Once Again, PETA Angers People—This Time By Suggesting To Ban The Word ‘Pet’
Being a linguist is tough. No, it’s not because it’s hard to find a job after graduation. In fact, contrary to a joke I read online based on a perceived stereotype, every single linguist I know has a job.
No, it’s because people love to argue about language. More specifically, it refers to all of those situations when those who consider language a tool for communication come together with language purists. At this point, situations like these do feel like a never-ending story. And PETA is now in the center of it.
PETA is notorious for its questionable activism and their current call for avoiding terminology is no different
Image credits: Ajay Goyal
Recently, the animal rights activist group PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) came out with a statement calling for everyone to stop using the word pet to refer to their animal companions (animal companions being one of their preferred alternatives) because the former is deemed derogatory.
To elaborate, PETA’s take on the issue is based on an article titled Terms of Discourse included in the Journal of Animal Ethics. The article explains that words like pet, critter, beast, brute, and bestial are considered derogatory terms of past thought. And as, according to them, language is an inherent part of the way we view the world and everything in it, these words ought to be changed for more egalitarian ones.
The organization has moved to switch from calling our animal companions as “pets”
Image credits: Frank Shepherd
In a public statement on the matter, PETA said this: “The way people talk about animals directly affects how we think about and treat them. Researchers determined that words like ‘critter,’ ‘beast,’ and ‘pet’ are derogatory and suggests using the much more respectful ‘companion.’” PETA also rejected the use of terms like owner as pets are not proprietary objects and suggested using guardian or human carer.
Ingrid Newkirk, the founder of PETA, explained that such derogatory words connote commodity and decoration, when in reality these are living, breathing, and loving companions. According to Newkirk, in the same way that words like sweety make women feel less like people, the word pet is just as condescending to animals.
According to PETA, “pets” is considered a derogatory term and should thus be replaced by animal companion
Image credits: Aoshi
PETA also said that they have been extremely careful with their word usage when talking about animal companions. They believe that making a small, but nonetheless important, change in the way they refer to pets using different terms will eventually influence people to become mindful of the animal’s personalities, needs, and desires.
On the one hand, they are right in thinking this. Lera Boroditsky, Associate Professor of Cognitive Science at UCSD, explained that language actually does shape the way we think. She provided ample support for the idea and even explained that people don’t need a lab to understand this—it’s enough to go to an art gallery and to see depictions of abstract concepts such as death, sin, and victory. Just the idea that these differ in gender between languages already explains the impact language has on our worldview.
They are also asking to avoid calling ourselves “owners”, but rather say “guardian” or “human carer”
Image credits: G. Dawson
On the other hand, there are others who claim that the question of language shaping the way we think is much more complicated than some might think. It’s more of a chicken or egg debate, and they put it best: “Are you unable to think about things you don’t have words for, or do you lack words for them because you don’t think about them?” There are also tradition, lifestyle, culture, and other aspects that shape the way we think and talk that complicate the matter.
There are dozens of other opinions on the matter, with some thinking that PETA shouldn’t waste their time with the terminology, while others claim that language is just a tool, and as long as their words are functional and not culturally derogatory, then they will continue using them. Yet some think all of this is ridiculous.
While there are supporters for this move, many still consider PETA’s call for change ridiculous
Image credits: Manu Praba
What are your thoughts on the matter? Let us know in the comments below.
Here’s how the internet reacted, with many taking it as a joke and thus responding in the same way
PETA spends almost none of their money to actually protect animals. They spend it on smear campaigns and pres releases about semantics.
Good point! How many PETA Shelters do you see in our neighborhoods?
Load More Replies...
I am probably going to get downvoted, but right now I really don't care. My sister, who has epilepsy, has been fighting for almost five years to get her disability because working is really hard for her and this is the issue that a bunch of stupid, ignorant a******s thought was more important. When our pets start paying their own bills and buying their own food and helping with chores around the house, then we can talk about calling them something else. Until then, can we please please focus on some actual legitimate damn problems.
I object to the word "own" when it comes to pets. I don't own my family dog, I am her caregiver. In any event, I think using the word "'pet" is the least of the problems that animals face and PETA again shows how ridiculous they are.
PETA does and says ridiculous things all the time, I’ve never taken them seriously. From claiming milk causes autism to claiming dog shows are the KKK
What a b******t... Naming something different does not make it better. Just if you REALLY do things different (feel, treat, handle, care...) It will change! I can have a "pet" and still can care best. Words will change nothing, deeds will.
I am offended that they refer to us as People I think we should be called Humans!
Funny enough I call people humans. It is also my favorite pronoun.
Load More Replies...
