay. Ever heard of rape or murder? Oh, it's been going on so long, it's okay. (please)"

Please stop dragging the rape and murder issue here, please. It has little to do with adopting a pet from a breeder (I mean no one here is saying that raping or beating pets is okay) and I think is just being used for shock value. My point was that if it wasn't for breeding we wouldn't even have these things we call dogs. Other people brought up the personality issue, and how people (/especially/ people with young kids) want dogs with a gentle personality. I think people have a right to kill wild animals to protect their families. Animals would typically kill people to protect their families. And as the human population has increased, domesticated animal populations have done better as well. It just sort of makes sense (ever heard the term "symbiotic"?) So if you're talking about the overall population of wolves/dogs, instead of just individual dogs, there are probably more individuals alive and happy as a result of breeding to be symbiotic with humans than there would have been if humans had never domesticated wolves and just killed them all off instead. We wouldn't even be having this debate.

Do you think we should be searching for a way to make sure animals /can't/ hurt or kill other animals? If you do okay, but personally I would consider you a little cuckoo. Re: the "animals don't have a choice because they kill for food thing". A lot of animals kill for sport, you know. As the owner of some well-fed cats, I would know.

Are you now going to say "well they're animals, so they can't think abstractly or make their own choices?" Fine. Agreed. But then can we /please/ stop trying to equate the suffering of women with the suffering of animals?

Seriously, with all this animal-rights retoric taken to it's logical conclusion, this is what I conclude: each of us who does not adopt all of the needy kittens, puppies, and children that our financial power and time can afford are immoral beings. If I'm missing something, please explain.

So, Zuzu, women are only equal to men when their countries say so?
And Moxie, men and women should have equal rights because *you* think men and women are equal. Hmph. So much for air-tight reason and logic. I could just as easily breeding is wrong because *I* think it's unethical. Just because you don't use the words "morals" and "ethics" doesn't mean they're not the basis of your arguments.

Dogs and cats may like having puppies and kittens, but we as humans must protect "lesser" animals, and spaying and neutering protects them from homelessness and euthenasia. It also has numerous health benefits for the neutered animal itself.

To the person who stated the obvious & said that if not for breeding we wouldn't have any dogs:
No kidding. And when we run out of dogs breeding would be necessary to make more (if we want them). That's not the case today. There are thousands of dogs without homes. So breeding is not necessary.

While I respect everyone's opinion, breeders are not at the top of my list of things that piss me off. So if it's on yours, cool, but let me be as well.

I've had dogs who were bred as well as those who were rescued. I have to say, I loved them ALL as if they were my children (and technically, they were). To say I don't love dogs as a whole because I bought a bred one is a bit ridiculous. Hell, I am allergic to dogs and rescued TWO of them anyway...so what does that say about my love of dogs?

I say that while it is great to rescue a dog in need, if for some reason you can't rescue the ones available to you (breed issues, etc) and you choose to buy a bred dog, then that's fine as long as you are a loving owner.

And I'll bring this right back to the original point of this post: Monty vs bone. Monty is ADORABLE Jessica! I want one! *breaks out the Zyrtec*

Sarah, you're demanding airtight reason and logic (on an issue that really has nothing to do with dog breeding), yet you haven't employed anything but emotion yourself in declaring breeding to be a black-and-white issue. All I've seen are flat, tautological statements that breeding dogs is evil, unless there's some kind of utilitarian exception.

In any event, you haven't really made the connection between feminism and dog breeding, particularly when you have a service-dog exception to your no-breeding rule. Which kind of sounds like a rape-or-incest exception to the whole "abortion is murder!" thing.

And once again, I ask you: what is the point of shaming Jessica for where she got Monty from? What are you hoping to accomplish?

Answer me that.

Seriously, with all this animal-rights retoric taken to it's logical conclusion, this is what I conclude: each of us who does not adopt all of the needy kittens, puppies, and children that our financial power and time can afford are immoral beings. If I'm missing something, please explain.

What you're missing is the definition of a logical conclusion.

Sorry, that was catty and rude.

Actually, what you're missing are the same basic assumptions. You arrive at a different logical conclusion because logic is just a process, without shared assumptions, the conclusions differ.

