Do you like this story?
‘Mommy’? What tiny changes mean in the language of love
By Dr. Narda Robinson
April 22, 2009
What do you call your four-legged friend? Property, soul mate, child? As our connections to animals deepen, so change the terms we employ to describe this growing relationship. In that language shapes thought, the names we choose to voice our feelings may predict how our lives together unfold.
But which words accurately describe this relationship? Obviously, no human has yet given birth to a cat, dog, rabbit, or bird, and some recoil at the utterance of phrases like “pet parents.” On the other hand, as one author wrote, “…[T]he love between person and pet is undeniably pure.” Perhaps we lack a suitable term to aptly describe this sacred connection that arguably approximates, if not sometimes supersedes, the human-human bond. If we are willing to call pets part of the family, then who’s who?
Think you’re an “owner”? Think again. The term “guardian” is increasingly replacing “owner” across the country, because animals as sentient beings bring much more to a family than do objects one owns, like a book or a phone. As stated by Elliot Katz, a veterinarian who founded In Defense of Animals, “…the semantic and moral difference – an owner buys, a guardian adopts or rescues – will plant the seeds of a new ethic of compassion and respect for animals.… Just as you don’t buy a member of your family, animals should not be bought like inanimate objects with no interests or feelings of their own. By not buying an animal, the number of animals purposely bred for profit – an correspondingly, the number of animals dying in shelters – will decline. The concept of “guardian” supports this ethic.” In addition to several municipalities in California, cities such as St. Louis, Boulder, Amherst and Sherwood, Arkansas, have reclassified pets, raising a host of legal questions and possible consequences related to responsibilities and rights. The name change admittedly has drawn critics, however, including antipathy from various veterinary organizations.
A recent ethical inquiry focused on the responsibilities humans have to dogs in our society, exploring four possible ways of viewing the relationship between dogs and humans: master-slave, employer-worker, parent-child, and friend-friend. The canine appearance has changed following domestication, and dogs now exhibit traits that appear much softer and more juvenile than their wild ancestors. They more often enjoy playing and cuddling, as well. The author of this paper argued, “The fact that we have welcomed them voluntarily in our household [i.e., removed them from the wild], together with this vulnerability, implies that we have responsibilities towards them that extend the responsibilities we have towards wild animals and are more like the responsibilities we have towards our children.”
Adoption takes all forms. Many of us have seen images of tigers adopting piglets or dogs cuddling fawns abound on the Internet. But, has a non-human ever mothered a human? But, have animals ever “adopted” a human? Reaching back into history, at least one broadly recognized portrayal of a canid mother adopting human children persists today.
Consider the story of Romulus and Remus, the orphaned boys who supposedly founded Rome in 753 BCE. Legend has it that a “she-wolf” raised the boys whom she found stranded on the banks of the Tiber River. The image of a wolf suckling the twins has enduring appeal, ranging from a logo for one of Rome’s soccer teams, to the insignia for Boston Latin School, the oldest public high school in the United States. While the factual basis of a she-wolf raising two boys remains unknown, this evocative and ancient image of cross-fostering endures.
Several surveys support the statement that we treat our animals “much like children.” Eighty percent refused to give their animal away even if they were allergic to their animals. Eighty-four percent of respondents referred to themselves as their animal’s mom or dad.8 Sixty-three percent celebrated their furry friend’s birthday, and 43 percent presented a wrapped gift.
With more of us regarding our companions as children or otherwise close family members, the number of people establishing bequests or trust arrangements for our animals after we die has likewise grown. Many states, including Florida, Colorado, North Carolina, Utah, and Alaska, have implemented laws allowing for the establishment of trusts for the care and maintenance of animals throughout the remainder of their lives, including the appointment of a trust protector to ensure proper enforcement of the trust.
Deciding who will care for the animals after divorce can become one of the bitterest elements of a break-up, with more people seeking legal assistance to settle disputes. Much like child custody battles, decisions include details of where the animal companion will live, and tension over how the “ex” treats the animal can take hold.
Physicians and veterinarians have for decades recognized the value of the human-animal bond and the depth of sorrow that ensues following a beloved animal’s passing. Many now acknowledge that the loss of a pet results in a grieving process akin to the loss of a child or other family member. In a 1986 issue of the Western Journal of Medicine, a medical doctor wrote, “[I]t is clear that the bonds between certain people and their pets are not unlike those between parents and children. Not yet well studied but intimated in the companion-animal literature is the idea that the loss of a beloved pet may create an owner response similar to that experienced with the death of a human loved one – that is, increased mortality or morbidity or even suicide in the bereaved.”
With the increasing role of pets as family members, so has the recognition that the loss of a pet is significant life event and associated with grief responses similar to the loss of human companion. The result has been the development of pet loss support services such as individual or family counseling and pet loss support groups and hotlines. This year marks the 25th anniversary of the Argus Institute at Colorado State University, whose clinical counselors offer support to people who are facing challenges surrounding their pet’s healthcare. As diverse as the characteristics, functions and personalities of our animal companion is our relationship to them, some of which identify themselves as their pet’s mom and dad, caregivers, companions or partners.
