HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Cats vs dogs: Scientists ...

Thu Aug 13, 2015, 10:50 PM

 

Cats vs dogs: Scientists confirm that felines are better... from an evolutionary perspective

Source: the independent

It’s the debate that has long divided animal lovers. Now scientists have confirmed that cats really are better than dogs – at least from an evolutionary perspective.

A groundbreaking study of 2,000 ancient fossils reveals that felids – the cat family – have historically been much better at surviving than the “canid” dog clan, and often at the latter’s expense.

The research finds that cats have played a significant role in making 40 dog species extinct, outcompeting them for scarce food supplies because they are generally more effective hunters. But researchers found no evidence that dogs have wiped out a single cat species.

The dog family – which includes the wolves from which today’s domesticated dogs are descended – originated in North America about 40 million years ago and reached a maximum diversity around 20 million years later, when there were more than 30 species on the continent. At that point, the cat family arrived from Asia.

-----
Dr Silvestro says it is unclear exactly why, when times were tough, the cats were able to see off dogs so comprehensively. But he believed it could be something to do with the retractable claws that ancient cats have passed down to their domesticated descendants, but which dogs don’t have.

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/cats-vs-dogs-scientists-confirm-that-felines-are-better-from-an-evolutionary-perspective-10454590.html



53 replies, 5351 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 53 replies Author Time Post
Reply Cats vs dogs: Scientists confirm that felines are better... from an evolutionary perspective (Original post)
Liberal_in_LA Aug 2015 OP
The Velveteen Ocelot Aug 2015 #1
BlueJazz Aug 2015 #3
The Velveteen Ocelot Aug 2015 #4
BlueJazz Aug 2015 #8
Gormy Cuss Aug 2015 #47
jtuck004 Aug 2015 #2
Le Taz Hot Aug 2015 #30
restorefreedom Aug 2015 #5
msongs Aug 2015 #6
murielm99 Aug 2015 #11
Arugula Latte Aug 2015 #7
packman Aug 2015 #9
niyad Aug 2015 #42
drm604 Aug 2015 #10
Bigredhunk Aug 2015 #12
pink-o Aug 2015 #29
passiveporcupine Aug 2015 #13
FarrenH Aug 2015 #19
happyslug Aug 2015 #34
passiveporcupine Aug 2015 #41
Elmer S. E. Dump Aug 2015 #32
freshwest Aug 2015 #14
Judi Lynn Aug 2015 #16
freshwest Aug 2015 #17
trueblue2007 Aug 2015 #52
Judi Lynn Aug 2015 #15
FarrenH Aug 2015 #18
Igel Aug 2015 #26
FarrenH Aug 2015 #28
Elmer S. E. Dump Aug 2015 #33
raccoon Aug 2015 #20
KansDem Aug 2015 #27
libdem4life Aug 2015 #50
blackspade Aug 2015 #21
Vinca Aug 2015 #22
Javaman Aug 2015 #23
7962 Aug 2015 #24
happyslug Aug 2015 #35
7962 Aug 2015 #36
happyslug Aug 2015 #38
Liberal_in_LA Aug 2015 #49
Octafish Aug 2015 #25
Trailrider1951 Aug 2015 #39
Octafish Aug 2015 #40
Thor_MN Aug 2015 #31
Blue_Tires Aug 2015 #37
IDemo Aug 2015 #43
Snow Leopard Aug 2015 #44
smirkymonkey Aug 2015 #45
cannabis_flower Aug 2015 #46
Xolodno Aug 2015 #48
Warpy Aug 2015 #51
bamademo Aug 2015 #53

Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Thu Aug 13, 2015, 10:55 PM

1. Yup. Cats rule.

This is the DU member formerly known as The Velveteen Ocelot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #1)

Thu Aug 13, 2015, 11:04 PM

3. Of course they survived longer. They probably slept through it all.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueJazz (Reply #3)

Thu Aug 13, 2015, 11:07 PM

4. Evolutionary brilliance.

Fewer moving parts to wear out or break down.
This is the DU member formerly known as The Velveteen Ocelot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #4)

Thu Aug 13, 2015, 11:13 PM

8. If those ancient dogs were like my golden retriever, they'd probably give...

 

..the kitties half their food. He's a sweet guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueJazz (Reply #3)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 08:15 PM

47. ^^This^^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Thu Aug 13, 2015, 11:01 PM

2. "But researchers found no evidence that dogs have..." < Dog's are smarter than to leave evidence.