My assumption: animals are not the property of humans to be bought and sold like slaves for our pleasure. They are other nations, to be respected and treated with dignity. Humans are responsible for cat and dog overpopulation, therefor we are responsible for caring for those animals that need care, the ones in shelters. There is absolutely no need to breed animals for profit, be them for pets or meat. It's slavery and it's wrong.

Wow, now it's slavery?

I'm sure there are a few people whose ancestors were slaves who'll really appreciate that.

Zuzu, don't even try. It's pointless. I'm not wasting time debating with people that see things so black and white. It's like debating with the Fundies.
And they still haven't answered your question re: shaming.
There is absolutely no need to breed animals for profit, be them for pets or meat. It's slavery and it's wrong.
Ok, Elaine, I hope you never use medicine. Many have animal products in them. And I have to second Zuzu, I'm sure people with slave ancestors really appreciate you comparing their suffering with buying a puppy from a breeder.
Let's see your deeper analysis. Let's see your argument.
Scroll up. My argument is around comment 20. Basically, I think it's a waste of time to attack breeders when your anger would be better directed at; the lack of funds for animal shelters, puppy mills and people that are genuinely hurting animls, and factory farming. Also, that your way of discussing this is really alienating and people would listen to you more if you got off your soapboxes.

I'm with Zuzu on this one; that's incredibly offensive.

I agree with what Zuzu said over at her blog. But, it's not only that. My ancestors, those who were slaves, were also the ones who had to do the "breeding" of animals, particularly livestock, for consuming. They also were the ones who had to do the killing and preparation of the meat, so that their "owners" can sell it to others. So, to some point, by calling breeding "slavery", is to suggest that the slaves themselves were slavemasters. Yes, that's not the point that's being said, however, with the simplification of the word "slavery" that's what can be interpreted.

To bring the conversation to the present, I am also offended by breeding=slavery statement, because several of my relatives in my parents' native country breed livestock and foul as their primary source of income. The "breeding=slavery" statement is a complete insult to them, as they are modest, hard-working individuals, as well as many others, who depend on this income; otherwise, they would be living day-to-day, in severely f*cked up conditions.

Sorry for the one or two grammatical errors in my last post, that's what I get for not wearing my glasses.

I read this site because I learn something much of the time. Today I think I learned that having a dog makes you a bad feminist. Or is it more sweeping than that – it makes you a bad person?

I also learned that I have no understanding whatsoever of how buying a puppy puts someone in league with slaveowners. Or what any of this has to do with feminism.

But I’ll keep reading.

Humans have lived in a symbiotic relationship with dogs, cats, and several other animal species for thousands of years, and for most of those years, humans have selectively bred those animals to produce traits that were useful to the human and thus tightened the symbiosis.

Attacking Jessica because she chose to get a dog who will have a standardized set of features that are more likely to fit in her life, rather than choosing a shelter dog that might not is uncalled for.

I have three dogs, currently. One was thrown out of a car at six weeks old and I witnessed the event and rescued him out of traffic. Another wandered into our yard with a sliced up rear right paw pad, coat matted to her skin, and a case of heartworms that was fortunately (and barely) still treatable. The third is a purebred Golden Lab we acquired from a family that had never had a big dog and did not understand the challenges of having one in the family.

Two of the dogs are strictly pets, one of the more recent roles for which dogs were tamed. One fits that role exceedingly well, the other not quite. The third, bred for hunting birds, is a working dog who helps us fill our freezer each year with hormone free, non-factory farmed meat.

Claiming that dog ownership is equivalent to slavery shows a deep lack of understanding of the long standing relationship of domesticated animals to man, as well as a lack of understanding of human slavery.

Jessica is not in the wrong here. Those who attacked her for giving a puppy a loving home are, no matter what their motives.

Moxie, you're "deeper analysis" is that there are more important things to worry about? That's not deep, that's shallow. You're basically just saying "my concerns are more important than yours, so STFU."

You wrote:

"Basically, I think it's a waste of time to attack breeders when your anger would be better directed at; the lack of funds for animal shelters, puppy mills and people that are genuinely hurting animls, and factory farming."