Ultimately, those of us who opt to for parental terminology may be shortchanging our relationships with animals. For me, although I refer to myself as “Mommy” when I talk to my cats and rabbit, I consider animals a conduit to spirituality; I always have, even as a child. I see the Divine more in the eyes of Nature’s creatures than anywhere else, be they domesticated or wild. I am happiest when I sit with them, eye to eye, souls touching. They teach me, they comfort me, they console me. It might make one wonder who’s really the caregiver, or guardian, after all.
(I would like to acknowledges the thoughtful input of Jane Shaw, DVM, PhD, for the information on pet-loss support.)
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
Still, it is important for me to retain my role as “owner” to ensure that I am able to make critical care decisions for my critters without government intervening to tell me the “right” way to do it. Two relatively recent and important examples of why and when this is essential are the change in accepted vaccination protocols and the many options available in choices of what to feed.
The 3-year vaccination protocol is growing in acceptance now, but it wasn’t that many years ago that I’d have been accused of “undervaccinating” my pets. If I was a “guardian” rather than an “owner”, the government might have taken control of that care decision by saying I was deficient in my role as “guardian” in that “undervaccination” and prosecuting me or taking my pets away so that they could be “properly vaccinated”.
Similarly, with the widespread acceptance of the idea that commercial kibble diets are “complete and balanced” and homecooking or feeding raw put your pet at some level of risk (and FDA officials are on record as making statements along these lines for pete’s sake!) my rights to make feeding choices for my pets could be taken away if I were defined as a “guardian” rather than an “owner”. The government could decide I was endangering my “charges” by feeding raw, and again there could be legal action taken to either force me to feed food that was “safe” and officially approved, or my animals could be taken from me.
Language is powerful, and in this case, language could endanger my rights to make my own choices on behalf of my pets. So no matter how light-heartedly I may call them my “kids”, when push comes to shove, I am their OWNER, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 22, 2009 @ 6:00 am
I refer to all my four-legged family members as furkids. It’s funny how easily I speak of them as children though - quite frequently I have been having a conversation with a friend when midway through someone will interrupt and say “OH! You’re talking about your DOG!”
For example, I always say “my oldest girl” or “my little man”…
As for me referring to my husband and I as mom and dad - I do so without any shame. I’ve actually been known to say to one of the furkids - “Just wait until your DAD hears what you did!!” And just as shamelessly, when my husband is busy making dinner he dismisses the dogs with a “go find mom!”
I defend my position by pointing out that in a pack the alpha male and female are generally the parents of the subordinate members - but in reality, we don’t have children - we prefer our pets. That doesn’t mean that we TREAT them like children… we treat them like dogs/cats/parrots or whatever species they happen to be. But it also doesn’t stop us from providing for them as if they were our children, and sharing experiences the same way.
Comment by Kim — April 22, 2009 @ 6:21 am
What can I say. I think my name says it all.
Comment by 2CatMom — April 22, 2009 @ 6:31 am
Pat - I am so glad you posted this. Every time I hear the term “Guardian” brought forward as the proper, politically correct term for our pets - my hackles go up (guess I’m more ‘guard dog’ than guardian).
Thank you for so nicely articulating why what seems like nothing more than a kinder, gentler way to refer to our pets is - in truth - an idea that could threaten the foundations of pet ownership.
Comment by Janeen — April 22, 2009 @ 6:49 am
This is an excellent post. Thanks for it.
I generally refer to myself as my pets’ mom, and I am almost the only mom that one of them has ever known, since he was rescued as a tiny kitten. But I suspect that they think of me as simply their human; they view “ownership” as a two-way street.
Comment by Amy — April 22, 2009 @ 6:58 am
I am not a pet parent and my pets are not furchildren. OTOH, they ARE beloved family members and I sometimes refer to myself as “mom” in a kidding way. I am their owner and caregiver. Guardian sounds odd to me and they ARE my property. I make the decisions about how and what to provide for them, make life and death decisions (wouldn’t I love to not have to make some of those!), and consider them in every aspect of my life.
I think we get into strange expectations and understanding of behavior when we think of them as little people in fursuits, and the trend of “parents” and “furchildren” definitely encourages that line of thinking.
Yes, it DOES offend me when someone refers to me as a pet parent, and I vote with my dollars.
Comment by Janet Boss — April 22, 2009 @ 7:12 am
This isn’t a hot-button issue for me, although I never framed it in terms of decisions being made for me about my pets’ care.
Personally, I like what the author of the Three Woofs and Woo Blog refers to herself as: The Food Lady.
Comment by Original Lori — April 22, 2009 @ 7:34 am
Food, nail-trim and poop-cleanup lady here.
