dear The Cut, postpartum and animal abuse aren’t clickbait

The recent article from The Cut was not an ethical exploration but a shallow, pseudo-intellectual attempt to normalize animal abuse disguised as cutesy commentary.

TW: animal abuse.

I have always been a fan of The Cut. I even have one of their articles pinned up on my vision board because I found it so absurd, and clever.

As an aspiring writer, or writer I guess - it depends on how you define writer, The Cut was always on the list of places I've wanted to write for.

The recently published article "Why Did I Stop Loving My Cat When I Had a Baby? My postpartum loathing of Lucky made me wonder whether I might be a late-onset psychopath" has made me rethink this. I used to subcribe to them, and follow them on socials. Even if I became a millionaire tomorrow I would not subscribe, and I’ve stopped following them on socials.

Naturally, the article received backalsh from others as well.

The Cut posted a statement saying the cat was safe and that the amount of abuse their staff received wasn't okay, nor was the misogynistic, racist and otherwise hate they received.

Let’s be clear. There is absolutely no room for hate speech, misogynist, racist, sexist or anything else. I cannot stress that enough.

Let's be clear again. Postpartum depression is a serious issue. It's still a deeply stigmatised issue, and it requires support. I'm not sure if the woman did have post partum depression because the article wasn't explicit however I don't want to rule it out.

And now, let's be clear one more time. This woman starved an animal to the point Lucky (the cat) ate plants and puked them up. This woman refused to clean the litter bowl forcing Lucky to poop and pee on the floor. Lucky binged on dry food because it was given all at once (you're not meant to feed cats like this) making it impossible for Lucky to clean herself due to weight gain, and Lucky even lost a tooth. Lucky's nails became overgrown. She didn’t give the cat water forcing Lucky to drink from the toilet bowl. This woman left the windows open so that she would fall to her death. Lucky became so depressed and frightened that she slept in a cowering position. 

But we, the readers of The Cut, are supposed to accept this clear case of animal abuse because the writer can use a ‘funny’ play on words like ‘catslaughter’? 

Or are we meant to accept this piece as journalism because The Cut is challenging ‘taboo narratives’ because animal abuse is taboo now?

If it doesn’t condone harm to animals why publish the story without commentary or analysis? Perhaps helplines, information, something about animal abuse?

And if it is someone who has postpartum depression, then why is there no information or support for those suffering from it? There are no helplines, links to support etc.

If The Cut were exploring ethics as it claimed, it would not be so blase in tone. It would not read like a Hannah Horvath article.

It would have support links. It would analyse. It would delve into what postpartum depression is. It would dive deeper into animal abuse. It would give us a proper update if the woman is receiving help for her post-partum depression and if the cat is now safe.

This article is not journalism or an exploration of ethics. It’s brain rot disguised as cutesy pseudo-intellectualism that normalises animal abuse.