 

When it comes to a felony, anyway.

The misdemeanor couch cushion murders and copraphagia are just diversions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jtuck004 (Reply #2)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 08:41 AM

30. And in a need-to-know moment

I had to look up "copraphagia." Thanks for that! Come here!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Thu Aug 13, 2015, 11:07 PM

5. if they had just asked the cats to begin with who is better

they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble.

😸

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Thu Aug 13, 2015, 11:10 PM

6. cats can climb- to escape, to catch and stash prey, and burrow into the bushes and hide better nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #6)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 12:16 AM

11. Not to mention

they can disappear into another dimension.

No one can find a cat if they don't want to be found.

I love my dogs, though. We are devoted to each other. Cats are devoted to themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Thu Aug 13, 2015, 11:11 PM

7. Yes. Cats are better than dogs in every way.

 

Cuter, softer, more interesting, purring instead of barking, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Thu Aug 13, 2015, 11:24 PM

9. Now if they could only clean their own litter

they'd be perfect. Then again, I do believe you can train them to use the toilet and flush after using it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Reply #9)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 05:25 PM

42. not only that, there are special faucet fixtures that allow them to get their own water!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 12:02 AM

10. This is confusing two different questions.

It's starts by mentioning the debate between animal lovers but then talks about which can survive better in the wild. But these are two different questions.

What animal lovers debate is which make better pets, not which is better at surviving in the wild.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 01:35 AM

12. Love 'em both.

We only have cats, but I hate when people ask if you're a cat person or a dog person. Why do I have to pick one? I love animals. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bigredhunk (Reply #12)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 08:41 AM

29. + 1 !!!

Hey, if we're liberals, we understand diversity, right? That each philosophy of life is valid and each person (species?) brings something to the table. Dogs are awesome cuz they love you and will run with you. Kitties will surprise and delight you and are easier to take care of. I'll take 2 of each and live happily in my menagerie!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 01:49 AM

13. Never heard of a dog with nine lives

Cats are rugged individualists and dogs are socialists. That should prove they are weaker right there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to passiveporcupine (Reply #13)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 04:06 AM

19. Except that, by the same metrics

Humans are socialists. And that's how we ended up the most successful large animal species on the planet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarrenH (Reply #19)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 09:48 AM

34. And why Wolves became the most important carnivore...

 

Dogs are omnivores, they can survive eating vegetable matter. Cats MUST have meat, cats can NOT digest vegetable matter. Except for the American Gray Fox and the Black Bear (Which includes its Asiatic Cousin as while as the American Black Bear), the Canines have a limited ability to climb trees. Thus until the emergence of grasses, Cats had a distinct advantage over Canines.

Grasslands consist of about 20% of the World Surface. Grasses first appear about 55 to 60- million years ago in South America and Africa (The two continent separated slowly, so that 40 million years ago the New World Monkeys migrated from Africa to South America by raft).

http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/125/3/1198.full

More on New World Monkeys:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_monkey#Origin

While Grasses developed 55 -60 million years ago, the grasses were more like Bamboo and other "wet grasses". What we would call grass, something that could tolerate dry periods, did not evolve till about 12 million years ago and did not became dominate till about 5 to 6 million year ago.