I do refer to myself as “mommy” (and now, “gran”) but I know it’s just a lark. I do realize that mommy is a hominid and the pets are not. And after helping McKenzie through labor, I’m actually kind of relieved I never gave birth to anyone. (But I sometimes wish I’d adopted!)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 22, 2009 @ 7:39 am
At CSU where Dr Robinson teaches, the release forms have a place for the “guardian” to sign. I had to ask what they meant by that term, and then I crossed it out and replaced it with “owner”.
I didn’t appreciate the effort to force me to embrace a relationship with my pet that I do not accept. “Guardian” is a dangerous word, for the reasons TheOtherPat mentions. Surely we don’t have to accept creepy PETA/Orwellian language just to acknowledge that dogs are not the equivalant to stereos and other forms of inanimate property.
Comment by EmilyS — April 22, 2009 @ 7:43 am
Fort Collins is too close to Boulder, a/k/a “Berkeley of the Rockies.” :)
I HATE “guardian.” Won’t use it. “Pet parent” I use only in an informal, friendly setting, with warmth and humor.
I don’t really like “owner,” but that’s what I use formally. I bet the language will evolve and in 20 years we’ll have something else.
“Pet” I use because it fits in headlines; which “companion animal” does not. And because we inherited the name of the column, “Pet Connection.” And because it pisses off the animal-rights extremists. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 22, 2009 @ 7:51 am
Personally, I don’t find it matters how pet owners refer to themselves. I see poor parenting/leadership/ownership in dog “owners,” “guardians,” and “parents”. All can be equally guilty of overly permissive or punitive behavior with their pets.
No matter what label one uses, the rules for a healthy pet/owner relationship are the same: Healthy diet (in healthy portions), sufficient exercise - both mental and physical, rules and boundaries that are enforced with fairness and consistency and without fear or pain and, of course, love and affection.
My concern is that all of the focus on terminology takes away from the discussion of what a healthy pet/owner relationship is - one that provides for the pet’s overall physical and mental well-being.
Comment by sacdogtrainer — April 22, 2009 @ 7:53 am
I am my pets’ owner, not their guardian or mom, and they are not my furkids. As their owner, I am responsible for making decisions about their care that would be inappropriate or even illegal for me to make for other human beings.
Comment by Shelly — April 22, 2009 @ 8:08 am
“All can be equally guilty of overly permissive or punitive behavior with their pets.”
Comment by sacdogtrainer — April 22, 2009 @ 7:53 am
Youch. And maybe all can be as guilty of great training, love, and care for their pets.
Comment by Original Lori — April 22, 2009 @ 8:13 am
“Language is powerful, and in this case, language could endanger my rights to make my own choices on behalf of my pets. So no matter how light-heartedly I may call them my “kids”, when push comes to shove, I am their OWNER, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 22, 2009 @ 6:00 am “
Hear hear!!! And so it is here, too.
Comment by Anne T — April 22, 2009 @ 8:13 am
The first place I saw the term “pet parent” was in the PetsMart corporate annual report. It referred to the class of customers who could be guilted into buying any sort of useless overpriced crap, and plenty of it, through an appeal to guilt and cheap sentimentality.
No, that’s not the terminology used by the annual report— just the meaning behind their words.
I’ve seen big signs in their stores that declare “Dogs Need Clothes Too.” Just one example of the way that the idea of animals as imperfect children is sold to owners, with the aim of getting them to consume either “stuff” or ideology. (And, ummm … no they don’t. With the exception of tiny, hairless, and/or sick dogs who need a warm or waterproof coat to go outside. There is no Labrador who “needs” a $50 Steelers jersey. There isn’t even one who wants one. End of discussion.)
Ultimately it doesn’t matter in the larger world if Ichoose to call myself my dogs’ owner, Mommy, guardian, handler, or partner. It matters very much if powerful forces who are not me try to impose such terminology, especially if they are also trying to impose the concepts behind their words.
If I am my SAR dogs’ “guardian,” legally speaking, what about the barn cats? What about the pet laying hens? What about the semi-wild guineas? What about the 204 chicks in the basement who are going to be food in July? What possible basis does anyone other than me have for drawing a legal line between or through species, making some my property and others some disadvantaged class who don’t have the protections of a committed owner?
An irascible friend of mine (some here know him) was once startled when a woman referred to his sheepdog as his (the owner’s) “son.” Ick! His response? “I don’t boff dogs.”
My SAR dogs/farm dogs are full adults, fully dogs, and I love them for that. Some aspects of our social relationship are analogues to a parent and a grown child; most are not. To infantilize them is disrespectful, and denies both their maturity and their integrity as independent beings.
Comment by H. Houlahan — April 22, 2009 @ 8:14 am
This is not a hot button issue for me with the exception of “guardian”=adopt, “owner”=buy. I want to maintain my property rights, including my pets. Although it may sound cold to refer to my canine family members as “property”, that is what the law defines them as and I’m fine with that. It’s not like I’m calling them “dirty, rotten scoundrels” and anyway, I make sure they know they mean more to me than a piece of furniture. That’s what matters most to me - that I know and they know what the deal is. Whatever labels people want to hang on that relationship is ok as long as I maintain my rights.
