I’m not sure I agree with the parallel here. The dog didn’t train itself, it was trained from without. And I can almost guarantee you that the dog would eat that chicken if the trainer (or perceived trainer stand-in) wasn’t sitting there watching. I guess I kinda/sorta agree with the message, but find it really clumsily put.
The parallel comes from the argument from rape apologists that say stuff like “men can’t control themselves, it’s like putting a juicy stake in front of a dog”. It’s a disgusting argument shifting blame to the way women dress, saying they provoked them. The message here comes straight from that, debunking the whole “dogs can’t control themselves so men can’t either” argument.
As for whether the dog would eat that while the trainer isn’t there, I don’t know about that. I trained my dog not to eat without a signal, and I have been testing her to see how well she responds to that by literally leaving the room for a while and seeing what she does. I always come back to the untouched food and her lying patiently in front of it. And it’s not just me, there are a ton of videos of people doing the same and leaving their dogs alone with the food, some of these videos even part of an earlier iteration of this same trend.
Also, I don’t think it matters that the dog didn’t train itself. In fact, I think it says exactly what it should, that we should stop hiding behind the “boys will be boys” argument and teach our boys and men how to behave.
As a parent of two boys (probably for all kids, but I only have boys), the training part is real. We have all sorts of weird rules about asking permission and listening for no/stop. Like all things, it takes practice for it to become a habit.
Humans are more complex though and it doesn’t follow that humans will respond to behavior shaping the same way dogs would. Just because an animal responds in a preferred way, in a specific circumstance, doesn’t mean a human will or can. It’s also dehumanizing to suggest men can’t even measure up to dogs, as this post seems to.
If you can train a dog not to voraciously devour a rotisserie chicken, a man should be able to train himself to not be a creep.
I’m not sure I agree with the parallel here. The dog didn’t train itself, it was trained from without. And I can almost guarantee you that the dog would eat that chicken if the trainer (or perceived trainer stand-in) wasn’t sitting there watching. I guess I kinda/sorta agree with the message, but find it really clumsily put.
The parallel comes from the argument from rape apologists that say stuff like “men can’t control themselves, it’s like putting a juicy stake in front of a dog”. It’s a disgusting argument shifting blame to the way women dress, saying they provoked them. The message here comes straight from that, debunking the whole “dogs can’t control themselves so men can’t either” argument.
As for whether the dog would eat that while the trainer isn’t there, I don’t know about that. I trained my dog not to eat without a signal, and I have been testing her to see how well she responds to that by literally leaving the room for a while and seeing what she does. I always come back to the untouched food and her lying patiently in front of it. And it’s not just me, there are a ton of videos of people doing the same and leaving their dogs alone with the food, some of these videos even part of an earlier iteration of this same trend.
Also, I don’t think it matters that the dog didn’t train itself. In fact, I think it says exactly what it should, that we should stop hiding behind the “boys will be boys” argument and teach our boys and men how to behave.
And parents train their children. And society does, too. Same as the dogs.
As a parent of two boys (probably for all kids, but I only have boys), the training part is real. We have all sorts of weird rules about asking permission and listening for no/stop. Like all things, it takes practice for it to become a habit.
But men are human beings, not dogs.
deleted by creator
Humans are more complex though and it doesn’t follow that humans will respond to behavior shaping the same way dogs would. Just because an animal responds in a preferred way, in a specific circumstance, doesn’t mean a human will or can. It’s also dehumanizing to suggest men can’t even measure up to dogs, as this post seems to.
Exactly the point, unless someone wanted to argue that men are more beastly than dogs.
I thought it was about cheating.
Cheating falls under the creep umbrella imo