Why do so many in vet med 'hate' doodles?

Me: Ugh, doodles

askbox: *inundated* WHAT IS WRONG WITH DOODLES?????

Me: Mistakes were made! Mayday, Mayday!

But seriously, there's a lot of factors as to why so many people in vet med have an incredible dislike of doodles. I could probably write a 10 page essay but I'm going to try to keep this short.

1- They are 'trendy', and thus come with all the problems that come along with that. Backyard breeders, unethical breeders, any doodle breeder who calls their doodles either 'purebred', 'akc registered', or uses the phrase "you get the best of both breeds" is a goddamned lying liarface... these dogs are bred purely to make money. There's rarely any health testing, almost never temperament testing. It's 'make a fluffy puppy with a cutesy name' and people are DRAWN to cute. I watched many people adopt *huskies* from the shelter because "They're so cute!" NO. BAD.

2- People are rarely prepared to handle the traits of either/any of the breeds that go into doodles, especially those mixed with working-type dogs. The number of labra- and goldendoodle owners who don't understand why their dog is always eating things is aggravating. It's because they're labs/goldens! They eat shit! It's what those breeds just DO. Most doodle owners do no research into the parent breeds at all. This means they are also unprepared for the health problems that can crop up from the parent breeds.

3- People see breeders calling these "Great family pets" and then ... don't fucking socialize or train them so now, as vet staff, we are faced with sometimes 90+ pound dogs that can't sit on command, are jumping all over us, mouthing us, or pissing themselves in terror and wanting to bite our faces off because they're so afraid of strangers. This is not the dogs' faults but it doesn't make us like them either.

4- This seems to be a bit less of an issue now, or at least less of an issue where I am, but a lot of people don't... groom them? Some breeders even specifically say to not get them seen at the groomer before they're a year old???? And people hear "non-shedding" (potentially A LIE) and then... don't.... brush them? So then they turn into a solid felted mat and they become a groomer's behaviour-nightmare-shear-it-like-a-sheep-"What do you mean you couldn't leave the hair long?!?!?!?"

5- Oh gods, the ENDLESS EAR INFECTIONS AND ALLERGIES AND GI ISSUES

So yeah, that's the quick and dirty on why "ugh, doodles"... at least it's a little shorter than a why "UGH, frenchies" would be

Congratulations to Marcille DungeonMeshi for achieving Pathetic Little Man status on tumblr, a hard glass ceiling for many female characters to break. I look forward to calling you my sopping wet beast and poor little meow meow for fandom days to come. Keep trucking babygirl, you'll bag Falin one day

Remember when people got mad at me when I said “if you can’t even name 10 trans men activists from the 1980s-2010s I don’t think any of your takes about trans men and our experiences have any value imo. Especially if you aren’t a trans man.” And then people got mad at me?? Like damn sorry I expect people to know a little history before they talk about a group of people .

This is like the time some trans dudes on Reddit got mad at me bc I asked them if they read any transfeminist works bc their ideas about trans women and their experiences were very weird… like I don’t think it’s that crazy of an idea to think people should read and learn about a group before they try to speak/advocate for that group…

Why do some trans people act like you are hatecriming them when you ask them to read trans history and theory … or just talk to other trans people about their experiences . It’s not that crazy of a thing to ask.

Please pick up a book. Read a bit. Learn about other trans people.

I hate how the trans man and transmasc tags are almost unusable now bc bots stealing images of transfem sex workers are just all over all the trans tags.

Sorry beautiful transgender women I will NOT be clicking on the suspicious link in your bio

taylor swift’s work wouldn’t be nearly as insufferable if she wasn’t constantly trying to present herself as some sort of tortured underdog. like, okay, she has endured hardships, and a lot of people, especially white men, are shitty towards her for purely misogynistic reasons. that sucks, i agree. but she’s never been an underdog before. she was born to well-off parents who did everything they could to start her music career when she was barely even a teenager, an opportunity that lots of people would kill for. now she’s extremely famous and wealthy, and everything she releases is destined to sell millions of copies and receive glowing reviews in nearly every publication. she is not an underdog, and i have trouble believing she’s particularly “tortured.” she’s not even an alcoholic, despite claiming to be one on the opening track of her new album! people like to defend her lyrics by saying she’s just playing a character, which i don’t believe for a second, but even if she was, i don’t think i want to listen to someone like swift play the character of a tortured underdog, not when there’s so many musicians out there who are actually tortured underdogs. it comes across as hollow. “you wouldn’t last an hour in the asylum where they raised me,” sung by one of the wealthiest, most famous, most critically acclaimed musicians in the world, who was born to loving parents who personally helped her start her career, who once said she’d never been to therapy because she “just feels very sane.” if you’re going to play a character, maybe pick one who we’re not supposed to pity.