Petards really need to shut it. I love animals, have many pets and I eat meat. The two are not mutually exclusive. I don't know how they can still operate based on the fact that they have stolen and killed people's pets while lecturing to the masses not to eat meat and not to call pets pets. They may have started out with truly good intentions, but now they're just full blown batshit militant thundercunts.
My cats also enjoy eating meat. They are obligate carnivores. Per Wikipedia: "Obligate or "true" carnivores are those whose diet requires nutrients found only in animal flesh. While obligate carnivores might be able to ingest small amounts of plant matter, they lack the necessary physiology required to digest it. In fact, some obligate carnivorous mammals will only ingest vegetation for the sole purpose of its use as an emetic, to self-induce vomiting of the vegetation along with the other food it had ingested that upset its stomach. Obligate carnivores include ... all felids (including the domestic cat) which require a diet of primarily animal flesh and organs. Specifically, cats have high protein requirements and their metabolisms appear unable to synthesize essential nutrients such as retinol, arginine, taurine, and arachidonic acid; thus, in nature, they must consume flesh to supply these nutrients."
Load More Replies... 
I agree with them on the term "owner" and when referring to that position, I don't say "the dog's owner," I say, "the dog's person." I think that owner does make them sound too much like possessions, which they aren't. I don't really have a problem with the world pet because I think it is in a way just another word like "brother," "sister," or "baby". I consider my dog my brother since I have grown up with him and my rats and dove are my babies, but I do still call them my pets when talking to people because it makes things easier. I say this whenever PETA is mentioned because many people don't know it, but PETA DOESN'T REPRESENT VEGANISM! I'm a vegan and I don't love the company or want it to be what people think of when talking about veganism. They do have the right end goal (one I completely agree with - no animal abuse or exploitation) but they don't go about it the right way.
PETA spends almost none of their money to actually protect animals. They spend it on smear campaigns and pres releases about semantics.
Good point! How many PETA Shelters do you see in our neighborhoods?
Load More Replies... I am probably going to get downvoted, but right now I really don't care. My sister, who has epilepsy, has been fighting for almost five years to get her disability because working is really hard for her and this is the issue that a bunch of stupid, ignorant a******s thought was more important. When our pets start paying their own bills and buying their own food and helping with chores around the house, then we can talk about calling them something else. Until then, can we please please focus on some actual legitimate damn problems.
I object to the word "own" when it comes to pets. I don't own my family dog, I am her caregiver. In any event, I think using the word "'pet" is the least of the problems that animals face and PETA again shows how ridiculous they are.
PETA does and says ridiculous things all the time, I’ve never taken them seriously. From claiming milk causes autism to claiming dog shows are the KKK
What a b******t... Naming something different does not make it better. Just if you REALLY do things different (feel, treat, handle, care...) It will change! I can have a "pet" and still can care best. Words will change nothing, deeds will.
I am offended that they refer to us as People I think we should be called Humans!
Funny enough I call people humans. It is also my favorite pronoun.
Load More Replies... Petards really need to shut it. I love animals, have many pets and I eat meat. The two are not mutually exclusive. I don't know how they can still operate based on the fact that they have stolen and killed people's pets while lecturing to the masses not to eat meat and not to call pets pets. They may have started out with truly good intentions, but now they're just full blown batshit militant thundercunts.
My cats also enjoy eating meat. They are obligate carnivores. Per Wikipedia: "Obligate or "true" carnivores are those whose diet requires nutrients found only in animal flesh. While obligate carnivores might be able to ingest small amounts of plant matter, they lack the necessary physiology required to digest it. In fact, some obligate carnivorous mammals will only ingest vegetation for the sole purpose of its use as an emetic, to self-induce vomiting of the vegetation along with the other food it had ingested that upset its stomach. Obligate carnivores include ... all felids (including the domestic cat) which require a diet of primarily animal flesh and organs. Specifically, cats have high protein requirements and their metabolisms appear unable to synthesize essential nutrients such as retinol, arginine, taurine, and arachidonic acid; thus, in nature, they must consume flesh to supply these nutrients."
Load More Replies... I agree with them on the term "owner" and when referring to that position, I don't say "the dog's owner," I say, "the dog's person." I think that owner does make them sound too much like possessions, which they aren't. I don't really have a problem with the world pet because I think it is in a way just another word like "brother," "sister," or "baby". I consider my dog my brother since I have grown up with him and my rats and dove are my babies, but I do still call them my pets when talking to people because it makes things easier. I say this whenever PETA is mentioned because many people don't know it, but PETA DOESN'T REPRESENT VEGANISM! I'm a vegan and I don't love the company or want it to be what people think of when talking about veganism. They do have the right end goal (one I completely agree with - no animal abuse or exploitation) but they don't go about it the right way.
-9
35