The XX Factor: What women really think.

• « Prev | Main | Next »

  
  

  Did the Obamas only get a puppy because Michelle stays home? ... or, discrimination against working (dog) moms

  Posted Friday, April 17, 2009 10:28 AM | By E.J. Graff

  As the entire world knows, the Obamas recently got a six-month-old Portuguese water puppy named Bo. In an exclusive, I've learned that this might be only because Michelle is a stay-at-home mom.

  A friend of mine—who adopted an infant a few years ago, as a working mom—yesterday received this email when she applied to adopt a puppy:

  Thank you for your interest in Good Dog Rescue. I'm afraid that our organization's policy on puppy adoptions is very stringent due to the exceptional needs of the pups. They wish for a stay-at-home mom that can help the pup grow. They feel you would qualify for one of our older dogs at least 18 months or older. I'm very sorry to disappoint you, but I hope you understand.

  Remember—social workers approved my friend to adopt an infant human. Apparently policies for puppies are stricter. One concludes that, had Michelle O. held a job, Malia and Sasha would have been denied their puppy.

  Would a working dad have received this email? Inquiring minds want to know.

  Filed under: working families, obama dog, dog rescue

About E.J. Graff

• E.J. Graff is associate director and senior researcher at Brandeis University's Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism, where she directs the Gender & Justice Project. She is a resident scholar at the Brandeis Women's Studies Research Center. As a journalist and author, her work has appeared in such venues as The New York Times Magazine, The Washington Post, Foreign Policy magazine, The Boston Globe, The Los Angeles Times, Columbia Journalism Review, Good Housekeeping, The Nation, The New Republic, and in more than a dozen anthologies. She collaborated on former Massachusetts Lt. Governor Evelyn Murphy's book Getting Even: Why Women Don't Get Paid Like Men--and What To Do About It (Simon & Schuster, 2005). Her first book, What Is Marriage For? The Strange Social History of Our Most Intimate Institution, has been widely cited in legal journals, reprinted for academic use, entered as courtroom exhibits, and quoted by government policymaking bodies.

PRINT DISCUSS