Animals

Oops! I also ment to say...   It's clear he also hasn't thought through the issues of how animals are treated. I agree that they should get a mutt. I never thought about how breeders will take advantage of the breed they get, and I bet he didn't either. But to me, wanting a particular breed objectives dogs.

Thanks for the food for thought.

Warmly,
Sue

Amen, Stephanie.  This one choice could save thousands of lives, as their example will be watched and emulated worldwide.  I hope the family will look at the bigger picture and choose to adopt a mixed breed that won't start a frenzy like the Dalmatian and designer crazes have.  There are ways to work with allergies, and thus no excuse for patronizing breeders. Absolutely none.  Come on, Obamas, do the right thing and rescue a dog. The world is watching.

Have they even looked at rescuing an ex-racing greyhound?  It is a purebred, but as more and more racetracks thankfully close, there are always dogs in need of homes.  Thousands are still killed every year.  They make absolutely marvelous pets - quiet, gentle, clean, short-haired, loving couch potatoes, not at all hyper.  They don't need lots of space or running, just a loving indoor home and regular walks. A run at the dog park once in a while for these gratefully-retired sweeties and they're happy campers.  We've rescued five of them, and to see one in the White House would be a tremendous boost for adoption. 

I agree with this article about how the word "girly dog" and others like it have a negative impact on how society views gender.  Maybe people are forced to used outdated terms like this because no alternatives exist.  I know exactly what Obama meant when I read "girly dog" in this article, and am sure I am not the only one.  The problem with the language is it is not planned and therefore artifacts of sexist times remain.  One way of stopping these outdated ideas from tainting our progress toward equality is by engineering new words that describe those "small, weak, fluffy, frilly, frou-frou-ey" dogs.  I am glad that this article brings up the issue but to put blame on one person for using a commonly accepted word will not do much good unless it proposes a solution.  
As for the breed issue, I agree that the first families final choice could cause a lot of problems by popularizing a specific bread.  Maybe the should look for a mix that is believed to have Portuguese Water Dog in it.  

I always get the doggie that needs an owner at the time we cross paths. lucked out with a Samoyed, Arctic Wolf cross who is the talk of the town.

He features large in my life and writings/podcasts and I have some nice pics up on my blogs.

I wish more people would be happy to take what comes along in life without so much trying to control everything.

Love the one you are with, who comes along.

Sometimes you don't learn these things till later in life.

It's too bad that the nation feels that it should be able to seconnd guess every one of the presidents choices, no matter how trivial.

This is the surest way to hamstring a leader and dilute anyones confidence and effectiveness. Get a life and make your own decisions  (hopefully wise ones) and let others make their own as well. This is natural, then histroy can judge later what kind of a president he was. I think everyone should live their own lives more and allow others their own learning porocess.   

well on the subject of popularizing a specific breed and the over breeding of those dogs as a result, i agree. this is a very real issue and should be considered. however, are we stepping over the issue behind their choice of a hypo-allergenic dog? while i fully support adopting shelter dogs before going to the breeders, shelter dogs dont provide the anti allergy guarantee that some pure breeds do.
in my opinion, the labradoodle would be the perfect dog for a family like the obamas. labradors are known for being the perfect family dog for all ages; poodles are extremely intelligent and loyal, plus they provide the hypo-allergenic factor; both breeds are hardy dogs with all the best qualities, especially for a family in the obama's situation. they are loyal, protective, smart, eager to please, active yet not high maintenance, hypo-allergenic, pretty enough to be pleasing to mom and kids, sturdy and handsome enough to please dad and most of all loyal, steadfast buddies for the kids.
as for mr obama's use of the word "girly"....SO WHAT! just because a man doesnt want a dog that makes him feel like he cant roll around the yard with it or might even make him feel "less manly" for some reason, doesnt make him the eternal feminist pig. i've watched and studied his wife.....i dont think she'd be married to that sort of man. i think our new president is just a "tell it like it is" sort of person who may not always realize how what he says off the cuff will be taken by the general public.
even if i didnt vote for him...which i didnt; i dont support all he stands for....i still think he's got some good ideas and can do a good job. let's just hope he does more good than harm. and he's not even in the white house yet and everyone's already jumping on his case....let's just give the guy a break already!
i think people who bash the president are just as bad as who they say he is! putting someone down is not a positive attribute. let's try to support this president instead of bring down the person our country has elected to TRY and bring us back to decent life!

Is this really relevant to our national & world crisis? I know most of the people here are prochoice so let the man choose for himself. He has more important things to attend to.

I acknowledge that Mr. Obama's use of the word "girlie" as a pejorative term is unfortunate, but I doubt it actually reflects his attitude towards women.  While I am not necessarily looking for an escape hatch for Mr. Obama in what is potentially a semantic faux pas, I believe that the implicit message in his use of that term refers to his rejection of societal stereotypes of femininity as diminutive and submissive.  This is reflected in our society's genetic manipulation (i.e. selective breeding) of what would otherwise be the proud descendants of wolves into defenseless and dependent lap decorations.

