🐱 Gender & sexuality studies prof applies critical race theory to the lives of shelter dogs - Only bigots wouldn’t abuse their dogs

CatParty


A professor of gender and sexuality studies at the University of California Riverside claims in a recent book that dogs end up being killed in shelters due to “capitalism, anthroparchy, white supremacy and patriarchy.”

Katja Guenther’s “The Lives and Deaths of Shelter Animals” also says that allowing your dog(s) to sleep inside your house is actually a manifestation of white privilege, reports Areo Magazine.

How can that be? For one, statutes which forbid the chaining/leaving of dogs outside are “intended to oppress people of color by imposing ‘middle-class norms of animal keeping in which companion animals are considered family and treated accordingly.’”

People of color, Guenther says, “are themselves trapped in poverty, may have few options for legitimate income generation and possibly rely on their dogs for … status.”

These claims, however, are nonsense, Areo’sNathan Winograd says. He notes Guenther goes straight to racism regarding the high number of sheltered dogs in a particular California shelter, because the former owners are mostly minorities. But demographic data shows the neighborhood in which the shelter is located matches that of the dogs’ owners.

Guenther’s tactics aren’t surprising, Winograd says, because she purposely ignores objective data — “it is not possible for me to be impartial,” she has said.

“I was trained in sociology, a discipline that emphasizes impartiality and the need to systematize observations and analysis in ways that distance the researcher from the researched,” Guenther said. “I deliberately turn away from these tendencies and instead embrace the messy possibilities of being a researcher with complex ties to the social setting I am analyzing.”

In this case, it means stereotyping and infantilizing minority dog owners, Winograd says. Despite whites and minorities owning dogs for the same reasons (companionship, status), in “The Lives and Deaths of Shelter Animals” it’s white people “do things,” while minorities “have things done to them.”

Even Michael Vick’s brutal treatment of dogs is explained away: He’s the “only affluent person who has been publicly shamed for dogfighting” and it’s “no coincidence” that he happens to be black. And, hey, he grew up in poverty, after all.

Similarly, dog shelter volunteers aren’t safe from Guenther’s critical race theory-based wrath:

ecause most of the volunteers Guenther encountered were white, she accuses them of working to “reinscribe hierarchies of power and status within the shelter” against the non-white workers and thus “maintain existing social inequalities between humans even as they seek to help animals.” When a rescuer laments the condition of a dog “with sagging belly skin, elongated nipples, and enlarged genitalia” and expresses dismay that the former owners “confined their dog outdoors” and “used the pit bull primarily for income generation through breeding,” Guenther dismisses the criticism as “the animal practices of white rescuers.” …

According to her website, Guenther holds a PhD in sociology and works “within interdisciplinary feminist and critical frameworks.” She notes her latest effort is “a feminist analysis of how rescuers of companion and free-roaming (aka “wild” animals) represent and negotiate their relationships and relations of care with disabled animals.” She’s been published in journals such as Ethnic & Racial Studies, Gender & Society, Politics & Gender and Social Problems.

“The Lives and Deaths of Shelter Animals” received praise from Carol Adams, author of “The Sexual Politics of Meat,” who said “Guenther unlocks the shelter door and eloquently explains this complicated and contested multispecies space …”
 
Caring about the welfare of animals and trying to reduce unnecessary suffering is predominantly a white thing? Yeah, we already knew that but thanks.
Guenther’s tactics aren’t surprising, Winograd says, because she purposely ignores objective data — “it is not possible for me to be impartial,” she has said.
Imagine bragging about your inability to even pretend to be objective, and still expecting people to take you seriously as a "researcher".
 
Last edited:
Bite me, lady!

If you're in poverty, then you have no business owning pets to begin with. Chaining a dog and leaving it outside is mean and abusive. It doesn't matter what race the owner is. Michael Vick was shamed for dogfighting because he was basically the only well-known person known to be engaging in dogfighting. If a famous white person were doing the same, we would know about it, believe me. People aren't going to look kindly upon people who engage in that just because they happen to be white. How delusional can you get? I don't know of any white people who would be into that. It's something very savage and ghetto.
 
OIP (21).jpeg


Somebody save this poor pupper. There's no way he's consenting to this.
 
View attachment 1921359

Somebody save this poor pupper. There's no way he's consenting to this.
You can see it in his eyes...

Call the poliicceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!


But out of all the reasons cited, shelter animals end up there and are euthanized arguably by capitalism and capitalism only (and even that's a bit of a reach): people with no business trying to care for one decide to do it anyway, and when they get sheltered, well, we don't have the economic means to just keep expanding the shelter space to keep up with supply, at least they go out warm, fed and painlessly. That's all we can hope for in a developed society because we literally CANNOT make a home for them ALL.

And in turn, that's less capitalism and more just the reality of our, well, shared reality: We cannot save EVERYONE and EVERYTHING. Think of shelters as a triage where we can buy a second chance for a lucky few.... and be happy with that, you'd rather they all starve?
 
Last edited:
For one, statutes which forbid the chaining/leaving of dogs outside are “intended to oppress people of color by imposing ‘middle-class norms of animal keeping in which companion animals are considered family and treated accordingly.’”
So basically this racist bitch claims that you can only have empathy and caring for your pets if your middle-class?

Poor people the world over love their pets. Growing up poor, sometimes all you have is your dog/cat/hamster/that mouse you feed.

This person is arguing that black people and other minorities and poor people aren't capable of empathy or caring for other living things.

Someone should get her a hood and robes.
 
While I'm not one of those who think animal abuse is a racial empirical; there are certain demographics who are more into dog/cock/animal fighting and other demographics who are more into using animals to hunt. And there's some weird disconnect where the ones who are into dog-fighting do a lot of fucked up shit to their animals (even to their winners, because it makes them more vicious), where the hunters treat their animal like a work partner or family member. And this carries over across economic classes; the backwoods hillbillies who lives in a shack with their pure-bred blood-hound is gonna treat the dog far better than most. If you have a problem with this, kindly remove yourself from the gene pool; dealer's choice, in Minecraft.
 
Back