Grass and its evolution is important to understand the history of Canines and Cats. Cats are ambush hunters, Even the Cheetah, which is the fastest carnivore, relies on ambush till it does its spurt of speed. The Black Bear is clearly a Forest Bear, the Grizzly and its close ancestor the Asiatic Brown Bear is clearly a ground bear (The Grizzly is believed to have been Eurasia Brown Bears which migrated to North America about 50,000 years ago). The brown bears, Grizzly bears, along with the Polar Bears are all poor tree climbers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_brown_bear

I bring up the Brown Bear, which only appears about 500,000 years ago, as an example of an canine that evolve around grasslands. Yes, it is seen in forests, but even before White Man settled in North America, the Grizzly had retreated from Eastern US, as the Grasslands retreated and were replaced by Forests, starting about 4000 to 8000 years ago (2000 BC to 6000 years BC).

A Prairie is land that is 90% Grass. The Great Plains of North America, the Pampas of Argentina and the Steppes of Russia are "Prairie". African, south of the Sahara, is mostly Savanna, which is 10-50% Forest, but also at least 50% Grasslands. Savanna is evidence of greater rainfall. Mixed Forest is any area with more then 50% Trees, and true Forests are 90% and higher trees (The largest single temperate Forest was the North American Forest just before the white man settled North America). This has not always the case, the American Tall Grass Prairie expanded eastward till it almost reached the Ohio-Pennsylvania line around 4000 to 8000 years ago, then retreated to Illinois and further west.

http://library.eri.nau.edu/gsdl/collect/erilibra/archives/HASH01c3/6a873096.dir/doc.pdf

I bring up the Prairie for it is an area where cats are few. Unlike Savanna, the places for an ambush is reduced. Thus a carnivore to survive has to evolve a method of attack that does not count on ambush. Cats, being individualists, could not do this. Canines, once they developed the pack, could hunt on the prairies.

Side note: African Lions do hunt as a "Pride" but that is an exception to the general rule of cats hunting as individuals. Even then the lionesses, who do most of the hunting for the pride, do NOT attack as a team but as individuals attacking at the same time. Once one of the lionesses get hold of an animal, the other lionesses will join in but that is the limit of their cooperation. Wolves are know to attack as a team. One video show two wolves chasing a head of Caribou for a couple of miles, then being relived by two other wolves that had been laying in wait, this drive last a few more miles, then a fifth wolf charges from another position, grabs one of the Caribou, which is tired from all of the running. That last wolf holds onto the caribou till the other four wolves catches up and help the last wold take down the caribou. That is team work, something you do NOT see in cats.

It is believed that the modern Wolf evolved in either the Prairie or the Tundra (cold grasslands, no trees). The further north any of the big cats go is Siberia, with the Siberian Tiger (and wolfs area goes further north) and Cougars, which also do not go into the Tundra.

A good look at this is the Coyote and the old Prairie Wolf. The larger Prairie wolf would follow the prairie bison herds and dominate the area around that head. The smaller Coyotes would avoid the herds (and the wolves that accommodated them) but was the dominate predator of the local smaller animals (the Prairie Dog for example). To be successful in both, one had to be a member of a group, which is characteristic of the Canine (excluding the bears and Foxes).

Thus the raise of the Wolf is related to the evolution of grasses. Grasses lead to Tundra and Prairies, areas with limited options of ambush. With Ambush eliminated, cats lost they long term advantages over canines and thus it is only for the last Five to ten million years or so, that Canines have been the dominate carnivore on this planet (and then NOT in deep forests, or Savannas). Wolves can compete in Savannas but only move into deep forest where no large cats exists (Thus Wolves dominated Eastern US, when the White Man Settled for the largest Cat was the Puma, which the wolves could not drive out, but also not large enough to drive out the Wolf). Wolves tend NOT to go further south then Northern Mexico, for they have to compete with Jaguar, a cat to large for a Wolf to handle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cougar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_wolf

Range of the Jaguar:



Range of the Wolf: Note the Wolf's historical range barely overlap the range of the Jaguar (Northern Mexico is more Savanna then Prairie):



The Lion and the Wolf had a greater overlap, but Europe was always mix woods, an area where ambush can occur but where the team work of the wolf can also be successful. This appears to be true of North Africa, Arabia and the Mid East. Both species survived in the area till taken out by man.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion

Just a comment, that the cats dominate areas where forests are the rule. Wolves dominate areas where grasses are dominate. In areas with mix types of vegetation (Savanna and Mixed Forests), both survive.

