o sry had no idea terminology had that much of an effect on your relationship with your cat. :(
You know, if you think about it; guardian is kinda cold just like owner. brb starting my own movement against guardian and owner. I think I would like people to refer to those who care for pets as Parfaits. >8|
I think we should ask our pets for their opinion. I'm sure my cat would love me to be refered to as her slave. I wondere what kind of affection that would have on our relationship xD.
Your cat probably already does refer to you as her slave, don't kid yourself. lol I know mine most certainly do; especially the girl seeing as how I'm apparently her taxi service and will hold her no matter how much I think I won't. I think cats would love it if it was the official title.
Okay, to be serious now... I can actually see the argument. Language does have a transformative property, and how we label things does affect how we view/treat them. *studies this stuff, so.*
The catch is that I don't think changing the name is really going to change the way people who actually give a shit about their pets see their pets--many of them already use stronger, more parental terms when referring to themselves in relation to their pets to begin with (e.g. "catmommy"). The big difference that I can imagine is that the term "guardian," which implies responsibilty over a living ward, might give people a bit more pause before neglecting or over-collecting pets. But that's only if the phrasing catches on.
TL;DR - I don't think it's silly, but I also wonder if such a movement would catch on.
Don't say that too loud. They might hear you and attack. :o
I think you misunderstood what I meant by silly. I meant that in the grand scale of things, what people who care for animals are called is trivial. I mean, the very process of acquiring a pet is often referred to as adopting an animal rather than some other term that would indicate an exchange in property. So, either someone is going to have a pet and treat it with the utmost care and respect or they're going to treat it like dirt to begin with. And as you said, so many people often use different terms that the need to eradicate the word "owner" seems a little senseless in a way. But there is no denying that wording and language have such a powerful impact. That's why we have so many synonyms for things; because although it means the same thing there's something else behind words that indicate attitude/affection towards the subject. :)
lol but seriously. I agree with this. It's a bit silly to worry about the wording of the pet-person relationship, especially when there are more important things, like animal abuse and pet overpopulation, to worry about. Worrying about wording seems so...PC.
Why don't they worry about it after dealing with other problems such as the aforementioned ones you've given? I personally find those to be a little more pressing.
Personally I think animal rights activists could put their time to much better use. It's just a word the animals don't even understand the word, it makes no difference to them. I think as long as you treat them right it doesn't matter what word you use.
I really don't think it matters either. Like you, I feel like my dog is part of the family and whether I'm known as an owner or a parent isn't going to change the way I treat her~
Exactly. :) My babies are my babies no matter what the law says. And quite honestly, the law as it stands treats pets as property but in the case of kids, a lot of states put them in the property settlement on paper. And if it matters that much to people involved, they can set up a custody agreement with the pets and have visitations and stuff -- just like you would for children.
Comments 12
Reply
You know, if you think about it; guardian is kinda cold just like owner. brb starting my own movement against guardian and owner. I think I would like people to refer to those who care for pets as Parfaits. >8|
Reply
I wondere what kind of affection that would have on our relationship xD.
Reply
I think cats would love it if it was the official title.
Reply
Okay, to be serious now... I can actually see the argument. Language does have a transformative property, and how we label things does affect how we view/treat them. *studies this stuff, so.*
The catch is that I don't think changing the name is really going to change the way people who actually give a shit about their pets see their pets--many of them already use stronger, more parental terms when referring to themselves in relation to their pets to begin with (e.g. "catmommy"). The big difference that I can imagine is that the term "guardian," which implies responsibilty over a living ward, might give people a bit more pause before neglecting or over-collecting pets. But that's only if the phrasing catches on.
TL;DR - I don't think it's silly, but I also wonder if such a movement would catch on.
Reply
I think you misunderstood what I meant by silly. I meant that in the grand scale of things, what people who care for animals are called is trivial. I mean, the very process of acquiring a pet is often referred to as adopting an animal rather than some other term that would indicate an exchange in property. So, either someone is going to have a pet and treat it with the utmost care and respect or they're going to treat it like dirt to begin with. And as you said, so many people often use different terms that the need to eradicate the word "owner" seems a little senseless in a way. But there is no denying that wording and language have such a powerful impact. That's why we have so many synonyms for things; because although it means the same thing there's something else behind words that indicate attitude/affection towards the subject. :)
Reply
Long answer: IAWTC
lol but seriously. I agree with this. It's a bit silly to worry about the wording of the pet-person relationship, especially when there are more important things, like animal abuse and pet overpopulation, to worry about. Worrying about wording seems so...PC.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment