The controversy: A new academic journal wants animal lovers to stop calling their dogs, cats, and hamsters "pets." The term, argues the inaugural editorial of the Journal of Animal Ethics, is "derogatory." A less insulting alternative: "Companion animals." And never refer to yourself as an owner, because that's oppressive, too. You're a "human carer." The journal, published jointly by the Oxford Center for Animal Ethics and the University of Illinois, isn't just shielding domestic animals from hurtful language. Also discouraged: The insensitive terms "critter" and "beast," as well as phrases like "drunk as a skunk." Such abusive vocabulary, the editorial says, only encourages people to treat animals badly.
The reaction: "You'd have to be crazier than a loon, if not downright batty, to buy into this monkey business," says Jonah Goldberg, none too subtly, at National Review. "I'm all for treating animals humanely," but this excessive bit of political correctness is ridiculous. OK, it would be a bit silly if Petsmart changes its name to Companionanimalmart, says Jonathan Turley at FavStocks. But, come to think of it, even the morally acceptable term seems a bit insulting. "It suggests that my dog Molly is accompanying me rather than the opposite. I prefer 'non-human associate being.'"
THE WEEK'S AUDIOPHILE PODCASTS: LISTEN SMARTER
- 43 TV shows to watch in 2014
- The latent sexism of the male marriage proposal
- Bush vs. Clinton in 2016 is the perfect way to make millennials hate politics even more
- After Ferguson: Stop deferring to the cops
- This judge is the reason we're still fighting over net neutrality
- Is it now OK to have sex with animals?
- The hilarious hypocrisy of Republicans complaining about the imperial presidency
- How to be the most productive person in your office — and still get home by 5:30 p.m.
- The week's best photojournalism
- Diagnosing the Home Alone burglars' injuries: A professional weighs in
Subscribe to the Week