Side comment: The American Gray Fox, the Raccoon dog of Asia and the Black Bears are unlike any other Canine, it that all three are actually BETTER tree climbers then Cats. They are thus the exceptions to the rule that Cats do better then Canines in forests. The Gray Fox and Raccoon Dog are considered very early canines in evolutionary terms, canines that evolved before canines adopted to living in the grasses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_fox

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarrenH (Reply #19)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 04:16 PM

41. Every thread doesn't need to be serious

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to passiveporcupine (Reply #13)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 09:41 AM

32. Cat's are selfish - they only care about themselves - that's why they survive

 

Dogs love everyone! They can be taken advantage of easily. I love dogs. Cats, I find cute and amusing, as well as cuddly, but I'll take a dog as a pet over a cat any day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 01:50 AM

14. They should've asked me. I knew that:




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #14)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 02:42 AM

16. Outstanding. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Reply #16)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 02:45 AM

17. Thanks! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #14)

Sun Aug 16, 2015, 01:00 AM

52. Hermione Jean Granger !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is the DU member formerly known as trueblue2007.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 02:41 AM

15. The world would be so much emptier, lonlier without both kinds of these amazing fur friends. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 03:48 AM

18. Cats are mostly solitary creatures

Lions are about as social as they get. And the article makes clear that it is not merely "dogs" that have been driven to extinction in some places and times by cats, but ambush hunting dogs rather than runners. Pack hunters that rely on running and endurance generally need large herds of prey animals to sustain them. So one can imagine the fortunes of dog species waxing and waning depending on scarcity to a greater degree than cat species, but in their evolutionary niche where prey is plentiful, dogs carrying the day.

Another consideration is that anthropologists and evolutionary scientists consider it a bit of a mystery how we developed our huge forebrains, because initially the cost for that is high while one would expect it be slow to yield advantage. We do know that there is a pattern across the animal kingdom of brain mass in social animals developing more rapidly - including social herbivores. From crows to dolphins, all the smartest animals we know of in the animal kingdom have relatively large social groups (octopuses being a possible exception). When you're a social animal you have to think in more complex ways about your kin, not just your prey.

And there is no doubt that dogs are *smarter* than cats. They perform consistently higher than cats in multiple cognitive challenges. The unique combination of cognitive tools (like seemingly being able to maintain 3D mental maps of familiar spaces) and remarkable body design makes cats extraordinary hunters in a wide range of environments. So they may win the apex predator race in a majority of cases, but they're still dumber than dogs.

Interestingly domestic dogs have up to 25% less brain mass than wolves and it's thought that the cognitive requirements of hunting in packs may largely account for that. The social dynamics of domestic dogs are less sophisticated than their wolf cousins. And they still score better than cats in mental challenges.

Of course we've known this for a long time and didn't need science to confirm it. That's why we don't have guide cats, drug-sniffing cats, cancer-sniffing cats, rescue cats, guard-cats and so on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarrenH (Reply #18)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 08:05 AM

26. There's less lit on cats.

And one recent bit included some odd comments as part of its lit review because it applied to their study.

They couldn't get a random sample for cats. They started with one--I even forget what they were testing--but a certain number of cats just didn't play along. "Here kitty, here's your stimulus!" would be met by a cold stare and the cat would go to sleep or wander off. Reward as motivation? Meh.

At that point you had to ask, as a researcher: Did they just stare because they're stupid or because they were uninterested? Most of the time "no response" was interpreted as "stupid." But a few days later the cats who were too stupid to do anything suddenly were able to do a lot. So the researchers in that article decided to ignore zoned-out cats. Again, assumptions --> results.

