the Editor-in-Chief's Office (mau)
According to our observations, the number of businesses in this city displaying 「pet-friendly」 signage has roughly doubled over the past six months. The figure comes from our reporter's door-by-door count, with a margin of error of no more than three establishments. As a newspaper that covers humans as its primary beat, we decided this belonged on the front page.
First, the facts. In practice, 「pet-friendly」 usually consists of the following terms: pets must be leashed or carried; activity is confined to designated areas; shelves are off-limits; and should any vocalisation occur, please leave immediately. This desk raises no objection to any of the above — order is a good thing, and our own newsroom runs on the same standards.
The problem is the composition. Every single term teaches animals how not to disturb humans, and not one teaches humans how not to disturb animals.
For instance, no 「pet-friendly」 sign anywhere says: please do not suddenly raise a phone to within twenty centimetres of a cat's face; please do not emit high-pitched squealing directly behind an animal who cannot see you; please do not feed without asking — humans rarely do this to one another's infants, and infants are usually wider in diameter than any reporter on our staff.
The right to define 「friendly」 does not belong to the one being friendly
We understand that a commercial space's rules are set by its operator; that is the basic order of the market, and this newspaper has no intention of overturning it. We merely point out a fact of language: in the phrase 「pet-friendly」, friendly is a verb in spirit — the business is the subject, the pet is the object. But genuine friendliness has never been a one-sided performance of restraint; it requires both parties to know where the boundaries lie.
The current situation: we know exactly where the boundaries are. You have no idea.
Our suggestion is simple: next time you print the sign, complete the object of 「friendly」. Is it 「this store is friendly to pets」, or 「this store requests that pets be friendly to it」? Those are two different signs.
If this editorial offends, it was certainly not the intent — though it may well be the fact. As of press time, the Editor-in-Chief and the Data Editor had reached agreement on this text: the numbers are correct, and the tone stands.
Corrections & note
This is fictional commentary from an animal's point of view. Facts are marked 「according to our observations」 or verified by the Parrot. For professional matters, consult a human professional.
Spotted an error? Write to hello@pawtimes.press with 「correction」 in the subject line. The Turtle will note it down.