RE: Reader Response to “The Real Problem with Lena Dunham and her Dog” by Emily Peck
Dear Editor,
I write in response to the article entitled, “The Real Problem with Lena Dunham and Her Dog”, by “Senior Reporter” Emily Peck, published online on July 7, 2017. In her article, the author criticizes Ms. Dunham, not just for surrendering her rescue dog, but also for referring to herself as the dog’s “mother.” In fact, the author barely comments on the real issue, which is the fact that a celebrity with an abundance of financial resources gave up her responsibility to care for the animal she adopted. Instead of tackling that important social issue, the author uses the incident as a springboard for attacking animal lovers.
The author transitions into discussing what she refers to as “the real problem” by noting that Ms. Dunham is “just another annoying dog-person who’s confused having a pet with raising a human child.” Ignoring the fact that Ms. Dunham’s posts clearly describe herself as a mother only as it relates to her dog, the author goes on to explain the difference between parenting a child and a dog, to the point of making the ridiculously obvious point that parents cannot leave their children at the shelter if they don’t behave. “None of this is typically how parenting works,” the author quips, as if making some profound point that parents (parents of humans, of course) everywhere will appreciate.
My response to this article is two-fold. First, the author blatantly misrepresents that, by claiming to be a mother of a dog, Ms. Dunham is equating that to being the mother of a human. If Ms. Dunham ever made such a remark, the author certainly did not cite it (and I doubt that she did because Ms. Dunham is not stupid). Second, and also without any evidentiary support, the author paints that claim onto the rest of us. Even in the subheading, she writes, “[l]ike many others, [Ms. Dunham]’s confused having a pet with raising a human child.” This statement, and others like it throughout the article, is incredibly offensive and condescending to people like me.
I am a very proud dog mama. I call my rescue pups, Tub (collie/shepherd mix) and Cash (beagle), “my babies.” I’ve plastered my social media accounts with hundreds of pictures and videos of them. My parents even refer to them as their “granddoggies.” I am also a very proud aunt, “auntie” (to friends’ children), and godmother. I was present for nearly all of their births, and actually in the room for the birth of my godson. I’m approaching forty, so nearly all of my friends have children. “Like many others” (to use the words of the author), I’ve babysat, changed countless diapers, listened to the joys and tears from parents and children, waited in agony during medical emergencies, prepared meals for couples suffering the horror of a miscarriage, attended many, many birthday parties, and, most importantly, fallen in love with each one of these incredible children in my life.
As the author so dismissively noted about Ms. Dunham, the same is true about me: “She is not, however, a mother.” No, she is not. I am not a mother. I probably will not ever be one. But that doesn’t make me stupid. I have an enormous respect for mothers. I cannot imagine what it must be like to love a child any more than I love my nephew, for instance, but I know that they do. I have seen it. The beautiful bond between mother and child has brought me to tears, time and again.
I love my fur babies, but I am not “confused.” They are neither “property,” nor are they human; they are animals, in a class of their own. I believe that everyone should recognize animal rights (all fifty states currently have animal cruelty laws; sadly, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. territory where I live, does not). I have hundreds of Facebook followers who “like” and comment on my posts about my babies, who I certainly treat as family. No one has ever accused me of pretending that I know the trials and tribulations of child-rearing simply because I love my dogs. The word “dog” is expressed or implied in every reference to myself as a mama, as it is with every “dog mom” I’ve ever known.
I believe that my feelings are a more adequate representation of animal lovers than those expressed by the author. Although I admittedly do not know what exactly happened, I can’t imagine surrendering one of my fur babies, like Ms. Dunham did. But that fact in and of itself proves that the author’s entire premise is wrong: Ms. Dunham gave up the dog because she was its owner, not its mother. Like the rest of us, Ms. Dunham understood the difference.
Sincerely,
Betsy Weintraub
Dear Editor,
I write in response to the article entitled, “The Real Problem with Lena Dunham and Her Dog”, by “Senior Reporter” Emily Peck, published online on July 7, 2017. In her article, the author criticizes Ms. Dunham, not just for surrendering her rescue dog, but also for referring to herself as the dog’s “mother.” In fact, the author barely comments on the real issue, which is the fact that a celebrity with an abundance of financial resources gave up her responsibility to care for the animal she adopted. Instead of tackling that important social issue, the author uses the incident as a springboard for attacking animal lovers.
The author transitions into discussing what she refers to as “the real problem” by noting that Ms. Dunham is “just another annoying dog-person who’s confused having a pet with raising a human child.” Ignoring the fact that Ms. Dunham’s posts clearly describe herself as a mother only as it relates to her dog, the author goes on to explain the difference between parenting a child and a dog, to the point of making the ridiculously obvious point that parents cannot leave their children at the shelter if they don’t behave. “None of this is typically how parenting works,” the author quips, as if making some profound point that parents (parents of humans, of course) everywhere will appreciate.
My response to this article is two-fold. First, the author blatantly misrepresents that, by claiming to be a mother of a dog, Ms. Dunham is equating that to being the mother of a human. If Ms. Dunham ever made such a remark, the author certainly did not cite it (and I doubt that she did because Ms. Dunham is not stupid). Second, and also without any evidentiary support, the author paints that claim onto the rest of us. Even in the subheading, she writes, “[l]ike many others, [Ms. Dunham]’s confused having a pet with raising a human child.” This statement, and others like it throughout the article, is incredibly offensive and condescending to people like me.
I am a very proud dog mama. I call my rescue pups, Tub (collie/shepherd mix) and Cash (beagle), “my babies.” I’ve plastered my social media accounts with hundreds of pictures and videos of them. My parents even refer to them as their “granddoggies.” I am also a very proud aunt, “auntie” (to friends’ children), and godmother. I was present for nearly all of their births, and actually in the room for the birth of my godson. I’m approaching forty, so nearly all of my friends have children. “Like many others” (to use the words of the author), I’ve babysat, changed countless diapers, listened to the joys and tears from parents and children, waited in agony during medical emergencies, prepared meals for couples suffering the horror of a miscarriage, attended many, many birthday parties, and, most importantly, fallen in love with each one of these incredible children in my life.
As the author so dismissively noted about Ms. Dunham, the same is true about me: “She is not, however, a mother.” No, she is not. I am not a mother. I probably will not ever be one. But that doesn’t make me stupid. I have an enormous respect for mothers. I cannot imagine what it must be like to love a child any more than I love my nephew, for instance, but I know that they do. I have seen it. The beautiful bond between mother and child has brought me to tears, time and again.
I love my fur babies, but I am not “confused.” They are neither “property,” nor are they human; they are animals, in a class of their own. I believe that everyone should recognize animal rights (all fifty states currently have animal cruelty laws; sadly, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. territory where I live, does not). I have hundreds of Facebook followers who “like” and comment on my posts about my babies, who I certainly treat as family. No one has ever accused me of pretending that I know the trials and tribulations of child-rearing simply because I love my dogs. The word “dog” is expressed or implied in every reference to myself as a mama, as it is with every “dog mom” I’ve ever known.
I believe that my feelings are a more adequate representation of animal lovers than those expressed by the author. Although I admittedly do not know what exactly happened, I can’t imagine surrendering one of my fur babies, like Ms. Dunham did. But that fact in and of itself proves that the author’s entire premise is wrong: Ms. Dunham gave up the dog because she was its owner, not its mother. Like the rest of us, Ms. Dunham understood the difference.
Sincerely,
Betsy Weintraub
No comments:
Post a Comment