She’s talking directly to her crazy investment banker dad who bulldozed her path to fame with these quotes, if she’s revealing anything about herself of substance at all like that. But I don’t know that she is.

It feels to me like she's been trying to square the circle of having a virtually frictionless path to the pinnacle of white suburban femininity in a society ruled by the protestant work ethic that insists that power and wealth are a marker of hard work, so being a billionaire means she *must* have worked and grinded and suffered, "right"? Except she didn't, and has very little if any in the way of life experience relatable to anyone who's ever faced genuine adversity, so the whole "tortured poet" thing comes off as insincere and unrelatable to most people.

I can’t get over this lmaooo

ok, after actually looking up the term and doing some goddamn research (my goodness somebody on the internet actually decided to look something up before forming an opinion, dear god what a day), i can pretty safely say that everyone hitting this post with the “that’s just a friendship!” bit is wrong! and i can explain why! i myself didn’t get this initially! but after looking into it, i realized that it’s mainly due to the framework i was thinking in! Yeah, there’s actually merit to what these people are saying, this is stuff that’s been considered and these are indeed terms that exist! they were also coined by ace people specifically to describe their relationships! So what gives? What does Queerplatonic Relationship mean? well i certainly fucking didnt get it at first, but it stems from attempting to define a kind of relationship that there arent really words for in the standard english lexicon! the poster above me is a TERF, and wherever i see myself agreeing with a terf i also see that there’s possibly some flaw in my logic or understanding of the thing. Basically (mind you this is only some very cursory and basic research, just type the term into google lol), QPR’s are a way of defining a relationship that has many of the same obligations and aspects of a traditional romantic relationship, without any of the explicitly romantic parts that come with having a spouse or romantic partner.

the idea of living in the same place, or jointly bringing up children, and performing many other tasks as a kind of unit that society would often mislabel as something done by two romantic partners in a union of some kind (i use that term to loosely define an exclusive relationship, not actual binding marriage, though this can include such). the idea of the QPR isn’t just “friends”, it’s very specifically “individuals in a platonic relationship that perform a number of the social aspects of a traditional romantic partnership”.

like, be real for a second. if someone described their relationship with someone to you and said “Yeah we own a house together, we have a kid that we adopted and take care of, we decided to get a dog last week and we file taxes as two members of the same household.”, you wouldn’t look at that person and assume that they arent romantic/sexual partners of some kind, because... well, traditionally, that’s shit that married people do. getting hit with the additional “Yup! And we’re not romantically or sexually involved at all! She has a boyfriend that she visits on the weekends and I’ve never had a romantic relationship in my life.” would throw you for a goddamn loop! What would you even call that relationship? and that’s where the term comes from: an attempt to define a very specific kind of relationship that certainly can and has existed, but isn’t commonly recognized or talked about!

so i think everyone shitting on these folks owes them an apology, i know i personally do for making assumptions that clearly weren’t true!

Actually QPR was coined by aromantic people but asexual people do also use it!

Finally I have a reason to reblog this after cringing every time it's come across my dash.

You know it’s really fucking annoying how cis women will say shit like ‘afab solidarity’ but then turn around and say ‘I dont care if trans men get denied medical care and die, the term person with a uterus makes me uncomfortable.’ . They use ‘afab solidarity’ as a thin screen to hide their transphobia + transmisogyny.

They use the suffering of trans men as a stick to beat trans women with. Either as a way to say trans women ‘arent actually suffering’ or to blame trans women for the suffering and deaths of trans men.

Cis women engage in and encourage the death of trans men and then blame those deaths on trans women.

do you ever say something and then think "wow this isnt even a bit. im just like this"

do yoo evew say someting and den tink “wow dis isn’t even a bit!! im just wike dis UwU”

This post has been UwU-ified!

i feel dirty after reading that

do yoo need a scwubby wubby? OwO

i think i do need a scwubby wubby to be honest but not from you

When is it my turn to be happy.