And, if I'm wasting my time saying dog breeding is morally wrong, what the hell are you doing?

You wrote:

"Also, that your way of discussing this is really alienating and people would listen to you more if you got off your soapboxes."

Just because you're not persuaded doesn't mean there aren't others who are. Just because you think I'm rude doesn't mean there aren't others who think you're the one being rude.

People often need to learn about things in a variety of ways and in varied contexts before they actually think about them. For some people, anger shuts down reason and thought, but for others anger sparks thought and creativity. Some people need to be shaken up a bit before they see the world in a new light.

You might not approve of my methods. You may dislike my brutal honesty, but don't lie to me and say you'd consider my ideas if I just said them more politely. You've already made up you mind on the issue and you're not open to persuasion. So don't pretend you are.

ccall: Having a dog doesn't make you a bad feminist or a bad person. However, treating other living beings as property raises questions that can analyzed using feminist theory.

And buying a dog from a breeder, when there are millions of dogs killed every year because there aren't homes for them, makes you a consumer of dogs. By purchasing a dog, you have put a value on that dog's life and you're forgone the adoption option. You've chosen to create a market for puppies when there is already a surplus. You've chosen to value this dog life higher than that dog life.

Having a dog does not make you a bad person. I have a dog and consider myself a good person. I don't think Jessica and those defending her are bad people. But I think her choice was wrong and I'd like to encourage others not to make that choice. My "encouragement" may not be your style and you may choose to villianize me however you like, but my nagging and pestering is encouragement. It is not bullying or scolding.

Meanwhile, I'd like the discussion of Jessica's choice to allow deeper thought and analysis into other ways that we treat animals as commodities and how we harm them.

Regarding Moxie's thoughts about necessary animal shelter funding: Obviously, we can all donate money if we've got it, as I suggested in another thread. We can lobby for more government funding of animal shelters. Some of us can volunteer time at shelters or volunteer as foster parents. Some of us can adopt needy dogs or cats or help with adoption drives. Most of us can spread the truth about shelter animals, that most are good pets in bad circumstances, through our own blogs or other discussions. Most of us can encourage others to spay and neuter their pets. There are lots of things we can do to help shelter and stray animals.

Regarding Moxie's thoughts on factory farming: The obvious answer is to go vegan. That is the simplest and easiest way to reduce animal suffering. For those people unwilling to do that just yet, they can go vegan once or twice a week, for a day or so.

Regarding Zuzu's comments about slavery: Only people who think their lives are more important than non-human animals' lives can be offended by the comparison of human slavery to animal slavery. The definition of slavery is to treat another as property. Property is the essential concept of slavery. Property. The only way you can be offended is if you think it's OK to treat non-human animals as property. I've had this discussion on my blog before: http://www.elainevigneault.com/politics-of-power-and-peta.html
so you can read more if you're truly interested in understanding my perspective. Or you can just ignore my criticisms and right me off as a loon, like you normally do.

I'm done.

Well, I showed this to my cat the other day. Now she wants to be a puppy. How would feminist theory evaluate that? If she becomes a puppy, would she be barred from dog gatherings because she was born a cat?

Regarding Zuzu's comments about slavery: Only people who think their lives are more important than non-human animals' lives can be offended by the comparison of human slavery to animal slavery.

Oh. My. God.

Do you even *hear* yourself?

Spoken like someone completely, utterly, blind to their own white privilege. Nobody owned you or your ancestors, Elaine, so it's real easy for you to be cavalier.

My guess is that you don't get a whole lot of non-white, non-privileged people signing onto your animal ownership=slavery position.

In any event, adoptions cost money. How is that not putting a price on a dog?

"And I have to second Zuzu, I'm sure people with slave ancestors really appreciate you comparing their suffering with buying a puppy from a breeder."

For that matter, I bet people who are slaves now (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/world/slavery/default.stm for more info) wouldn't like the comparison either.

"Sorry for the one or two grammatical errors in my last post, that's what I get for not wearing my glasses."

It's OK. I'm sure that your relatives' poultry is not foul. :)

"The definition of slavery is to treat another as property. Property is the essential concept of slavery. Property."

