MRS. M. writes:

Recently my mother and I took my four year-old to a birthday party at a local mall. As we left the mall, I saw the strangest sight: two women in their 50s or 60s, appearing to be a “couple,” pushing baby strollers with a large pillow and a small DOG inside each one! They walked these “babies” in strollers through the mall the way I walked my baby through the mall back in his stroller days. I was shocked then disgusted. It made me wonder: if they never had children as younger women, are they now pining for grandchildren and the dogs are their substitute? I know that is a big assumption but that was the first thought that crossed my mind. The second thought I had was what their stance was on abortion and did they find children “too messy” or “too noisy”?

Laura writes:

Dogs and cats are considered more worthy of maternal devotion for a significant minority of women today.

                                                         — Comments —

Bruce B. writes:

My wife and I have seen a bumper sticker (on multiple cars) that says “I love my Grand-Dog.” I just did a search and you can buy it along with mugs, refrigerator magnets, etc. Mrs. M. is noticing the same thing that we are. Many people are substituting dogs and cats for children in their lives.

Laurence Butler writes:

“Dogs and cats are considered more worthy of maternal devotion for a significant minority of women today.”

Dogs and cats are the perfect children. They do not live as long, do not require schooling, and do not chastise their parents if they’re left home alone all day. They love unconditionally–very important for the modern, selfish person, and they also require no moral development (Phew!). They will not be negatively affected by one’s choice of lifestyle nor do they suffer socially from a parent’s bad decisions.

I’m surprised Planned Parenthood does not provide puppies with each abortive procedure, to make sure the mother has no void for the loss of her child. No void whatsoever.

P.S. I was thinking about adding that Dogs and Cats also don’t mind or suffer if you give them ridiculous names, but I don’t think that giving children silly names is actually much of a hang-up anymore.

Laura writes:

I am always surprised when people today do not disguise, in relation to their dogs and cats, what are clearly feelings more appropriate to fellow human beings. It seems an admission of social failure.

Jill Farris writes:

In today’s culture, Humane Societies are big business. To adopt a kitten from our local Humane Society costs 130.00 (if they have any). Some Humane Societies have enormous, brand-new facilities. These sick older people who treat their animals better than they do their grandchildren, also take great pride in talking about adopting “rescue” pets. They have done their good deed for society by saving an animal from death. Funny how every animal these days seems to be a “rescue” animal.

Eric writes:

I have noticed that dogs have become child-surrogates. In older, empty-nest women and couples this does not bother me. When I see a childless young woman or couple doting on a dog, it bothers me. It bothers me even more to see children put into Kiddie Kennels.

I have mused on this as a subject for dark comedy. Our culture is ripe for some really vicious satire.

A reader writes:

From a web page on dogs in Japan:

The number of dogs has increased as the number of childless women and couples–who often dote on their dogs in place of children–have increased. In 2006 the number of dogs (13 million) exceeded the number of children under 12 (12 million) for the first time. The publisher of a pet magazine told the New York Times, “Households with few or no children are turning to dogs to fill the void.”

Christine Smith writes:

Before I was married, I taught in a public high school. Every year before Christmas, each homeroom was encouraged to bring in donations for “Toys for Tots,” a charitable organization which ensures that needy children receive gifts. The year I started teaching there, one of the women on the school board had pushed to have half the homerooms start collecting “toys for animals” instead. Meaning, like it sounds: rope pull-toys and dog bones to donate to local animal shelters. It’s one thing if people want to help abandoned pets, but not when it comes at the cost of neglecting human beings, for whom those gifts would have meant so much more. My homeroom was one of those assigned to collect toys for animals. I was so disgusted by it, that I didn’t encourage or remind my students even once to bring in any donations.

Elizabeth writes:

I am a crazy cat lady. I love my cats. Do I love them more than my three children or five grandchildren? No, of course not. But I do love them. And I am pro-life, and have been for more years than you’ve been alive. You are making assumptions about pet lovers that you really shouldn’t be making.

Laura writes:

No, I’m afraid it is you who are making erroneous assumptions. We began with the story of two women walking through a mall with dogs in baby strollers. It is the inordinate love of pets, which is a significant cultural phenomenon, that we have been discussing.

Earlier this year, I went to a doggie nursery with a relative. The entire layout was similar to a children’s day care center. The dogs even had beds and couches to lie on, and I don’t mean old beat-up beds and couches but new ones.

Mrs. M. writes:

Just for clarification, I own a cat. She’s a loved family pet but not so loved that I would stroll her around the mall. Roe v. Wade was decided the year I was born, so I’m neither young nor decrepit.

Anonymous writes:

I have a relative who is a “pet parent.” Because she and her husband both work, her little dogs (two of them) go to a doggie “daycare.”

This daycare is very impressive. Each of the dogs has his own little private space, with a small run and a dog bed. Several times a day all the dogs are taken out and exercised. Depending on the dog’s breed/activity level, this can range from merely being turned out into an open space to run and “play” under supervision, to being briskly walked. In the open space, there is a big-screen television set that is tuned to Animal Planet.

There is a “chef” on-site who prepares organic, whole-food meals and snacks for all the dogs. At any time of the day, my relative can log-on to the daycare’s website and view her doggies on video camera. According to her, this web viewing was one of the features that made her choose this particular daycare facility over others that offered similar perks.

My husband has a co-worker who has a three-year-old in daycare; both he and his wife work full-time. They pay less per week for their human child than my relative pays for *one* of her dogs. I can guarantee you that this little child does not have an on-site chef preparing fresh, organic food and snacks, and the parents certainly cannot check up on him anytime via video camera.

I don’t begrudge my relative the money she spends on her pets, but something has surely become twisted in our society when animals routinely get better treatment than humans.

Jane writes:

Just the other day while in a vitamin shop, I overheard a woman say to the store clerk that she was adopting next month. The clerk started asking her questions until the woman stopped her by saying, “No, no, I’m adopting a dog.”

The Handmaiden writes:

This discussion reminded me of this passage from Plutarch’s Parallel Lives. There truly is nothing new under the sun.

“Caesar once, seeing some wealthy strangers at Rome, carrying up and down with them in their arms and bosoms young puppy-dogs and monkeys, embracing and making much of them, took occasion not unnaturally to ask whether the women of their country were not used to bear children; by that prince-like reprimand gravely reflecting upon persons who spend and lavish upon brute beasts that affection and kindness which nature has implanted in us to be bestowed on those of our own kind.”

Please follow and like us: