Kinda-sorta

-Is a 23-year-old a child bride? That's kinda-sorta the premise of this Slate story. Katie Arnold-Ratliff tells a not-uncharming tale of her own youthful nuptials, but conflates two separate issues: the failure rate of really young (like, under-18) marriages, and the fact that among Our Kind of People (the writer wound up at graduate school in NY), yes, a 23-year-old is a baby. 23 is even considered young to start a relationship that may years down the line culminate in marriage. I've posted before (see the tag) on the "window of opportunity" - precise ages vary by region/subculture - during which women are presumed neither too young for a relationship nor too old to snag a man. This is still something we-as-a-society need to fix, but the article in Slate ended up... not really helping? Obviously it all worked out OK for the author in the end, if 29 is "the end," insofar as she's written a novel, got her musings about her relationship history published in "Slate," and is still married to dude. But the bit about how she opted to go to a mediocre college to be near her now-husband rang every "no, don't do it!" alarm I've got. Marriage, under the best of circumstances, even, involves putting another person first. And the brand of feminism that says no woman should ever put a man first, or maybe at 45, with a long-established career, and fertility what?, basically replaces problems with other problems. Putting another person first (whether you're a man or a woman yourself, and regardless of your partner's gender) is not so unreasonable at 23. At 17 or 18, however, it seems like asking for resenting your spouse later on, which... the author did, even though she and dude patched things up.

-Elizabeth Nolan Brown and I are kinda-sorta in agreement re: Mark Bittman's latest anti-fast-food op-ed (it seems rice and beans were cheaper in 2009 as well). Where she and I agree specifically is on the dangers of food-movement writers overshooting the mark when trying to prove their "I'm not an elitist, real food is not just for rich people" cred. Accustomed to counterarguments along the lines of, "But what of the single mom who works ten jobs and is also homeless and can't afford a saucepan and her only pleasure in life is McDonalds?," they go out of their way to make it clear that even such an individual can eat a wholesome diet... and we're in that well-trodden lentil territory. When in reality, many people who absolutely could afford - in time, money, and cultural capital - to buy some pasta, arugula, tomatoes, and cheese, and throw that together, opt to eat massive portions and/or junk. Even in places like Park Slope.

-I somehow found this Dear Prudence again, and was reminded of why I'd come to think that however you raise a dog, you will be told by self-righteous strangers that what you're doing is basically dog abuse. A woman who walks her dog before and after work, has a dog walker take her dog out in the afternoons, who takes said dog out, including to a dog run, more on weekends, is clearly an unfit owner who, if she cares at all for the dog, will give it up, because of course shelters are known for finding better homes than disasters like that. One commenter spells out that a dog should never be left alone at all, and that you need a sitter if you go out, ever. But many more suggest the same. One has the good sense to ask how you're supposed to be able to earn money to afford said 24/7 professional dog-sitting if you're also not allowed to leave your home, ever.

The shreds of non-ridiculous are that a) it's clear only from the comments by the letter-writer, and not the letter itself, that the dog is not, in fact, crated for 12 consecutive hours, although some commenters respond to the full explanation as if it had never been provided, and b) it's not necessarily normal for an adult dog to be confined so much to a crate, although it seems, from what I understand/would imagine, that sometimes it is, that some dogs require this, even after training. With our definitely-still-a-puppy Bisou, leaving her alone in the gated kitchen (where she mostly hangs out) rather than the crate if I go away even just, say, to shower, is a dangerous proposition, for her more than for our stuff, which is, needless to say, not lying on the floor of the kitchen. We take her out before and after each of her three daily meals, and a few times beyond that, but sometimes, when I really need to get work done, or to (horrors!) leave the apartment, into the crate she goes. She's not averse to cuddling on the couch, sometimes averse to being brushed. We've opted to wait (because it's a matter of days) till she gets the rest of her shots before taking her to obedience classes, etc., but she seems to be adjusting well, after all. A full accident-free day, finally, and she now sits on command most of the time, has learned "down," and responds to "paw" if she thinks there's cheese in it for her. But obviously she'd be so much happier with a nice family that could actually care for her properly. (Yes, sarcasm.)

Oh, and it's also apparently dog abuse, if your dog is small, not to have it sleep in your bed. Meanwhile, isn't a small dog precisely the sort you might accidentally roll over onto in the night? Never mind that - one must remember that dogs are pack animals, and if you can't afford to own an entire pack of them, and spend your days "working from home" yet somehow magically managing to supervise said pack, you'd be better-suited to owning a goldfish. But you'd probably neglect the poor goldfish, too.