Academics: calling animals 'pets' is insulting

The call comes from the editors of then Journal of Animal Ethics, a new academic publication devoted to the issue. ...

In its first editorial, the journal – jointly published by Prof Linzey’s centre and the University of Illinois in the US – condemns the use of terms such as ”critters” and “beasts”.  It argues that “derogatory” language about animals can affect the way that they are treated.

“Despite its prevalence, ‘pets’ is surely a derogatory term both of the animals concerned and their human carers,” the editorial claims.  “Again the word ‘owners’, whilst technically correct in law, harks back to a previous age when animals were regarded as just that: property, machines or things to use without moral constraint.”

It goes on: “We invite authors to use the words ‘free-living’, ‘free-ranging’ or ‘free-roaming’ rather than ‘wild animals’

“For most, ‘wildness’ is synonymous with uncivilised, unrestrained, barbarous existence.

“There is an obvious prejudgment here that should be avoided.”  [h/t WeaselZippers]

Exit question: What's more insulting -- being called a "pet" or your "carer" having to clean up a pet's excrement? Until these "free-living" animals can do it themselves, I think we should stick with the "pet" and "master" labels, thank you.