This is sort of a continuation of Thursday's post.
I had said the two topics would not be overtly political, but I might have hinted at politics in the post on libraries, at least with one of the links.
Here we go with cats.
It's been a while, but I have seen complaints about people (usually white people) showing more compassion for animals than people.
There is some truth to that.
Sometimes it may not be so much people versus animals as people versus an individual animal. Presenting an individual, especially a vulnerable one, affects people more, even if it is part of an appeal for a larger group.
I always felt a little guilty when I saw those complaints, because I love animals so much. I love people a lot, too, and try and respond and help, but an animal in trouble does in fact squeeze my heart (just in case our house full of rescued animals did not tip you off already).
What I want to do here is try and bring the two sides together.
For the animals to be okay, the people need to be okay.
One of the areas where that disagreement comes up is people getting inordinately angry when homeless people have pets.
"It's not fair to the animals!"
"Oh, so you're saying that homeless people don't deserve companionship?" and sometimes "But you're okay with the person living on the streets?"
Those are fair responses, and the initial point of it being a hard life for animals on the street is also fair. Maybe even points made that sometimes it is exploitative, with people using the animal to get more handouts can be fair, though I think the need for love and companionship is the bigger issue.
You know what would solve everything? Getting those people into housing. It would be better for them and for the animals. What a neat idea!
"You shouldn't have pets if you can't afford them!"
Yes, they say this about children too, except maybe when they first came it was fine and then things went terribly wrong and finances changed, but there is still a living being needing assistance.
You will sometimes see cases of donations being requested for an animal who is only being treated because the owner surrendered them.
You might think that sounds like a heartless owner and then a vet or rescue group stepping in. That might be how it goes sometimes, but sometimes you might have a cat that needs a $10,000 procedure, and you are asking about payment plans or credit, but those aren't being allowed so you are being advised to surrender the cat. That makes you a bad owner, but not having the $10,000 ready to go also makes you a bad owner. Then the choice is whether you lose the cat to death or to another family.
That assumes they will find another family.
Here's the thing; we have connections with a few rescue groups and they are all pretty full. There are not enough homes. If people are willing to step in and make payment happen for a surrendered cat that they then hope can find a home, what if we helped the people who already love the cat with the medical needs?
No, people need to be punished for being poor. Everyone knows that.
Let me point out that is a true story, and also that it did not happen to us. The biggest vet bill we have ever faced was $5000 (for a greyhound with a bad reaction during a dental cleaning) and I charged it. I'm not sure I've ever had a card that would have absorbed $10,000. Care Credit might, but they need to leave room for other lenders. Pet insurance might come through, but usually you have to pay out of pocket first and then get reimbursed. Theoretically Hannah solved those things, but that seems to have left a lot of complaints and lawsuits.
(Speaking of caring about humans, having medical technology that can save and improve lives but that no one wants to pay for... that's not just a pet problem.)
The bond is real. It is something where it has taken a while, but emergency shelters and domestic violence shelters are starting to take it into account too.
It would help even more if we worked to reduce domestic violence and forest fires and climate change-induced disasters... there are a lot of things we could do to make the world and society better that would help both humans and animals.
Because of Greater Good, I am aware of some Ukrainian groups that rescue pets found in the war zones and try and give them medical care and get them new families.
Wouldn't it be great if that weren't necessary?
I am only saying that not only is there room to care about both people and animals, but that doing so is actually more effective for helping everyone.
Okay, but what if you really hate people?
It turns out I have some thoughts on that. Maybe not the ones you'd expect.