Animal rights advocates re-brand "pets" as "companion animals", fail miserably

Now this is just absurd.  We're no longer supposed to refer to our dogs and cats as "pets" anymore.  From the UK: 

Calling animals 'pets' is insulting, academics claim

Animal lovers should stop calling their furry or feathered friends “pets” because the term is insulting, leading academics claim.

Domestic dogs, cats, hamsters or budgerigars should be rebranded as “companion animals” while owners should be known as “human carers”, they insist.

Even terms such as wildlife are dismissed as insulting to the animals concerned – who should instead be known as “free-living”, the academics including an Oxford professor suggest.

Looks like the war over political correctness has a new front.  And as is typical, the politically correct term is longer, unwieldy, and sterile.  Companion animal?  Please.  (And am I the only one who thinks that a companion animal sounds just a little bit like an animal that you're legally allowed to have sex with?  Good professor, I'm not sure that takes us in the right direction.)

The call comes from the editors of the Journal of Animal Ethics, a new academic publication devoted to the issue.

It is edited by the Revd Professor Andrew Linzey, a theologian and director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, who once received an honorary degree from the Archbishop of Canterbury for his work promoting the rights of “God’s sentient creatures”.

Ah, that explains the brilliant branding work.  Here's my suggestion: "Reverend Professor" is too esteemed a title for this guy.  Who the hell does he think he is, walking around with an elitist title like that, like he's better than everyone else?  Are we supposed to revere the reverend?  Let's call him a companion animal too, just to keep everyone on an equal footing.

Let me be clear: I support the good and proper treatment of animals.  We need to do more, particularly with our factory farm system.  But since when has the terms "pet" and "wildlife" been used in derogatory manner?  The vast majority of pet-owners -- oops, I mean "human carers of companion animals" -- care quite a great deal about their pets.  Just look at how much we spend on our pets.  If anything, most people care more about their pets than other human beings.  Dear Journal of Animal Ethics, how do we get more people to treat other human beings as well as they treat their pets?  Now that would be moral progress.

In its first editorial, the journal – jointly published by Prof Linzey’s centre and the University of Illinois in the US – condemns the use of terms such as ”critters” and “beasts”.

HELLO?  What about the term "animal"?  Now that's definitely a word that has been used with derogatory connotations throughout history.  Maybe we could call them "sentient life-forms from the Kingdom of Animalia".  Much more of this and we're all gonna sound like the fucking Coneheads when we talk: "Greetings life partner and human carer.  I am going to ambulate with our companion sentient life-form from the Kingdom of Animalia, Fido.  Where did you put the scooper of poop?"

It argues that “derogatory” language about animals can affect the way that they are treated.

“Despite its prevalence, ‘pets’ is surely a derogatory term both of the animals concerned and their human carers,” the editorial claims.

Hey Coneheads, there's a short English word for "derogatory language" -- it's called a slur.  Does anybody not in academia, not affiliated with the Journal of Animal Ethics Journal of Sentient Life-Forms From the Kingdom of Animalia Ethics think that the word "pet" is a slur?  Or is typically used a slur?  No.  We're more likely to use it as a term of endearment with people we love.

“Again the word ‘owners’, whilst technically correct in law, harks back to a previous age when animals were regarded as just that: property, machines or things to use without moral constraint.”

Words, words, words -- how about judging people based on their actions?  The vast, vast, vast majority of pet-owners do treat their pets well, and there are animal cruelty provisions in place.  Perhaps the Reverend Professor Companion Animal Linzey would like to suggest that pets own themselves?  I'll make you deal: when dogs start to clean up their shit and pay their own way, I'll support an Amendment to the Constitution to give them their freedom and the right to vote.  Just like we do with baby humans, more or less -- fair is fair. 

It goes on: “We invite authors to use the words ‘free-living’, ‘free-ranging’ or ‘free-roaming’ rather than ‘wild animals’

“For most, ‘wildness’ is synonymous with uncivilised, unrestrained, barbarous existence.

“There is an obvious prejudgment here that should be avoided.”

YES!  EXACTLY!  That's why this site is about how to "live wild in the modern world", why my book title is "Live Wild", and why there's so much wildlife imagery.  The Good Professor and I agree: it's because "wildness" is synonymous with uncivilized, unrestrained, barbarous existence -- WHICH IS AWESOME AND HEALTHY FOR YOU.

Prof Linzey and his co-editor Professor Priscilla Cohn, of Penn State University in the US, also hope to see some of the more colourful terms in the English language stamped out.

Phrases such as “sly as a fox, “eat like a pig” or “drunk as a skunk” are all unfair to animals, they claim.

They just Jumped the shark with that one.  (Wait, is that insulting to sharks?)  Rather than leech all the color from our language (wait, is that insulting to leeches?), how about we respect and honor animals for their positive qualities?  Fast as a cheetah, wise as an owl, eagle eyes, and yes, snake-bit (no offense!).  We don't need fewer idioms about animals, WE NEED MORE.  Let us regain the Native American ethic of revering the speed, strength, power, and intelligence of animals.  Let us not move further away, let us move closer.

“We shall not be able to think clearly unless we discipline ourselves to use less than partial adjectives in our exploration of animals and our moral relations with them," they say.

It all sounds so Orwellian.  I don't care what you word you use to refer to your dog, and neither does your dog.  What I care about, and what your dog cares about, is whether it's treated well or cruelly.  And if there's a pet problem in this country, it's that we treat our pets too much like humans and don't treat them enough like the species they are.

I quoted the full article, but you can find it here.  Thanks to CJG for the pointer.