Comment by YesBiscuit! — April 22, 2009 @ 8:18 am
Has anyone read Temple Grandin’s newest book? She argues that the way we interact with our dogs and cats is much more like an adult/pup relationship than a leader/subordinate relationship (a la Cesar Milan), since we have neotanized dogs. Sure, our grown-up dogs are adults, but they are much more like wolf pups than they are like wolf adults. Dr. Grandin doesn’t argue that we should treat our dogs or cats as replacements for human children, dressing them in clothes or toting them in baby carriages- she just points out that the type of relationship we have with pets is more like parent/child than it is like friend/friend or alpha/omega.
That said, I’ve never been able to convincingly use the furkid-type language with pet owners. I call myself my dog’s mom, and my mom calls her her granddoggy… But with clients in the hospital, I sound too fake when I try it.
Comment by Megan — April 22, 2009 @ 8:27 am
Ok - I have an admission here, after reading Heather’s comment about clothing. Marcie has no body fat and not a lot of coat. She gets cold when hanging out in the car when field training, when the others do not. I have put a blanket in her crate for her to snuggle into should she feel the need, but I also bought her a Barbour coat. Does she NEED it? Probably not. But I think it is just too cute and matches mine, so I bought it. I did get a discount at least! My dogs also have “collars of the month”. For my amusement obviously, since they don’t really care about them. It’s a way for me to express myself without wearing logo t-shirts all of the time!
Comment by Janet Boss — April 22, 2009 @ 8:28 am
Comment by sacdogtrainer — April 22, 2009 @ 7:53 am
Personally, I don’t find it matters how pet owners refer to themselves.
However, when the legal language (such as is found in city ordinances, etc.) changes “owner” to “guardian” (as has happened in some areas of the country), then it DOES matter. It matters a great deal. And that is something we all need to remain alert to.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 22, 2009 @ 8:47 am
And Heather should have known better. She knows my Zip - the crazy desert Kelpie with no undercoat or bodyfat. Zip needs a coat almost as much as any Xoloitzcuintle does, and IMO, she absolutely adores being a canine fashionista.
Just don’t make her work for that coat…
Comment by Janeen — April 22, 2009 @ 8:49 am
On an emotional level, I do consider my dogs and cats my children, members of my family. The depth of my love and care for them is profound. I certainly don’t think I “own” them the way I own my car.
But legally? Legally, I’m not my pets’ parent or guardian. If I could have the legal rights of a parent and child with my pets, fine. But what really seems to be happening is that my legal rights as my pets’ owner are being stripped, without being replaced by legal rights as a parent or LEGAL guardian.
Now, to a lot of people, this seems like a non-issue. But it’s not. Look at the animals lost during Katrina and other disasters; if that happened to me, could I get my dogs back from an animal welfare group or adopter? What if I was poor and black, and my dog was a pit bull? What if I, as indeed I do, don’t follow “recommended” vaccination protocols and feed my dogs raw diets? What if I use a holistic vet?
What if I’m a breeder?
Until this new warm fuzzy category of relationship between animals and humans is spelled out legally, I’m their owner. They’re my dogs and my cats. I may think of myself as their mom, and them as my kids, but I’ll fight to remain their legal owner, because that’s the strongest, surest way to make certain I can protect them, care for them as I think best, and keep them.
As for “caregiver,” I really can’t stand that term. It feels even more reductionist and soul-less than “owner.” My relationship with my pets is not one of caregiving, even though obviously I care for them. But they care for me as well. And legally, that one feels even less solid than “guardian,” which at least has a parallel in the law.
Seriously, before I’d agree to be my pets’ legal “caregiver,” I’d move.
Comment by Christie Keith — April 22, 2009 @ 8:49 am
The question is not whether it’s a bad thing to dress up dogs.
It’s projecting the dress-up onto the dog, as if he was a five-year-old girl playing princess.
Nothing wrong with a pit bull in a hockey jersey, if that amuses his owner and does not harm the dog.
Something very off about trying to convince owners that they are bad “pet parents” if they don’t buy fashionable clothes for the dog.
In addition to their regular safety orange working vests (100% practical) and orange “dress” vests for PR events and travel (100% symbolic), my two smaller SAR dogs have orange neoprene vests for working in the wet and cold, and red dog coats for rest time during bad weather. They “need” these because of what I’m asking them to do, and in what conditions. They’d probably live without them. I’d probably live without a goretex shell, too.
Comment by H. Houlahan — April 22, 2009 @ 8:51 am
When I was raising Otter last spring (I have the advantage of city socialization options, which my rancher friend Mary does not), I sometimes put a lycra vest on the puppy, because I thought it was cute.