If the essential concept of slavery is merely the concept of property, then I'm enslaving a houseplant, a computer, etc.

"Regarding Zuzu's comments about slavery: Only people who think their lives are more important than non-human animals' lives can be offended by the comparison of human slavery to animal slavery.

"Oh. My. God.

"Do you even *hear* yourself?

"Spoken like someone completely, utterly, blind to their own white privilege."

Exactly. Also spoken like someone completely, utterly, blind to carnivorous species.

then I'm enslaving a houseplant
Jessica posted a picture of an orchid once. How come no one's agitating to free the orchids? I'm sure that plants are totally sentient, and scientists are just prejudiced against discovering their sentience.
Excuse me, I have to free my moonflowers and forget-me-nots.

Adoptions cost money, Zuzu, because the shelters need to keep the place running somehow. It's often considered a donation to the shelter, so they can continue housing, feeding and caring for dogs and paying employees. Hardly a money-making scheme.

Do you have a comment about whether dog breeding is slavery?

No, I don't.

So, how do you explain the line drawn between buying a dog outright or paying an adoption fee, in terms of what might make that slavery?

You know, I really have no problem with preferring adoption in general, as long as people are realistic about the CBA, and with shutting down puppy mills. But I really do take issue with the idea that breeding animals in and of itself is tantamount to slavery, which just trivializes the experiences of people who have been slaves not only in the past, but who are currently enslaved.

I'm going to guess that someone who's currently enslaved by a brothel or a sweatshop is not real likely to find the plight of a well-loved puppy quite comparable to her own.

Why are you even asking me these questions? I never compared anything to slavery.

And I'm still wondering why you demanded that I justify women's equality using only logic and reason.

Because you and Moxie were demanding it from us! Meanwhile you weren't following your own rule.

Monty already existed before Jessica decided to buy him. He was already a living being. He could have gone to someone who wouldn't have taken very good care of him, and he could have ended up unhappy. But he didn't. He's got a great home and a loving person to play with.
Really, I feel there are no more implications needed than that.
But that's just my personaly opinion.

PS: Please excuse the typo. Note to self- always preview comments.

Jessica,

Thanks for posting this video of your puppy on your blog. I really enjoy reading Feministing not only for the great feminist posts and issues but also because I enjoy seeing the lives and loves of people like me. If that means a post about somebody's dog or cat or sister or lover every once in a while, so be it! I think everyone at Feministing is fucking righteous and I have no complaints.

To me, it's an issue of choice. I am pro-choice not just when it comes to abortion but also when it comes to posts on a blog. You choose what to blog about; I choose what to read and what to skip. Simple as that.

Most sincerely,
Megan

I agree in principle with taking in animals from shelters.

I also agree, in principle, that overall our treatment of domesticated animals needs to be improved.

However, the simple fact is that not all people CAN take in an animal from a shelter, and buying from a responsible breeder is the next best option.

Most of the dog-owners I know purchased their pets from shelters, or rescued them from abusive families straight out, or were given them by people who could no longer care for the animal and didn't want to send it to a shelter to be, potentially, put down, or rescued them from a dustbin. Some have been a little messed in the head from abuse, some have been perfectly healthy.

A particular family friend has a lovely little dog that came from an abusive family. When Max was a puppy, his owner used to viscously beat his wife, and if Max intervened i would be kicked horrifically, this all while he was still just a small puppy. Sometimes, Max would be dumped in the bath when the beatings occurred- he was too small to climb out, so couldn't get in the way. This dog is a lovely, cuddly, affectionate and intelligent animal with an incredibly cheeky sense of humour. He also loves playing catch with grapes so much that he'll put off eating the grape for an hour if he thinks he can get you to throw it to him again.

But he is only lovely around women. When there is a man in the room, he will sit on the lap of the smallest/youngest woman, and will just watch the men. If a man walks past the house Max will watch them through the window, hackles up. Men and women cannot dance together in front of this dog. No man can ball his hand into a fist within sight of him. No man can clap, sing or whistle in front of this dog. No man can make any sudden physical movement around him. If he does, he will get bitten, he will get chased off with a furious, guttural growl and will get attacked.. This includes noisy young boys. Max is such a protective little guy- he associates men with violence and just wants to protect women.

