Archives
May 2008
5/31/08
5/30/08
5/30/08
5/29/08
5/29/08
5/27/08
5/24/08
5/23/08
5/23/08
5/22/08
5/22/08
5/20/08
5/20/08
5/18/08
5/16/08
5/16/08
5/15/08
5/15/08
5/14/08
5/14/08
5/12/08
5/12/08
5/12/08
5/10/08
5/10/08
5/9/08
5/9/08
Ideas, Anyone? (Reply)
5/8/08
5/8/08
5/6/08
5/5/08
5/3/08
5/2/08
5/2/08
5/1/08
5/1/08
Friday, May 9, 2008
9:41:00 AM EDT
Written by mandy787 Blog about this entry |
Add to del.icio.us | 
digg this
9:41:00 AM EDT
Ideas, Anyone? (Reply)
(Picture Above: Shana -- One of our latest rescues, picked up yesterday. Sweet and loving Lab/Shepherd mix dumped by a family after 6 years. People now claim "No Time" for their dog.)
Jmuhjacat Writes: Just think for a moment how some of us, anyway, feel when we are addressed disrespectfully and/or with profanity and/or insulting, denigrating terms. I, for one, get really, really angry. I don't like it. Neither do I like people referring to those I love as objects, "pets", or someTHING to be "owned".
Reply: I hear what you are saying and from a purely ideological stance, I agree. But, from the practical and pragmatic side, I don't.
Reality is, that too many people neither provide true "guardianship" or "caregiving" to their animals.
Are dogs chained up in backyards for their lives given any kind of "care?" Are cats allowed to freely roam outside (and therefore subject to becoming victims of cars, other animals, toxins or crazy, hostile neighbors) receiving "guardianship?"
I don't think so.
"Ownership" on the other hand, implies, if nothing else, certain legal obligation and value.
You "own" the animal, you are required under the law to provide food, water, medical care and shelter ("Caregiving" and "Guardianship" usually don't carry the same legal weight, value and often imply something of temporary duration).
We can't use "Parent" to describe relationship of human to animal (although that is how I see my relationship, legal and otherwise to my animals) and indeed, it seems a bit baffling to find the right word to describe the ideal human/animal legal and obligational bond. I agree that "ownership" is definitely not the ideal for all the reasons you state. But, to me it is at least heavier on obligation and responsibility than "guardianship" or "caregiving."
This might be a good question to pose to others: Can you think of a more appropriate, upgrading and respectful word to describe the ideal, but legally binding relationship between human and kept animals?
I have tried to think of this many times, but so far, have failed to come up with anything other than the substandard and inefficient words already out there.
Still, I think the reasons "guardianship" and "caregiver" haven't really caught on, are their weaknesses in legal obligation, value and commitment.
Ideas, anyone? -- PCA
Written by mandy787 Blog about this entry |
Add to del.icio.us | digg this
This entry has 3 comments: (Add your own)
-
...ah, yes, but ownership implies that the THING (emphasis mine) OWNED is somehow inferior to the one owning. Having ancestors who were OWNED by other people, I do take personal and deep exception to the concept as applied to ANY living being.
To me, the cats in my care are beloved family members. That's the only way I see them, the only way I deal with them, and the only way I feel comfortable referring to them. What the society I live in sees them (or anyone or anything else) as, is their problem. I still have autonomy over my own life, my own mind, my own vocabulary, and my own actions, and as long as I do, I will continue to say, think, and do what is right and comfortable for me and those I love.
If more people did so, things WOULD change. -
I've also tried this exercise -- with the same result.
Legally, animals are property, and the "owner" tag emphasizes the responsibilities attached.
"Guardian" and "caregiver" or "caretaker" might _sound_ nice, but they don't reflect legal or practical reality: They imply that the animal is at least partly responsible for him/herself, and that the human is just helping out in select areas.
"Parent" doesn't work at all. It applies only to same-species offspring -- and it exacerbates the image of animal-lovers as flakes who view animals as "people substitutes."
"Owner" is imperfect, but it works. And, anyway -- we "own" the responsibility, since most domestic animals wouldn't exist if humans hadn't selected, bred, and cared for them ... esp. since we bred so many human-dependent, survival-averse traits into them. (It's not as if chihuahuas, poodles, dachsunds, Siamese, et al spontaneously popped up on the African savanna or the Great Plains, and we're just tending to the result of Natural Selection.)
The animals don't care _what_ we tag them with. But "owner" at least reminds people of their own responsibilities.
5/9/08 11:26 PM
Unfortunately, changing the terms we use for animals won't change their legal status. Saying "my dog is family" won't overcome some bad or underprotective law: We have to change the laws/rules first. (Real life isn't like those "TV courts," where you can talk judges into making new rules.) To do this, we have to show how a change will benefit _everyone_.
Sad example: In rescue/recovery efforts, the first rule is "Human life comes first." But disaster planning now includes companion animals, for practical reasons: FEMA learned (via "Katrina") that if you force people to abandon their animals, they'll refuse rescue, dodge rules, regard all "authority" as suspect, and-or suffer deep and lasting trauma. And all of this impedes human rescue and recovery.
It's hard to come up with a workable legal status for companion animals. One idea is to tag them as "enhanced property." This acknowledges that they aren't just things, and have huge emotional/relational importance to people. (The concept is still human-centric ... but then, so is the whole companion-animal thing.)