The first thing Mary said when she saw it? “Get that damn thing off my dog. She’s not a child, and it looks ridiculous.”
:)
Actually, I suspect Mary and Houlie are separated at birth. Two hard-working former city girls with advanced degrees (Mary=PhD economics) who have always had dogs with jobs and now have property on which to work them.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 22, 2009 @ 8:53 am
I don’t believe that the word “guardian” itself has the power to change legal status. There may (or may not) be an agenda to do so, but it would take a separate effort.
Re: pets as children - a psychologist who spoke at the pet hospice symposium pointed out that we actually have no articulated construct for the human-“pet” relationship. That’s why we struggle with “like.” In fact, the parent-child attachment theories we use as points of comparison are themselves less than 100 years old, and theories of romantic attachment are even newer.
Comment by Barbara Saunders — April 22, 2009 @ 8:54 am
And Heather should have known better. She knows my Zip - the crazy desert Kelpie with no undercoat or bodyfat. Zip needs a coat almost as much as any Xoloitzcuintle does, and IMO, she absolutely adores being a canine fashionista.
I’m not the one who beamed an Australian orchid into the Great White North!
As for “adoring,” I give you exhibit A:
http://smartdogs.wordpress.com/2009/04/12/easter/
Comment by H. Houlahan — April 22, 2009 @ 8:55 am
Confession: I bought my mother a “My Grandson is a Pit Bull” mug once because it amused me.
Another confession: my pit bull bitch wears a fleece 24/7 in the winter so I don’t have to keep my house at 80 degrees for her comfort.
But largely the whole “pet parent” thing isn’t for me, and the “guardian” language scares me. Others have voiced concerns about diet, about vaccines. My biggest concern is that if I am “guardian” and not “owner”, is somebody going to be looking over my shoulder when the time comes for me to consider euthanasia for my animals. If I’m not allowed to let my grandma go when she is suffering and only wants peace that even drugs aren’t buying her, what is to guarantee that I will be allowed to let my dogs go when I say so, not when Big Brother deems acceptable?
Comment by katie — April 22, 2009 @ 8:56 am
If I could have the legal rights of a parent and child with my pets, fine.
But, Christie, if you had the legal rights of a parent/guardian over your pets, it would give you less autonomy in decision-making. We do not speuter our kids. We don’t leave them home alone while we work. We cannot euthanize them when they are terminally ill. We must make those decisions for our pets, but we cannot make them for our children.
As for coats/sweaters, Miss Freezy Boxer says they are not mere fashion accessories.
Comment by Shelly — April 22, 2009 @ 8:57 am
Winnie says “Minnesota gets colllld!”
http://img.photobucket.com/alb.....74C242.jpg
Comment by Megan — April 22, 2009 @ 9:05 am
I just gotta say: If Dr. Narda goes over 100 comment in her third post, I’m going to cry.
:)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 22, 2009 @ 9:10 am
I was under the impression that “guardian” and “caretaker” were terms favored by the Butcher of Norfolk and her AR ilk, and that these terms carry legal restrictions that “ownership” does not, hence the desire to have them used in place of the latter?
Comment by Anne T — April 22, 2009 @ 9:14 am
“As for “adoring,” I give you exhibit A”
Ah - H tossed a strawman. That’s not a coat - its a silly hat, and even Kelpies know that humans only put silly hats on dogs to mock them. Not being her guardian, I’m free to mock Zip as I please.
And as Megan correctly noted “Minnesota gets colllld!”
Comment by Janeen — April 22, 2009 @ 9:17 am
Comment by Barbara Saunders — April 22, 2009 @ 8:54 am
I don’t believe that the word “guardian” itself has the power to change legal status.
Barbara, the word “guardian” DOES have legal status. The legal folk here (Lis! Where are you?!) can dig out specific examples, but the one that springs immediately is “guardian ad litem”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_guardian
I’m sure there are other examples.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 22, 2009 @ 9:26 am
I lost my first pet two months ago, after eight wonderful, inspiring years together.
She was 11, a Mini Lop rabbit who (yes, “who!”) a family dumped when she three. She was smart, stubborn, communicative, confident, active, easy-going and affectionate. Healthy as a horse, with perfect bloodwork results even at that age!, until a double infection took her down. I have worked with hundreds of rabbits over the years, and have rarely seen any that approach her mix of qualities.
Over and over I would correct people that she was NOT my baby. I did not give birth to a rabbit. Actually, the relationship I had with my bunny feels more like the one I have with my elderly mother — the other short, easy-going, affectionate, dark-haired person in my life who depends on me quite a bit… and whom I expect to outlive, and dread the thought of losing.
I might be oversensitive to it, but I often heard a note of, call it minor mocking, in the term when people called my bunny my baby. I am not a parent, by choice, and I did not adopt my animals as child substitutes. I — get — that the relationship of human/animal is very different and much, much easier. My rabbits will never come home pregnant, call from jail, or total the car. I hope. They also won’t cart me to doctor appointments when I’m old. Probably.
