Is the Word "Pet" Harmful and Demeaning to Animals?

Source: Peter Griffin CC(0)

According to PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) the use of the word "pet" is patronizing to animals, and may lead to animal abuse. They are telling us that this offensive word should be struck from our language and replaced with the term "companion animal."

In fact, there are a lot of common words, phrases, and idioms that PETA wants us to change, illustrated by the fact that they have released a new package of materials aimed at elementary-school teachers based upon their revisionist guidelines for language use. The package comes with a collection of printable posters each containing a bright, cartoonish, illustration along with PETA's suggestion for replacing some common English language phrases.

PETA prefaces their new package of material explaining, "The words that we use have the power to influence those around us. Unfortunately, many of us grew up hearing common phrases that perpetuate violence toward animals, such as 'kill two birds with one stone,' 'beat a dead horse,' and 'bring home the bacon.' These old sayings are often passed down in classrooms during lessons on literary devices."

They then present a list of "harmful" phrases with their suggested "helpful" replacement versions. For example:

• "Kill two birds with one stone" becomes "Feed two birds with one scone."
• "More than one way to skin a cat" becomes "More than one way to peel a potato."
• "Beat a dead horse" becomes "Feed a fed horse."
• "Take the bull by the horns" becomes "Take the flower by the thorns."
• "Be a guinea pig" becomes "Be a test tube."
• "Hold your horses" becomes "Hold the phone."
• "Let the cat out of the bag" becomes "Spill the beans."
• "Open a can of worms" becomes "Open Pandora's box."
• "Bring home the bacon" becomes "Bring home the bagels."
• "Packed in like sardines" becomes "Packed in like pickles."
• "On a wild goose chase" becomes "Out chasing rainbows."
• "Eat crow" becomes "Eat humble pie."
• "Ants in your pants" becomes "Pepper in your pants."

According to PETA, it is not only animals that are alive but things that might ultimately become animals, like eggs, which apparently need linguistic protection from abuse. Thus they suggest:

• "Walk on eggshells" becomes "Walk on broken glass."
• "Put all your eggs in one basket" becomes "Put all your berries in one bowl."

Some of their suggestions seem to come completely out of left field with no potentially abusive context whatsoever. For example, they want us to replace "Cry over spilled milk" with "Cry over burnt toast." No one seems to be able to explain to me why milk needs protection from possible abusers and therefore why any idioms associated with it need to be revised.

Jennifer White of the UK branch of PETA went on a popular television show "Good Morning Britain" in what turned out to be a lively segment with hosts Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid. White argued that people should not call themselves "pet owners" but rather use terms like "guardians" or "human carers," because the use of the word "owner" implies that their pets are merely property and that idea can lead many people to simply abandon their animals. When Morgan asked her what was wrong with the idiom "one trick pony" White replied "Ponies aren't here to do tricks for us. They are their own individual animals." According to her, "Weasel my way out" should be discarded because it implies that weasels are sneaky and distrustful animals. On the other hand some phrases like "elephant in the room" are okay.

As part of the interview, White made it clear that the word "pet" was demeaning to animals. Here she was clearly following the established line of thinking set out by PETA's founder, Ingrid Newkirk who compared calling animals "pets" to calling women "sweetie" or "honey". [My wife has been calling me "pet" and sometimes "sweetie" for 42 years, and, according to PETA, I have not been intelligent enough to recognize that she has been systematically demeaning, degrading, and abusing me by such actions.]

Following White's TV appearance, there was a storm of tweets, mostly calling PETA's efforts on this linguistic front "silly" or worse. PETA replied, tweeting, "As we come to learn more and more about animals it's time that we start phasing out harmful words that trivialize animal abuse or perpetuate this idea that animals are objects." They followed up with a reference to an article which appeared in The Journal of Animal Ethics in 2011 which PETA claims demonstrates how the derogatory words "pets" or "pests" affect the way we treat these animals. Unfortunately, the article that they refer to is an opinion piece, basically an editorial, which contains not one scrap of empirical data to support the idea that the use of the word "pet" in any way results in the maltreatment of animals.

An interesting side note is that during her television interview, White was asked if she knew the origin of the word "pet." She did not. In fact, the word "pet" dates back to the 16th century and can be traced to Scotland and Northern England. It was originally used to refer to "a domestic or tamed animal kept for companionship or pleasure." Over the years the word has evolved so that if you now look up the word in most dictionaries it will include signs of positive emotion such as "a term used when talking to someone in a friendly manner" or "someone who you give special treatment to because you are particularly fond of them." Apparently the lexicographers who compile our dictionaries find that the word "pet" reflects positivity and affection and is not the reservoir of evil and abuse that PETA seems to think it is.

Animal Behavior Essential Reads

Veterinary Psychiatry: A Field in Formation

Chimpanzee the Hunter

Copyright SC Psychological Enterprises Ltd. May not be reprinted or reposted without permission