Yo I feel like the idea that the only historical women who counted are the ones who defied society and took on the traditionally male roles is… not actually that feminist. It IS important that women throughout history were warriors and strategists and politicians and businesswomen, but so many of us were “lowly” weavers and bakers and wives and mothers and I feel like dismissing THOSE roles dismisses so many of our mothers and grandmothers and great-grandmothers and the shit they did to support our civilization with so little thanks or recognition.

YES. This is such an important point. Those ‘girly’ girls doing their embroidery and quilting bees and grass braiding were vital parts of every domestic economy that has ever existed.

This is precisely what chaps my hide so badly about the misuse of the quote “Well-behaved women seldom make history,” because this is precisely what the author was actually trying to say.

Laurel Thatcher Ulrich is a domestic historian who developed new methodologies to study well-behaved women because they were

1) so vital, and

2) their lives were rarely recorded in the usual old sources.

“Hoping for an eternal crown, they never asked to be remembered on earth. And they haven’t been. Well-behaved women seldom make history; against Antinomians and witches, these pious matrons have had little chance at all. Most historians, considering the domestic by definition irrelevant, have simply assumed the pervasiveness of similar attitudes in the seventeenth century.”

Original article: “Vertuous Women Found: New England Ministerial Literature, 1668-1735” (pdf download from Harvard)

If you didn’t know: Abagail Adams (John Adams’ wife) led a very successful effort to fund the American Revolution. How did she and her tiny army of women do it?

They made lace, and sold it to the aristocrats. Real lace (the stuff you see on old outfits in museums, not the machine-made stuff you might be familiar with from today) is stupidly difficult to make, takes a lot of time and skill, and, well:

If you watch this through, you’ll hear her say this is DOMESTIC lace. This is not fancy, this is for household objects. You can imagine what it would take to make some of the elaborate pieces you see on old aristocratic clothing, and see why it was so expensive and valuable. (Incidentally, if you’ve ever heard the music from the musical 1776, in the song where Abagail and John are trading letters and he’s like “ma’am we need saltpeter” and she’s like “dude we need pins,” THIS IS WHAT THEY NEEDED THE PINS FOR. That song was based on real letters between the two.)

And this is all those revolutionary Revolutionary women did, every free moment of every day. They pulled out their pins and their bobbins and they made lace until they couldn’t see straight, and they sold it to revolutionaries and royalists alike, anyone who would pay. Yard upon yard upon yard of lace to earn cash to translate into rations and bullets.

The war was won by a women’s craft. Not even a “vital” women’s craft like cooking or cleaning. It was won by making a luxury item whose entire purpose was to say “look how wealthy I am, I can afford all this lace.”

Lace was not the only source of income for the Revolution. But it was a major one, and it is extremely fair to say it turned the tide.

And until this post, I bet you didn’t know.

If you know Discworld, you know the observations about “ladies who organize”?

That’s not something Pterry made up. That is reality. Ladies Who Organize have been a major driving force of history - usually unremembered b/c everyone remembers the guy who was officially involved and not, eg, his wife who organized a massive letter writing campaign and seven soirées that funded Mr Historical’s entire enterprise.

Ladies Who Organize both started and ended Prohibition, as noted above funded American Independence, and were the ONLY people who got their shit together with regards to eg the 1918 Flu in a lot of cities (Philadelphia is a really great example).

Ladies Who Organize is just ONE area of history where that’s the case. It’s just they did things in mostly socially accepted ways and when they pushed the envelope they did it strategically and tactically, leveraging whatever else they had to offset that.

Now, we get to know about them because they were not only nearly universally literate but MASSIVELY WORKED VIA LETTERS so as we started actually paying attention we had sources. Imagine how many of these we’ve lost because the record ONLY contained the other stuff.

For the record, this is what the phrase “Well-behaved women seldom make history” actually means.

That’s not me just saying that, that’s what the author of the book by that name meant by it:

one way this is so obvious is how people know medieval European farmers spent tons of energy making bread, but what women did is reduced to “idk childcare”?

No they made cloth. All the time.

“I don’t care about dumb weed jokes,” I said naively, before I saw this

This 420 is a palindrome!!!! 4/20/2024

It is!

