Pet Peeves

So far, political correctness has been a mode of self-governed restraint whose enforcement power stemmed from the weight of public opinion. Over the years, though, its influence has extended far beyond taboos on racist, casteist, sexist and other slurs to include genderist, ageist, weightist, heightist and many other markers of distinctness. It was only a matter of time, therefore, before the PC brigade turned its attention to the animal kingdom. It is difficult, however, to discern how a new academic publication called J o u r n al o f A n i m al E t h i c sarrived at the PC conclusion that the word ‘pet’ is insulting and should be replaced by the term “companion animal”. Did Rex and Moti write to them conveying that they want a term that sounded more professional?

Pet, after all, does imply a cloying, non-purposeful existence that could be damaging to furry and feathered self-esteem . Was a referendum conducted among the usual ‘pets’ , dogs, cats, etc, on what they preferred to be called? Were snooty poodles, sybaritic Siamese cats and regal macaws asked whether they want their human pets (we cannot disregard the possibility that they regard us as such) to be given the rather plebian designation of ‘human carers’ as the journal proposes? Were all the other species that also inhabit the earth polled too, considering the term ‘wildlife’ has been deemed equally derogatory ? The journal considers the prospect of alternative terms such as ‘free-living’ , ‘free-ranging’ or ‘free-roaming’ — with their popular allusions to bohemians, chickens and mobile phones — not going down well with the animal world. Of course, that would mean presuming animals are as concerned about political correctness as we are. In which case, why can we not just call them all human, doing away with that most basic discrimination?