When this couple rescued Max, they didn't know what sort of personality he would have- he was very meek in the shelter, and very quiet and watchful. But they have no children, and were prepared to take on a potentially difficult dog in order to provide a good home. As a couple, they have learned how to be affectionate together without getting him riled and are trying to re-educate him to be more gentle and trusting.

I salute their decision, and I love Max to bits.

But if they had a child, specifically a young boy, Max would have turned out to be a bad choice. They would most likely have been faced with the choice of either sending Max back to a shelter, abandoned by yet another family, or risk their child getting attacked.

I know that not all rescue/shelter dogs have abusive pasts, and not all shelter dogs will have "problems". But the simple fact is that, very often, when you buy from a shelter you are buying blind. When there are other concerns, such as children, it is better to buy from a good, responsible breeder.

I don't know what factors were involved in Jessica's decision to buy from a breeder and, to be perfectly honest, I don't expect her to tell me. But the issue is far from simple.

And, yes, equating the keeping of animals with slavery is racist. Slavery still exists, and there is a far cry from the life of a slave to the life little Monty is likely to have.

(Not to even go into the implications of what would happen if we decided to "set our livestock free" as it were)

Apologies for length.

Delurking to say thanks, everyone. I learned a lot about breeders and shelters that I didn't know before.

“Regarding Zuzu's comments about slavery: Only people who think their lives are more important than non-human animals' lives can be offended by the comparison of human slavery to animal slavery�

My life is *way* more important than non-human animal life. So count me very much in the group of people offended by the comparison of human slavery to animal slavery.

Elaine, I have to ask you, if you are standing along a rushing river, and a human child and a dachshund are both caught in the current headed for the falls, would you not hesitate to reach for the human child?

If you would reach for the dachshund instead of the human child I think you need to do some serious soul-searching. And if you would pull the child out first, you obviously value human life at least slightly more than animal life.

That story is so sad yet so touching, Bunny. That poor dog, and poor (abused) woman too.
Seriously, dogs ARE man's best friend. Or woman's, in this case. They feel love.
Silly story:
My boyfriend and I took our dogs to Patterson Park in Baltimore last weekend to let them run around. Hoagie (mine) doesn't like "playing" with other dogs but he gets along well with Joey (his) - they "hang out" whenever I take him up to Baltimore.
Anyway, lots of doggies were running around roughhousing; Hoagie was keeping to himself and rolling around in the grass. Another dog disturbed him and Hoagie growled (because he doesn't like too much attention from other dogs) and the other dog sort of jumped on him and growled back at him. Joey stopped playing with all the other dogs and ran over to get between Hoagie and his "attacker." I was so proud. Haha.

Sarah, that is so sweet! I do love that about dogs- as much as I lovses my kitties I know they don't see me and their siblings the same way dogs do...

SingOut, I'd suggest heading over to this thread at Feministe if you want to learn even more. A lot of good stuff from people with first-hand experience w/ shelters and breeders.

OMG, I hope Jessica does not mind my posting this, but my bf's roommate just sent me this picture and I have to share it to go along with the story.

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h307/craney808/JoeyandHoagie040.jpg

Getting a dog from a breeder is a good decision, you know exactly what you're getting...vs. a pet store that most likely stocks puppy mill pups. Puppy mills keep bitches pregnant continuously, which gradually takes a lot out of the mom and you end up with pups with all kinds of health problems.

A shelter dog may be PC, but dogs that have been abandoned and/or abused often have severe adjustment problems, I don't think they are great for a first-time dog owner in many cases. I've had dogs all my life and they are not always easy to train, but it is much easier to raise one from a pup than try to undo what someone else has done. I now have a bit of a difficult dog, I love him dearly but the first 6 months of his life were not all that great and I still deal with the aftereffects. If he were my first dog I may have given up by now.

Good post, bunny. You illustrated the very often glossed-over problems with rescued pets.

Rather than jumping all over Jessica, deal with the real baddies, the people who fill the shelters with dogs in the first place, the puppy mills that *really* treat dogs as consumer goods, breeding them till they can't breed anymore and then disposing of them.