It is not at all surprising that the Obamas talk about a dog in this context, nor is it surprising that they may adopt a dog that is basically a special breed dog.   My first sinking feeling about Barack Obama came when I saw a video in which an activist from a Vegan activist group asked him a question and he responded first with :  I like steak and I like BBQ.  I never expected him to be a vegan, but the insensitivity in his comment to the animal activist communicates volumes about his ignorance about the subject. 

It would be tremendous if he could bring some fresh air to this country, but unfortunately, there is only so much he can do when he doesn't get the basics about animal torture and murder (which is directly linked to the environmental torture and murder, which is directly linked to human torture and murder).  It is the same frustration as learning that an environmentalist group or person eats animals, knowing the connection between the two.  We can only say that this country (or the world) will experience change when our leaders finally practice true ethics toward the animals and the environment.  Only then will people ever get to experience their true natures, in a real environment with peace for everyone, not just a few. 

So long as there is any amount of suffering ANYWHERE, there will be suffering for everyone.  We all share in the pain.   

I will feel confidant about change when a leader can communicate the really important issues to its people, by example.  Until then........mutt or special breed, does it really matter?  People are in a serious state ethically and morally and either choice does nothing to change that. 

Peace to the animals.  Peace to the environment.  Peace to the world.

When an elected leader doesn't understand, it becomes our responsibility to educate the 'leader' - as we SHOULD have done with GeorgeBush 41, 43, and others.

Our issues should be nonpartisan and should BECOME the 'common sense' position of all Americans, that animals have moral rights which should be recognized as social rights and protected as legal rights.

I want to thank ALL my earthling friends who are working for the day when the common sense position of all human earthlings will be that all persons, regardless of species, have moral rights that should be acknowledged as social rights and protected as legal rights - both nationally and internationally.

Good grief - lighten up, folks - you all have way too much time better spent doing nice things

Thanks for the link love, Stephanie :)

To respond to a few of the comments above, I want to stress that I don't think Obama hates women. Certainly, he ranks  nowhere near hardcore misogynists such as Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson, Rick Warren (ahem!) and the like. That said, I do think Obama engages in the sort of casual, "softcore" sexism that's common among men (and women) raised in a culture that's steeped in misogyny.

For me, the most telling part of the Walters interview is the exchange between Obama and his wife. As soon as Barack denigrates Cha-Cha as "girly," Michelle interjects: "We're girls. We have a house fulls of girls." That should have been his clue to STFU, but still he persists with the girly/manly dog talk.

An occasional slip is understandable - after all, we're all socialized to have certain prejudices, which can be difficult to unlearn - but Michelle's gentle correction should have stopped Barack in his tracks. Not as a pandering politician, throwing around gendered slurs on national television - but as a man who loves and respects his wife and daughters. Not cool. Language matters; <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgMcht-EW6I">words matter</a>.

My neighbor has a puertugese water dog.
It shouldn't be THAT difficult to find.

A former racing greyhound as the Whitehouse Pet would be fabulous! Greyhounds do not cause allergic reactions for most people. I have four adopted greyts as pets, and have fostered and helped find homes for over 400 greyhounds. In fact, my profile photo was taken when I met President Obama and told him about this endeavor. He met many people that spring afternoon in 2007, so I'm sure a reminder at this time is appropriate.  Let a greyhound race into your heart and home!

I think the way Obama has been treating this dog issue is showing he just doesn't "get" nonhuman animal issues and doesn't understand that it's not "just a dog" he's getting for his kids like a thing.

It seems like he's doing the shelter thing because people want him to but does he understand why it's important to get a shelter dog? He's promoting the breed part more than anything.

In the video where he answered the vegan's question, 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt56ER4TSqc

I wasn't bothered at all by his comments about enjoying a barbeque, etc., once in a while.  I actually felt like the comments were an introductory disclaimer of sorts, that acted as a disarming lead-in for the benefit of the meat-eating listeners, before a surprisingly positive and serious response to the vegan's question.  I would not expect a better response from a meat-eater, and felt like he gave credibility to her issues, because he's acknowledged and expanded on them.  If he were a vegan, the listeners might just think he has an agenda.  I can't imagine any of our current or past presidents handling that question as well.  

For example, if Obama was a vegan, then people might have reason to believe and be fearful of the propaganda that's being spread across the Internet by "The Center for Consumer Freedom"....http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3807


Well, actually, this is what's being spread around:http://community.myfoxdfw.com/blogs/jaywalkingtx_is_back/2009/01/16/No_Meat_No_Hunting_No_Medical_Testing_Welcome_aboard_the_Soooooooocialist_Train


If CCF and their constituency doesn't like the appointment, it has to be an excellent choice.

