Can’t say I can agree with that–Francis is the first Jesuit pope, and Jesuits are kinda known for their scholarship and debate skills. I’m thinking the dumb ones don’t head down the Jesuit road too often, or get weeded out pretty early.
I’ve had kids and I have always had pets, and pets are definitely easier. You don’t have to reason with pets, you can lay down the law and if you’ve raised them well you have a reasonable expectation that they’ll follow it. Yes, even the cats, albeit to a lesser degree than the dogs for sure.
Pets live YOUR life WITH you, whereas kids are always on a trajectory toward their OWN lives and that can cause quite a lot of conflict over the years. People who see children as some extension of themselves, over which they can exert their will and guidance, are usually doomed to be very unhappy with the result of the experiment. Dogs and cats are like young kids who never really grow up, yet can manage to look after themselves most of the time. They also sleep a lot, which is not a trait kids have!
My critters give me a reason to get up in the morning, give me a reason to have structure and routine in my day, give me an incentive to get out and exercise and amuse me endlessly. Watching my grandkid wrestling two of my dogs on the floor is one of the great pleasures of my life and having my impetuous young dog climb all over me to score points by sticking his tongue in my ear (dog games, so random!) makes me laugh every time he does it. My big sloppy tomcat interrupting Zoom meetings is always good for a laugh, as is his young compatriot cat running around like a maniac in the morning, getting her Thousand Room Dash exercise routines done.
KIds and pets are very different experiences that have some common elements but aren’t in complete congruence. I’d say that, overall, pets are easier and give a more consistent ROI than kids do. Kids give you grandkids though, so they win.
Our previous dachshund did this. I called it “baby seal eyes.” You could literally see his eyes widen as he stared into your face sending “food…food…food…food” mental messages.
Yeah; but my point is that they don’t want only food.
I had a cat once reappear after a months-long absence. I hugged him and got him inside and opened and gave to him an entire can of tuna, not because I didn’t have cat food but as a special treat; and then went to the phone (which was hanging on the wall, this was in the 90’s) to call my mother and tell her he was home.
That cat left the tuna to follow me. And it wasn’t for lack of hunger – he chowed down just fine, finished the tuna and ate some kibble on top of it, so long as I was right next to him.
I’ve had plenty of other cats, in various ways, make it utterly clear that while they certainly do expect me to feed them they also expect my attention.
But again: it’s neither a human child amount of attention all through the day – I can leave them alone all day, no problem – or all of the assorted types of attention that human children need.
Depends on the cat. My Maine Coon, Poe, is either a terrible groomer or simply unlucky because he mats terribly. After trying Cowboy Magic and 5 different kinds of brushes that are supposed to work on mats and getting no appreciable results, I got nice clippers so I can shave them off. I’m hopeful that his grown up coat won’t mat so easily. My last MC didn’t.
My Balinese, Linden, needs no grooming from me. I only brush him because he likes it.
I get that, but that’s different from choosing cats over children. It’s just saying “I don’t have children, but I’m ok, my mothering instincts are satisfied by cats.” I don’t think there’s anything controversial about that sentiment although it doesn’t apply to everyone, it’s not the thrust of the Pope’s statements though.
Don’t get me wrong, I pat the cats and enjoy having them on my lap and so on, I do give them attention, it’s just that if I fail to give them attention they are largely indifferent. They’re not feral or anything, just normal short hair house cats. My partner grooms them occasionally, but if no one groomed them all that would happen is they leave more fur around the house. We do it for us not them.
I’m not seeing the distinction you’re drawing here, to be honest. They became cat ladies as post-30s adults (one was in a serious relationship with an allergic person before that, the other was a global traveller), so it’s very much choosing one over the other (or neither).
I notice no-one’s objected to the idea that the empty nesters I also mentioned are sublimating their parenting needs in their pets.
I wasn’t replying to the Pope, but to t_l in light of MaxS’s poll as I interpreted the questions. Sure as hell my friends don’t see any damn invented “duty” to have kids…
Well I guess there’s no need to choose one over the other, you can have both. I can see having a pet because you don’t have children (whether subconsciously or not), but I don’t see people making a decision to have cats instead of children as if it’s some kind of equivalent choice. To put it another way, if they couldn’t have a cat for some reason, I don’t believe they would then decide to have children after all.
Aah, I see what you mean. Right, no, I agree, it’s not a two-way equivalency, I don’t see people not having cats and then having children instead. No-one goes “Damn my cat allergies. Whelp, babies are hypoallergenic, think I’ll try them, cheaper than a purebred sphinx”
I had cats before i had children. I had cats while i was rearing children. My children are now adults, and i still have cats. I like cats. And i think of having cats as orthogonal to having kids. Two independent choices.
And again: not everybody even has “a basic need to mother something.” The strength of that need, in humans, varies all the way from nonexistent to overwhelming; including everything in the middle. People who don’t have it strongly may still want to live with cats, or even to raise children, for other reasons. But not every childless person has a gaping hole in their lives that Must Be Filled With Something.
Looks to me very much as if they’d already chosen not to have children before they got the cats. You really can’t see the distinction between that and choosing between children and cats as if they were equal options?
For one thing, cats vary considerably. It’s possible you’ve just got weird cats.
For another: they may well be fine with no attention at any given time, because they’re confident of getting that attention eventually.
Do they ever get on your lap of their own volition, or come sit next to you in a location in which you’re likely to pat them? If so, then they’re not indifferent to whether they get that contact with you.
I agree. That was said in the context of Mr Dibble’s cat lady friends.
I certainly don’t have cats because of a need to mother something. I probably enjoy them for company more than anything else. Yes I’ve got two kids and a partner in the house, but the cats are non-demanding company, they don’t care what I watch on TV, they don’t complain if I want to play an Xbox game, they don’t ask me what’s for dinner, they don’t demand to go out to a playground on a grotty rainy day.
Yes they do, and yes you’re right they’re not entirely indifferent, but they certainly far more indifferent than children are.
I dunno, 50% of my cats are perfectly aware what time it is and will loudly and forcibly remind me, via ankle bites, that it is TIME FOR FOODS NOW. The other 50% just dances around when she sees the food bowl coming but will only sit and stare pointedly if I’m not being quick enough about fixing the empty bowl situation. Apparently all my animals have clocks in their tummies.