Dogs? Give them the reward, they do what you want. You can pick 30 dogs and have almost all of them do the tests. Consistently. Pick 30 cats and who knows what you'll get today. And if you'll be able to have a second run with the same cats tomorrow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #26)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 08:31 AM

28. You're right that they're harder to study

But that hasn't stopped plenty of researchers doing it anyway. Cats may be less studied than dogs but there is still a fair amount of lit. Enough for various meta-studies and reviews to confidently claim that, according to current knowledge, dogs are probably smarter than cats. Some tests are difficult but food is always a powerful motivator and allows substantial testing of at least some aspects of cognition. We observe more complex behaviour that indicates more thought-directed responses to situations from the close wild relatives of dogs in their natural environments than we observe for wild relatives of domestic cats.

I mean there's little doubt they have some exceptional cognitive capabilities, particular in the area of perception and the appearance of holding three dimensional maps of their environment in mind. Cognition is obviously not a linear scale. But in terms of grasping object permanence, having a theory of mind and solving problems involving a series of steps, cats appear to lag significantly behind dogs. And this is bolstered by the fact that we expect social animals to be smarter, which gels with observation of many species. This, in itself may be a prejudice that comes out of social animals being easier to communicate with, but I don't think so. Among other obvious influences on general intelligence, animals that communicate more are more likely to hold abstractions about the world in mind, a necessary antecedent to rich communication.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarrenH (Reply #18)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 09:46 AM

33. Why we don't have guide cats, drug-sniffing cats, cancer-sniffing cats, rescue cats, guard-cats...

 

I maintain it's because cats don't give a crap about helping humans. They could be taught these things if they wanted to learn, but they don't. Cat's are just about the most selfish animals on the planet, while dogs are the most selfless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 05:43 AM

20. So, does this mean cats rule and dogs drool? LOL nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to raccoon (Reply #20)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 08:10 AM

27. Of course. Here's the evidence...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to raccoon (Reply #20)

Sat Aug 15, 2015, 07:43 PM

50. Beat me to it...that's the right answer.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 06:35 AM

21. Interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 07:03 AM

22. Any cat could have told you that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 07:22 AM

23. in other news...

the researches involved in the study, then when home, after releasing their findings, to cuddle with their cats.

Yet, dogs are a companion animal. Naaa! >sticks tongue<

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 07:41 AM

24. Never trust a man who hates cats.

 

Every woman i've ever known who was in an abusive relationship was with a man who HATED cats but loved dogs. I say its because a cat wont do what you tell it to, but the dog is obedient. An abusive man wants "his woman" to be like the dog; obedient. Not like the cat; independent. And i dont mean a man who just doesnt like a cat; HATES cats.
Unscientific, yes, but I think its got merit!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #24)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 10:45 AM

35. I have been doing Protection from Abuse for 25 years, and there is some truth to your statement

 

In studies involving abused women, the abuse DROPS as the woman becomes more and more isolated from friends and relatives and become the toy in the abuser's closet that NO ONE ELSE CAN USE. As a woman becomes more outgoing, for example drives her own car, or worse gets a job to pay the bills, the level of abuse INCREASES for the abuser is losing control over his toy (lack of a better name when taking the view of the abuser not the abusee).

Thus, a man who HATES cats (as oppose to a man who just dislikes cats), implies a person who wants anything he has to be his and his alone and at his beck and call. That includes women, dogs and cats, but only women and dogs will tolerate such total control for any length of time.

Now, we men like to "Control" our women, but "Control" is again a bad term, but the best term I can come up with. We want our women around when we want them, but we also understand they have they own lives and will lead them. Most men accept that women will not always be at our beck and call and we accept that. At the same time we do want them around when we need them (and understand that is NOT always possible). It is conflict that people have lived with for over 100,000 years (if not longer).