When I lost my beloved rabbit, who inspired me eight years ago to do rescue and advocacy, I cried for three weeks at the loss of this extraordinary animal … and could start again right now. :-(
However, my cousin lost his CHILD last week. I’m sorry if this offends anyone, because I do not mean to, but I will never compare my grief to his. These are different relationships.
One more issue I have with this … I think when some people call their pets their babies, and truly see them as such, they have a very high risk of dumping those babies when the human ones come along. I don’t have any research to back this up … just a feeling, based on the 9 million Craigslist ads I’ve seen from people stating “having a baby soon, must find new home for dog/cat.”
Sigh.
Anyway, I appreciate the chance to weigh in on this topic, because I am a language nerd and this “baby” thing is one of my major hot buttons.
Comment by Mary Mary — April 22, 2009 @ 9:28 am
Interesting article, and comments…!
We’re like Kim up there^^, in that I do say *mom* and *dad* (and I have said “Wait till your DAD gets home!” on more than one occasion HA!!), but it’s more for a reference point, I guess. I surely don’t think in any way I am LITERALLY their parent. Kinda reminds me of how growing up, we were to always call our parents close friends Aunt XX or Uncle XX as a respectful form of address. Because they were closer to us than saying “Mrs XX”, but you never were to call an adult by just their first name either!
We are proud owners of three Gordons, and that is the exact wording I use when talking about them. Still doesn’t make then a book or a coffee table, though at times that might be nice… :))
And Dusty has some very fashionable sweaters, and likes the warmth (from when he was so sick, I guess?). Jake just gives me the hairy eyeball if I ever even try him… :)
Comment by Jakes World — April 22, 2009 @ 9:40 am
Oh nooooo - don’t tell Mary about the Barbour coat!
I have a student who brings foster pitbulls to my classes. On Sunday, during a shelter walk-a-thon, she brought one that she adopted to see us. White pitbull with a white eyelet dress with pink rosebuds on it, a pink collar with rhinestones and she looked downright adorable. Which was most of the idea. Instead of “scary pitbull” she was “cute dog” and many people gravitated to her instead of avoiding her. Her skin on her back was also protected from the sun (and issue with white pitbulls a LOT).
I saw a lot of interesting “dress” during that walk.
Comment by Janet Boss — April 22, 2009 @ 9:49 am
One more issue I have with this … I think when some people call their pets their babies, and truly see them as such, they have a very high risk of dumping those babies when the human ones come along. I don’t have any research to back this up … just a feeling, based on the 9 million Craigslist ads I’ve seen from people stating “having a baby soon, must find new home for dog/cat.”
Comment by Mary Mary — April 22, 2009
I have long noticed the same thing … it’s a phenomenon of young couples with “practice” children. I don’t know stats, but I do know Christie wrote about the topic, here.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 22, 2009 @ 9:53 am
A veterinary student told me once that before she started as a student at the vet school she thought it was stupid when people referred to pet owners as mom or dad. But that’s how the vet school personnel refer to clients, so the student ended up becoming comfortable with calling clients mom or dad of Fido or Fluffy.
I see the relationship as parallel to that of a parent to a human child: I am financially, medically, physically, and legally in charge of my pets. I sometimes introduce myself as “Ginger’s mom.” For me, it’s a good fit.
Comment by Phyllis DeGioia — April 22, 2009 @ 9:54 am
Many people have written to me to say thanks that we use the word “owner” and not “pet parent” or “pet guardian” at the Doggone Safe site (www.doggonesafe.com). They say they lose credibility with their clients if they send them to sites that use these terms that to many dog owners are simply ridiculous.
Comment by Joan Orr — April 22, 2009 @ 9:56 am
jiminy crickets: http://shop.cafepress.com/dog-mom
I had no idea.
Comment by Original Lori — April 22, 2009 @ 10:19 am
On the topic of ownership vs guardianship, you all might be interested in what North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners Alliance has to say, that is if you’re not already familiar with the site.
http://www.ncraoa.com/Guardians.html
Comment by Anne T — April 22, 2009 @ 10:27 am
Pat, I’m at work right now and can’t give this the time it needs. HOWEVER, there is clearly an agenda behind Ingrid’s use of “guardian”; you’re quite right that where the term guardian is used legally, it means a quite different legal status than the one that lets us make decisions like speutering or euthanasia.
But a municipal ordinance using that word doesn’t by itself do anything to change the legal status of cats and dogs as property. That’s a matter of both common law and state and federal statutes. There’s a huge body of law standing between non-human animals and the legal status that means that underage or mentally incompetent humans have guardians rather than owners.
Changing local ordinances to say “guardian” rather than “owner” is about gaining the mindshare that would get support for real changes to state and federal law, but in themselves do nothing directly to change that status.
With apologies to everyone whose ancestors were directly affected, think about how hard it was to change the legal status of African-Americans from property to citizens, and that despite the fact that, when permitted, they were able to argue for themselves.