If people were too mean to you when you were growing up, a newborn animal will materialize inside your brain and it’s so so scared and shivering and it will stay there for years. Decades, even. And whenever you say something kind of weird but true to your heart the animal will tell you “Noo! You can’t say that! If you say that, everyone will hate you!”. The animal means well. It’s so so small and everything is so scary for them and it’s just trying to protect you. But listen to me. Listen to me. Whenever this happens, you can’t do what the animal says. You can’t. If you do, you’ll become as scared as the animal. You have to keep saying weird shit. You have to keep doing things the animal wouldn’t approve of. If you do enough things that scare the animal, maybe one day it’ll go to sleep.

everyone shut the fuck up and look at lil nas x and the wiggles

Nobody in this game has any chill

He is but you would not believe how little relevance that has to the case

literally insane how gaza's health ministry noting thousands if incomplete death records (which can represent any number of missing details like date of birth, id number, etc) is being spun as hamas ADMITS to LYING about gaza death toll, inflating numbers by 30%! the sadism required to frame mass death and apocalyptic chaos this way is unknowable to me. the gaza strip is the world's 5th most densely populated area. as of january 30th, the bbc reported half of gaza's buildings to have been damaged or destroyed with 1.7 million (80% of the population) displaced.

the following atellite image shows destruction of gazan farmland

we know that the northern area of the strip has been decimated and that famine has set in. there are no functioning hospitals remaining in the north. who can even begin to guess at the number of people dying there every day, or of unidentified bodies beneath the rubble.

water infrastructure has been heavily limited since shortly after october 7. [source, january 12]

how could it be possible to keep complete records of mortality in conditions such as these? there is nowhere for people dying of starvation, dehydration, or disease to go. it's impossible to recover all of the bodies strewn about the strip, and difficult to imagine they could all be reliably identified even if found. but again, i'll share the following article from time magazine (published on march 15th) which argues that the health ministry's numbers reflect statistical likelihood and historical precedent.

we know that hospitals, farmland, and water treatment facilities have been targeted, destroyed, and heavily limited in their capacity to function and provide for the people of gaza. we know that a huge source of food and supplies that gaza relies on is aid trucks which have also been severely restricted compared to their entry into gaza prior to october 7, and few if any can reach the north of the strip.

(new york times, march 14)

so tell me, how many people do you think have died?

As a kid, when your parents are poor, you're poor. If they don't have money, that means none of you have money. But if someone's parents are rich, that doesn't necessarily mean the kid is. Sometimes rich peoples' kids aren't rich kids, they're just some rich freak's exotic pets that can talk but aren't allowed to.

That’s… not how class works

OK, so- my partner was adopted by a rich woman when he was a baby. She's from a prominent family, practically royalty where we're from. She certainly had the means to send him to fancy private school, give him good food, nice clothes/toys, premium healthcare... she chose not to. According to her he was lucky to be "adopted out of poverty" at all and should have been content with what she deigned to give him. And she reminded him of this constantly, all through his childhood.

She dangled the promise of uni in exchange for good behavior and good grades- with terms and conditions, of course. And filling her laundry list of demands was something like pulling teeth whilst jumping through hoops. In the end, did he get to go to uni? Of course not. (And certainly being queer/trans on top of it all did not help things whatsoever).

He cut her off after high school, and when I met him a year ago he had been working as (the equivalent of) an UberEats driver for a living for the last few years, including through the pandemic. (Sixteen hours a day for the equivalent of $6 (six) USD, not including the gas for his shitty rundown scooter; caught COVID twice, suffers from chronic fatigue to this day).

And to this day he still has to be selective about which of our ~leftist anarcho-commie~ friends he divulges this part of his background to- cos all they hear is "raised rich" and then suddenly he's not One of Them because "well teeeeechncially :^) you're from the oppressing class...". Like.... shit, man!

Social rules don't mean shit when it comes to abusive parents. Even rich ones.

Probably especially rich ones.

people are totally on board with the concept of "sufficiently rich people are above the law, and this is bad" but refuse to connect that to the concept of "this also includes laws that protect children from abuse and exploitation"

like we understand "the ruling classes get and maintain their wealth through cruel exploitation of those less powerful" and we can't wrap our heads around "a lifetime of this cruel and merciless behavior being valorized by your peers probably doesn't predispose you to suddenly changing gears once you have a helplessly dependent child that's totally under your control."

like yeah the rich are our enemies in this ongoing class war, absolutely, it's an Us or Them situation to save the planet. but if you don't give a shit about saving the enemy's children too, i don't think very highly of your motivation or your methods.

If (what's left of) the fuckin' middle class can hold financial stability and basic safety over their kids' heads in "exchange" for fealty, and cut them off and throw them out for insufficient subservience (like daring to be queer/trans/wrong-religion/wrong-political-stance), what in the EVERLOVING FUCK makes you think the rich won't and haven't on a regular basis?