Abusers take the level of "Control" most men want over their women to an extreme most men reject. i.e. your comment that men who dislike cats are NOT the problem, for they understand cats and accept cats and that cats are never 100% at your beck and call and dislike cats for that reason, but do not hate them for they accept that somethings can NEVER be under their 100% control.

On the other hand, men who HATE cats, dislike the the LACK of COMPLETE control one has over cats. Cats will NOT always be at your beck and call, they have their own lives to live and will live them. Thus such abusers hate cats for cats will NOT do want they want when they want it.

On the other hand dogs and women are social animals. They both want to belong to someone (again a bad term but also the best term I can come up with). I have seen dogs and women put up with abuse so that they could maintain they place in whatever social order they are in. In the case of dogs, the pack (which includes the dog's master), in the case of women living with her man. Both dogs and women value being a member of that social group and will do all they can to stay in that social group, until it become clear it is not sustainable.

When it becomes clear that being under the control of her man is no longer sustainable, women have a hard time breaking up. Worse, as a woman becomes more independent the abuse increases. You see this with dogs to a limited extent, dogs will take a lot of abuse just to be a member of the pack, a level of abuse that will found most cats long gone from the abusive situation.

On the other hand a man who dislikes cats, as oppose to hating them, has no real desire to control those cats, thus does not try to control cats. Such men also tend NOT to have a need to have a level of control over their women that is unreasonable, thus do not feel the need to abuse their women to keep their women "in line".

Thus I have to agree with your statement, men who dislike cats, tend to be men who accept they lack of control over cats. On the other hand men who HATE cats, hate cats do to that very lack of control, a level of control such men see as their right as a man (and most men reject as stupid and extreme).

Yes, I have compared dogs and women in this thread, but I have seen both in abusive situations AND seen both do all they can do to stay in the situation for they value being a member of a pack (in case of a dog) or a member of a "family" (in case of a woman) more important then objecting to the abuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #35)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 11:00 AM

36. Thank you for that EXCELLENT analysis!

 

I'm going to show your statement to some of my friends. You explained it so much better than my little post!
My experience started back in the 80s. I worked with a couple of women who confided in me about their husbands (I'm one of those guys that for some reason women tell EVERYTHING to). I've always been a cat guy, so i knew they're husbands hated cats from our previous talks about other stuff. So I started asking any friend who seemed to be with a bad guy how they felt about cats? And it always seemed to be the same answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #36)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 12:56 PM

38. Children are another group that put up with a lot of abuse, just to be a member of their family.

 

And males will take a lot of abuse to stay a member of what group they are in (this gangs have been known to get new members to kill someone, an act such males would normally reject, but to be a member of the gang they want to belong to, such new members will do as they are told).

Now, males tend to be "team players" and want other males in their group to belong. What I mean by that is not only will males conform to what the group want, the group will conform to what the majority wants. Thus male fashions rarely change (compared to female fashions), for women want to be seen as individuals, while we males tend to want to be seen as members of a group. Thus clean shave and short hair has been the norm for males since imposed on the Roman Soldiers under his command by Scipio Aficanus (the man who finally defeated Hannibal). It goes in and out of fashion (for example it was out of fashion in the 200s AD, but came back under Constantine in the 300s). It remained the norm among Catholic Priests to this day, but other men would see it come and go over the next 1700 years (With the big return under Napoleon and the French Revolution). Beards were the fashion in the 1860s, but gone by 1900. Short Hair disappeared during Vietnam (more as a rejection of the military effort in Vietnam then anything else) but returned by the 1980s. Clean shave and short hair has been the Standard dress of Western man since Scipio Aficanus (and like all standards are varied from but returned to).

You see the same in men's clothing. The Sewing Machine revolutionized clothing. What previously had taken days, could be done in minutes. Look at Abe Lincoln's dress, it could be worn today for today's male dress is NOT that much different. Labels may be different and the cut may be a little different, but as a whole it is the same (ties have also changed, but not that much compared to Women's ware). When you look at causal clothes, T-shirts and jeans were the male norm by WWI. We have few photos of men in such clothing for people dressed up for the photos of the time period (thus you have to look at formal dress to formal dress when comparing photos). On the other hand when you read of men actually working it is T-Shirts and Jeans or a Shirt and pants NOT a suit.