To be the devil's advocate.... I don't think anyone ever said that owning a "girly" dog makes a man gay.  Maybe I'm wrong but who ever thought owning a small yippy dog makes a man "look homosexual"?  I think "girly" was a poor choice of words, for sure!

However the idea that some dogs are small, poofy and yippy is true.  I don't see how this is an objectification of dogs.  I'm not saying that any breed is superior to another, however, different breeds do tend to have different character traits.

I personally am a big dog kind of girl, and I've never seen that as a "manly" characteristic of a dog.  Especially since my dog growing up was female, and was half greyhound... (pretty big).  Anyway, it's unfortunate that Obama's word choice followed an ugly modern gender stereotype/ classification... but I would not blame him for that.  Our language is fraught with awful connotations and twists of meaning that are difficult to maneuver.  If there is no cruel intent, I give him a pass on his poor word choice.

I think way too much is being made of the "girlie" comment. Personally, I wouldn't want a girlie dog either. My dog looks touch, but he is a momma's boy through and through.

The fact that the Obama's are putting thought into a family dog (rather than jumping at any hypoallergenic dogs), says a lot.

It's amazing how the new Obama dog is getting more airtime than some actual major issues i.e. comprehensive immigration reform, the economic meltdown, education reform, health care reform, etc.

Sorry...forgot I was logged in on my work account.

I think way too much is being made of the "girlie" comment. Personally, I wouldn't want a girlie dog either. My dog looks touch, but he is a momma's boy through and through. These opinions are my own, and do not reflect the opinions of NSC.

The fact that the Obama's are putting thought into a family dog (rather than jumping at any hypoallergenic dogs), says a lot.

It's amazing how the new Obama dog is getting more airtime than some actual major issues i.e. comprehensive immigration reform, the economic meltdown, education reform, health care reform, etc.

But that's what the media does -- like the time they spend on telling us what Michelle is going to wear, as one harmless example, or more seriously, things like moving Hurricane Ike off our radar screens when another story catches their attention, or how they "help" shape our opinions for or against any side of various wars, or narrowing down our choices of Presidential candidates.  Other than some of the concerns expressed above, especially about popularizing a breed for breeders to supply, I consider the media's attention to the Obama's dog saga on the same level as Michelle's wardrobe choices.  Instead of raising an issue, I think it trivializes it in some way.  (But I'd need another cup of coffee to think about what I really mean by that.)  Maybe a "human interest" story lightens things up the country's mood in this time where there's so much bad news about the economy.  

I think the way the mainstream media is playing up the story is unfortunate--because, as Sue said, they're treating the issue as they have Michelle Obama's attire, as something light and superficial.

However, conversations such as this one are important to have. So maybe the choice Obama makes in adopting (hopefully) a dog won't affect many of us personally, but it does stand to have an impact, for all the reasons Kelly noted in the post featured here. What the Obamas do and how that action is mimicked may not mean much to you on a personal level, but please consider the millions of dogs killed in shelters each year, and then try to explain how  whether the Obamas encourage shelter adoption of mixed breeds or unintentionally lead to the increased breeding and sale of a purebred or "designer" dog is unimportant.

In response to those who are defending the "girlie" remark, first, I'm glad that Kelly spoke up and clarified what she was saying. Some people seem to be taking this exploration of his remark as some kind of attack on him, when it's not. It's a conversation about the words we use, the things they imply, and the harm they cause, even when they're not used with conscious mal intent. Second, if you really don't think there's anything wrong with describing something as "girlie," you need to reread Kelly's explanation of why there is something wrong with it, carefully.

As a parent myself, sometimes I find myself guilty of looking for things that feed into my son's masculinity.  "Boy" stuff is important, but doesn't make me sexist.  I guess when I first heard the "girly dog" thing I just thought along those terms - like the whole Disney Princess phase.  Maybe he does just want a dog that is a good fit for his daughters.

THAT SAID, the world is watching to see what he does.  He could easily start a trend: adopting a pure breed from a rescue, adopting a mutt from a shelter.  It will be bigger than the pocket chihuahua fad started by the Hilton sisters.

And yes, this is very relevant to talk about on an AR blog.

Sorry, I lost my train of thought in my previous post.  I wanted to go on to say that using the words "girlie" or "boyish" or anything that separates the sexes in our language can be very dangerous to the growth of our kids.  I don't want my son to avoid things (let's say certain breeds of dogs or certain career paths) because society has labeled them a certain way.  To me, it's important that he gets as many opportunities to try whatever he wants without the pressure of fitting into a specific gender role.

I certainly don't want him to ever think that caring about animals is a "girl thing" which is what too many people think these days. 

Hi, Lisa. A clarification: Obama wasn't saying he wanted a "girly" dog for his daughters. He was expressing his dislike of the idea of having a "yappy," "girly" dog.

Oh jeez, I totally misread that.  Last time I let the cat translate for me.