I believe it is totally worthwhile to push back against the “guardian” nonsense, because of the whole mindshare thing. I don’t use it, I won’t sign legal documents using it without scratching it out and replacing it with “owner.” I’d actively oppose any effort to change local ordinance to say guardian.
But local ordinance no more actually changes that legal status than a local ordiance saying that a horse’s tail will be counted as a leg, and therefore a horse has five legs, would change the number of legs a horse has.
There is some vulnerability to the possibility of the kind of change needed to do that, because right now people are not happy with the legal status of their pets. This particular type of property forms strong emotional bonds with humans and is capable of fear, anxiety, pain, and suffering. If a pet is accidentally “damaged or destroyed,” we lose something more than if a chair or table (which may have had a significantly higher purchase price) is damaged or destroyed. If veterinary malpractice or a malicious act of “vandalism” by a stranger kills or injures our pets, few of us think that the “fair market value” of the pet or of a “replacement” is fair and adequate compensation.
So there’s a problem, and an issue that needs to be closely attended to. I’m not saying ignore the municipal changes to say “guardian” rather than “owner.” I’m just saying, understand that the wording of municipal codes is a question of mindshare, and not a direct legal threat to your ownership rights.
For myself, I’m happy with pet parent, as long as it comes from a commercial establishment of some kind that’s trying to sell me something, rather than a group witha more political agenda. When Petsmart says pet parent, they’re addressing the emotional relationship I have with my animals. As is the vet when we’re talking about care; when we’re signing contracts, e.g. for a spay surgery, that paper had better say “owner” or I’ll change it.
I call my pets my babies; “children” or “daughters” seems misleadingly humanizing, although I’m not sure that distinction makes logical sense. It’s just how I feel about the words, and I wouldn’t argue with someone who feels differently about the words. I’m their “mom,” and totally comfortable with that word, in describing our personal relationship, rather than our legal relationship.
Comment by Lis — April 22, 2009 @ 10:29 am
Excellent information, Lis!
And, to respond to the comment about the wording on the consent form that the CSU Veterinary Teaching Hospital has clients sign, I just checked and the first signature line asks for the “owner” to sign, and the second provides a line for the “agent” to sign, if the person bringing the animal in is not the “owner”. I didn’t think we went to “guardian”. However, one of our receptionists informed me that sometimes, when our Boulder clients check in, they do cross out “owner” and write “guardian”. And I think that’s completely fine. I like their spunk.
Comment by Dr.Narda — April 22, 2009 @ 10:42 am
“One more issue I have with this … I think when some people call their pets their babies, and truly see them as such, they have a very high risk of dumping those babies when the human ones come along.
Comment by Mary Mary — April 22, 2009”
I’ve thought this for some time, as well. What I have seen is that people who refer to their dogs as “babies” take it personally when the pet develops a behavior problem which often leads to punishment-based approaches, which causes further deterioration in the bond.
Comment by sacdogtrainer — April 22, 2009 @ 10:43 am
Comment by Lis — April 22, 2009 @ 10:29 am
Changing local ordinances to say “guardian” rather than “owner” is about gaining the mindshare that would get support for real changes to state and federal law
It’s a strategy of incrementalism. As you state, get people comfortable with the terminology and thinking it’s no big deal (gaining mindshare, as you put it) and then I believe it paves the way towards introduction of more invasive legal changes which it will now be harder to get the populace to stand up against because they’ve gotten comfortable with the language.
That’s why I stated we all need to remain alert to the useage of this language and object to it when it is used in contexts that could lead to some legal changes (such as striking out “guardian” and replacing with “owner” on documents as many of us do).
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 22, 2009 @ 10:45 am
“Youch. And maybe all can be as guilty of great training, love, and care for their pets.
Comment by Original Lori”
I think you’ve misunderstood. My point is not that all owners ARE guilty, but that the label they place on themselves is not an indication of the quality of the pet owner.
I’ve seen “dog moms” who are fantastic dog owners/trainers and “pack leaders” who I wouldn’t allow near my dog….and vice versa.
Unfortunately, NOT all are guilty of great training, love and care for their pets. Our shelters and rescues are a clear indication of that. Which goes back to my original point that it is education, not labels, that improves the quality of pet care.
Comment by sacdogtrainer — April 22, 2009 @ 10:49 am
I did misunderstand. :O)
Comment by Original Lori — April 22, 2009 @ 10:52 am
The mommy-daddy-furkids stuff creeps me out. Yeah, I do kiss my cats and speak in a high pitched voice to them, but I am not their mother and they are not children. They’re adult animals and if I treated a human child the way I treated them, I’d get thrown in jail.
I’m fine with “guardian” if that makes people feel good, but unless I can leave my estate in a trust for them without it being contested, I am not their “parent”.
Comment by Elaine — April 22, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
What people call themselves on a personal level is up to them but in the legal world the “guardian” designation can pose a problem which is why it is being fought with such vengence.