My point is we men tend to be very socialist, we want to belong to a group more then anything else. We will dress how that group wants us to look like so we can say by out dress what group we belong to. The most extreme version of this is the Military, but you see it on a lesser degree in most groups of men who are working together (and employment agencies tell male clients to dress like the people they are being interviewed by, to show they want to join that group by showing they will comply with whatever is the norm for dress in that group, female clients have a little bit more freedom when it come to dress, but not much).

You can see this is the debates, all of the men were in similar blue suits (Blue implies honestly) but the woman stood out in her gray suit (Gray implies power). A lot of women in similar situations will wear red, for it makes them stand out among that sea of men in blue (Men seeking elected office will NEVER wear red for they want to be seen as member of a group NOT as someone who is NOT a member of the group).

Side note: Men will wear red if all of the other men in their group wear red but then NOT to wear red is to stand out, something men avoid of they can.

Just a comment on males, we have our own hangups.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #38)

Sat Aug 15, 2015, 01:11 PM

49. women wear red because it's socially acceptable for women to wear red and other colors

 

A man in a red suit would not get elected

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 08:00 AM

25. Like the time the cat barked when the saber-toothed tiger was going to eat the caveman family.

But cat's don't bark?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #25)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 02:05 PM

39. No barking cats? Just watch this:



LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trailrider1951 (Reply #39)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 02:25 PM

40. My wife just observed that cats know they are smarter than guys.

Wow! I also now know Barking Watch Cat is smarter than me.

Thank you, Trailrider1951! I stand corrected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 09:29 AM

31. Cats having commited genocide 40 times makes them better?

 

Disclosure: I prefer dogs but only because I'm slightly allergic to some cats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 11:02 AM

37. Pure propaganda...

alerted

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 06:09 PM

43. I showed my boy this article

and he couldn't stop laughing:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 07:24 PM

44. Not surprising

 

Looking at modern day wild animals, but going forward I'd take the pack dynamics of dogs if really came down to the crunch of one families extinction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 08:02 PM

45. I suppose I am kind of an odd duck.

I am a woman who absolutely LOVES dogs and am not so fond of cats. I grew up with dogs and am completely devoted to them, especially the big ones like Labs and Golden Retrievers, however I love them all. Not a huge cat fan. I love how doggies are so affectionate and loving and they don't turn on you when you are showing them affection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 08:14 PM

46. That's funny - Says the ...

cat loving, Dr Silvestro! Sounds like Sylvester the Cat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Fri Aug 14, 2015, 11:28 PM

48. Old nieghbor of mine...

...had two very large Dalmatians.


They absolutely feared the Alpha Cat in the house.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Sat Aug 15, 2015, 09:33 PM

51. I think it's just because they're such tough little buggers

I've seen feral cats run over by cars get up and run away, appearing again a few days later with a limp and a dirty coat but otherwise intact. Cats are the ultimate survivors, crawling out from under charred rubble after forest fires have burned houses down with singed whiskers but approaching humans because they want food. They've survived non pet baggage compartments on international flights, shipping containers from one continent to another, wars, and just about anything else that gets thrown their way.

Oh, they can be killed. It's just not that easy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Sun Aug 16, 2015, 07:48 AM

53. I absolutely love my litte ex-feral cat. I watched him in the woods for 2 years.

He just came to the door one sleeting Jan. night and immediately got into my lap. He was smart enough to find me and know I would take him in. 5 years later I emergency rescued a 7 month old puppy on death row who was literally 1 hour from euthanasia. The cat loves him.

I don't question their intelligence. We all manage to get along and live in harmony. They are intelligent enough to know what to do to ensure their survival.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread