ann arbor is overrated. » Blog Archive » Who Let the Dogs Out? They Need To Be Taught Some Sensitivity

Who Let the Dogs Out? They Need To Be Taught Some Sensitivity

It’s the ultimate in Ann Arbor “sensitivity”: the Inter-Cooperative Council is looking into banning dogs from all co-ops, because residents from cultures where dogs are not commonly kept as pets might be “intimidated.” No one from such a culture has actually complained about dogs in the co-ops. But it could happen! Conservative writers often like to claim dogs as their own and associate fickle, free-spirited cats with the left; it’s always seemed like a silly dichotomy to us, but maybe they have a point. In some places, both feline and canine pets are seen as Western cultural imports, but as far as we know, no one’s suggested a blanket ban on cats.

15 Responses to “Who Let the Dogs Out? They Need To Be Taught Some Sensitivity”

The Inter-Cooperative Council should consult Adlai Stevenson:

“To escort a cat abroad on a leash is against the nature of the owner. . . . The problem of the cat vs. the bird is as old as time. If we attempt to resolve it by legislation, who knows but what we may be called upon to take sides as well in the age-old problems of dog vs. cat, bird vs. bird, or even bird vs. worm. In my opinion, the State of Illinois and its local governing bodies already have enough to do without trying to control feline delinquency.”
posted by Anonymous on November 8th, 2004 at 9:11 pm
Two bird-dogs with one stone: out of sincere respect for those cultures intimidated by dogs and those cultures who like ‘em with hot sauce, the ICC could throw a big one-day BBQ. Problem solved. It’s a cost-saver, too: I doubt any doggie bags will be necessary.
posted by Laura on November 8th, 2004 at 9:58 pm
In defense of the ICC Board, the discussion always includes about five comments regarding property damage and noise to every one regarding students from dogless cultures.
posted by Murph on November 9th, 2004 at 12:55 am
The comments about Asians and dogs are crap. While I haven’t met anyone (vocally) disturbed by my cat as long as I’ve lived in A2, while living elsewhere I had a couple of friends from Korea who thought it was gross and weird that I kept a cat in my house. If the ICC was so fugging sensitive, they would know this and ban pets.

Further, every lease I’ve ever signed holds me financially liable for any damage my cat causes, why would dogs be any different.

I totally can’t respect the ICC if they do will let houses make responsible decisions about dogs yet have that have the potential to allow any other animal (potbellied pigs, farrets, sugargliders, etc) regardless of how sociable or destructive it is.

I don’t know wether I should mention that this whole uproar happens to involve dogs smaller than my cat. The whole thing would make me laugh if it didn’t piss me off so much.
posted by Anonymous on November 9th, 2004 at 1:20 am
Oh, it makes me laugh hysterically, but that’s probably because I don’t live in a co-op. I do live with several apes (sorry–housemates), though, if that helps.
posted by Lazaro on November 9th, 2004 at 8:34 am
Laure, your suggestion is both hilarious and clever. I give it a 9 our of 10.
posted by Alex(andra) on November 9th, 2004 at 8:54 am
This is the same sort of do-gooderness that leads to colleges changing the names of their mascots because it seems like the “right” thing to do without actually talking to the people it supposedly offends. Come to find out, the tribe of the people that is “offended” by the name is actually honored. Ah well.

As for sensitivity to other cultures, how about some sensitivity to our culture for a change? We don’t ask these people to come here. We don’t bring them over on ships against their will. If they don’t want to stay here, they don’t have to. As such, they willingly enter into any “insensitivities” that our culture might have towards them.
posted by Kozzie on November 9th, 2004 at 8:56 am
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development eliminated the pet-ban in public housing a couple years ago. The logic is that pets provide a myriad of positive effects on the poor and eldery. This inspite of the fact that some of these people do not have sufficient funds and intellectual ability to take care of themselves properly. But I find it strange that coops wouldn’t take the same stand as HUD. A social agency. I am personally not very happy with HUD’s openly accepting of animals as repairing or refurbishing apartments after residents move-out can be much more daunting now. Poop stained carpet. Hair clogged furnaces, etc.. I think someone just has the time to voice their view about it and others just come along or take sides. No one really seems the logic of the larger view.
posted by Ypsidweller on November 9th, 2004 at 9:18 am
In other words. It sounds like someone at the coop just don’t like cats.
posted by yd on November 9th, 2004 at 9:21 am
My god, from some of these comments, you’d think that having animals causes tens of thousands of dollars worth of damage. Animals do confer lots of benefits for people who love them — especially the elderly, where research has shown they live longer and are healthier with the presence of a pet (tax dollars saved in medical care costs, far exceeding the cost of carpet, and unclogging furnaces — whatever that means).

I’ve had a dog my entire life and can tell you from being a homeowner that my 2-year-old niece is far more destructive. I’d personally like to see the numbers to back up the ICC comments about ‘thousands of dollars worth of damage’. Sounds like empty talk from closed-minded people. Tres Ann Arbor.
posted by Anna on November 9th, 2004 at 9:42 am
Tens of thousands of dollars, Anna? I thought all of the commenters here realized how absurd the ban was, and weren’t advocating further ban (aside from Laura, who I took to be… sarcastic).
As for me, vegans intimidate me. Maybe the ICC should ban them.
posted by js on November 9th, 2004 at 5:32 pm
// my 2-year-old niece is far more destructive.//

Clearly, the answer is to ban children. They’re generally louder, more likely to damage stuff, and more annoying than pets. They also tend to stick around longer, unless you have a turtle or parrot. If people want quiet and clean housing, banning children would be many times more effective than banning animals.

(And to whoever mentioned sugargliders as pets– those things should NOT be kept domestically. I know they sell them, but it’s like the pet trade in flying squirrels… it really, really, REALLY should not be happening.)
posted by art student on November 9th, 2004 at 7:49 pm
js: yes, of course I was “…sarcastic,” (leaves to go rummage through freezer for dinner).

Kidding aside, I’ve had my dog Clover for 9 years now, and while I can attest to the many psychological benefits of pet-owning, pets do trash a house, especially if there’s carpet involved, which ain’t cheap to replace.
posted by Laura on November 9th, 2004 at 10:26 pm
My favorite pet owner is a very huge “jabba-the-hut” woman. At least 45o lbs. Can’t walk up stairs, hasn’t been able to for years. Sits on a dirty mattress in the living room, in her greasy t-shirt, waving her arms, screaming at her kids all day. Five or six cats poop all over the upstairs and stairway and no one cleans it up. My experience is that once someone lives in a domicile and lets cats piss all over. It don’t matter how hard you clean & paint. The smell never leaves. Cats suck.
posted by catmandoodoo on November 10th, 2004 at 10:13 am
No, irresponsible cat owners suck.
posted by tom on November 10th, 2004 at 1:49 pm