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
- How academia's liberal bias is killing social science
- Why Pakistan won't hunt down the terrorists within its borders
- How to be the most productive person in your office — and still get home by 5:30 p.m.
- 43 TV shows to watch in 2014
- Pope Francis' American problem
- What would a U.S.-Russia war look like?
- Why TheWeek.com is closing the comments section
- Diagnosing the Home Alone burglars' injuries: A professional weighs in
- A brief history of the Christmas present
- Sorry, GOP, tax cuts don't pay for themselves
Subscribe to the Week