Yesterday I read a bizarre op-ed piece in the New York Times, written by Kelly Oliver. The op-ed, entitled, 'Pet Lovers. Pathologized,' posits that loving an animal is socially unacceptable. Oliver builds her case in part by saying that politicians go hunting primarily in order to project a macho image.I disagree with much of what Oliver writes in this piece (I don't really sense or encounter much discrimination against people who really love their cats and dogs, but perhaps I don't travel in the same circles as Ms. Oliver). Naturally the item I want to start off with is her characterization of why political candidates are seen hunting.
The political value is not in "channeling Joe Six-Pack," or in demonstrating 'bloodlust.' The value is communicating to the millions of American hunters the idea that this candidate understands you. The act sends a message to hunters that the candidate is one of us. For decades, American hunters have felt derided and attacked and constantly threatened with rules and legislation that seemed to be trying to end hunting one step at a time. When a life-long hunter sees someone running for office, he or she naturally wonders if this is going to be one of the people who puts up more literal and figurative 'no hunting' signs. A photo op during a hunt is a good way for a candidate to send a very clear message to the millions of American hunters and their families that he or she is on their side.
Whether or not the candidate really is much of a hunter or truly intends to be a friend to hunters is another question entirely.
As for Oliver's statement about bloodlust, I really don't think that she understands the psychology or culture of mainstream American hunters at all. A hunter who demonstrates a real bloodlust is an odd duck, usually mistrusted by other hunters in the US. The attitude may be tolerated for a time in a new hunter who is still learning their way, but when an experienced hunter seems to take real joy in the act of killing for its own sake or craves the pain of a living animal then we tend to find that just as creepy as she does.
Oliver's lead-off statement about Presidential candidates eating meat is also a little bit suspect, in my opinion. She asks whether a head of state "could gain office by declaring himself or herself a vegetarian." Could a candidate win by declaring him or herself to be a vegetarian? Of course not. Only about 1% of Americans are vegetarians at any given time. You might as well ask whether a candidate could win office by declaring herself to be a model train collector or a fan of Robert Browning. These aren't things that you can really run on.
Could a candidate who happens to be a vegetarian become President? Yes, I think so. But not by being a vegetarian. There is no one thing that a candidate can declare about him or herself that will cinch the election.
Oliver says that the legal landscape only approves of dependence on non-food animals in cases of "illness, handicap or severe need." Really? Because I'm pretty sure that I can walk into the County Office building and get a dog license without a prescription from my doctor. There are many government-funded shelters for abandoned pets, some of them being no-kill shelters. Many cities and towns have government-maintained parks set up for people to take their pets to. We have laws on the books against some types of cruelty to animals.
The service animal category that she leans her arguments on so heavily is a weak argument for her point. The service animal designation is mostly something that prevents a business from preventing an animal (usually, though not necessarily, a dog) from accompanying a human. Most dogs are not especially well-trained and if a grocery store had to allow every dog in the neighborhood to wander the aisles then there would be feces and urine everywhere, not to mention a lot of eaten food.
This very practical designation given only to animals that are helping humans with disabilities is not the sole or even the primary recognition of animals in our legal landscape. It is one of many ways in which law and government address non-food animals. Oliver is cherry-picking this one role of animals in order to try to prove the specious point that society finds the love of animals to be inherently a sickness.
All of that said, I admire the fact that Oliver is trying to go to bat for people who love animals. I think that her motives are good even if her argument is unconvincing to me.
[Photo copyright 2011 by Jackson Landers. All rights reserved.]
0 comments:
Post a Comment