Cats Do Not Go To Heaven

I'm not a cat person. I struggle to be, but I still view them as docile vessels of Satan much of the time.

But they do have souls. And regardless of afterlife beliefs, or whether or not cats have a heaven of their own to even go to, the assumption that they are undeserving of, or are not beings enough to have, what many view as a God-given privilege, is unfair and ludicrous. Given opportunity, why would they not?

Virginia Woolf, in her feminist critique "Shakespeare's Sister," mentions an old, now dead, bishop who openly declared that women could not write works like Shakespeare; he also declared that cats cannot go to heaven. At the time of Shakespeare, Woolf argues, it was true that a woman could not have written the works of Shakespeare, but not because they were unable in talent or lacking in ideas; it was because society did not allow it.

Through the fictitious example of Shakespeare's sister, Woolf demonstrates how society prevented women from gaining the equal opportunities as men to educate themselves or realize their dreams. She explains that "[Shakespeare's sister] picked up a book now and then, one of her brother's perhaps, and read a few pages. But then her parents came in and told her to mend the stockings or mind the stew and not moon about with books and papers." Women may have had the identical baseline as men, but due to the role they were supposed to play in society, they were kept from realizing any potential. Shakespeare's sister, an idea that seems like it could have so much promise if implemented, would in reality have ended in no different result than the usual Hamlet and King Lear we have now due to the destructive nature of society to women at the time.

It's as if the cats, with the same soulful capabilities as anyone who would be let into whatever pearly gates awaited, would be rejected at the door, or distracted endlessly from the path merely because they are cats and they are not viewed as worthy of being let in. They're arbitrarily serving a different role: random animal companion (or furry antagonist) until they die and disappear from existence and importance.

The women of Shakespeare's time suffered the same fate. It seems ridiculous to equate women to cats, and I certainly believe women deserve more equality than cats by a long-shot, but it was and to some extent still is the reality. I can't speak for the cats, but I can say that Woolf's relation of cats to women really does reveal the ignorance involved with gender roles. Why is saying cats can't go to heaven even necessary? Why is saying women would have been unable to write the works of Shakespeare, if society had let them, any less delusional?

Much of the time assumptions are made incorrectly, and from those assumptions stem societal behaviors that, much like a self-fulfilling prophecy, force the assumption into accuracy. Woolf presents the ignorance of assumptions, and their dangerous effects on society as well as the consequent effects of society on the people living in it. In contemporary life, things have changed to an extent, but there are still far too many assumptions and  societal behaviors that inhibit the truth and eliminate the beneficial talent that should blossom every second.

I'm sure there are many cat people out there who would like to have them in heaven to pet and love, so why prevent them from getting there by asserting that they can't? Shakespeare's sister could have had many wonderful works to offer, so in the future we should stop preventing the realization of feminine talent merely because we choose to say it isn't possible. Say, "they can, why not?" instead of "they can't, because they can't." And say it to everyone. Maybe even the cats.

Although I'm still not a cat person.