I always said my dog was “like” my son, business partner, guardian, best friend, etc., but this was to explain the depth of complexity of that relationship.
Animals allow us to go to depths we might not venture into otherwise. They also connect us in a day and age where we seem to be struggling to connect.
All animals fall under the non-human animal label that means they are entrusted to our care.
We might foster them, adopt them, rescue them, or purchase them but legally they remain property—when that changes a whole new level of complexity enters the picture.
The problem taking place now is that people are humanizing pets—not honoring them for the unique creatures they are.
Some animals enjoying dress up but I personally have not ever dressed my critters in garments—only different coordinating collars.
Why? Because the beauty of the beast is enough and I don’t want anything to cloud that…
What I do take exception to is the labeling people as different when they don’t “adopt” or “rescue” an animal.
Judging a person by how they acquire an animal is wrong. (Yes, puppy mills are bad but what about those breeders or pet owners such as Gina?)
In most cases when you obtain an animal you are paying a fee no matter what acquisition method you choose…and if not a fee you are making a significant commitment financially (and emotionally).
Pet parenting from my perspective (and in my Pet Parenting School) refers to a skill set that creates a well balanced, healthy, happy, good mannered animal and doesn’t refer to anything else…this goes beyond simple training which has been the status quo and takes us into successful integration and into new levels in the world of human and animal cohabitation.
Comment by Ark Lady — April 22, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
Gina, before you start crying about the number of comments, I want to ask you about a mental disorder I may or may not have.
When my kids were small, I use to sometimes call them by the cats’names and sometimes I would call the cats by my children’s names.
My daughter didn’t mind and understood, but my son would get sort of mad. I tried not to do this, but it just sort of came out.
If you have time, Gina, please tell me I am not alone.
Did I think the pets and children were all on the same level? Your analysis, Gina, please.
Comment by Colorado Transplant — April 22, 2009 @ 12:21 pm
Honestly … I think you were a typically overbooked mommy with too much on her plate! Geez, when I see what my friends with small kids deal with, it’s amazing they can keep all the pieces of their lives from unraveling, much less keep all the names straight. :)
Many people have problems getting the right “label” pulled out of their head. That’s why I call McKenzie and Heather “McHeather” — so I don’t goof up!
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 22, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
Thanks, Gina, I appreciate your anaylsis and I think you were “spot on”, as the English people say.
Comment by Colorado Transplant — April 22, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
I’ve thought this for some time, as well. What I have seen is that people who refer to their dogs as “babies” take it personally when the pet develops a behavior problem which often leads to punishment-based approaches, which causes further deterioration in the bond.
Comment by sacdogtrainer — April 22, 2009 @ 10:43 am
Some generalizations being tossed around awfully freely, here—and no, sacdogtrainer is not the only one, just the one I picked on to reply to this.
My dog arrived in my home two years ago, a scared little dog who hadn’t been trained, except for house-training, or socialized with other dogs or most things encountered outside the home, since she left her breeder at three months. She was afraid of everything, and fear-aggressive towards other dogs to a scary degree.
Last September, she passed her CGC test. She has doggy friends, we can reliably make friends with new dogs if we have time to do it properly, and she continues to make progress with with being calm around dogs we don’t have time to do an extended introduction with. And now, her somewhat problematic reaction to new dogs is not aggression, but over-excitement. It’s still a problem, but it is so much better!
And it wasn’t the Great Cesar Millan, or the Great Victoria Stilwell, or the Great Ian Dunbar, or whoever your favorite dog-training guru is, who did that. It was me, with my deplorable and, apparently, morally suspect, habit of calling her and the cats my “babies.”
Some people place way too much importance on the words other people choose to use, and maybe need to get over themselves.
Comment by Lis — April 22, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
Yesterday the 2-year-old I live with was peeing everywhere (bad potty training day) while Kasey waited patiently to go outside to do his business.
Dogs 1 Kids 0 ;O)
Yesterday in PetSmart a little boy came up to me and said “That’s a BLACK LAB.” Kasey licked him.
Dogs 1 Kids 1
You’ll still never convince me to have kids though.
Comment by Original Lori — April 22, 2009 @ 12:46 pm
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 22, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
Many people have problems getting the right “label” pulled out of their head.
Kinda like the way I keep saying I have a vet appointment when I’m going in to see my internist?
Yeah - it’s a problem! G!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 22, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
I’m glad I’m not the only one who refers to my primary care physical as my “veterinarian.”
One guess as to which doctor I talk to more often: My own primary care physician … or my pets’ veterinarian?
Oh, and here’s a true story: I had this lump on my elbow. I had to get referred to a SURGEON to have it cut open and drained. Took her all of two minutes, and me the better part of a day … forms, waiting, more waiting, more forms, etc.
Needless to say, had one of my dogs had such a problem, it would have been dealt with on the spot.
I want a doctor like my veterinarian!
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 22, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
Yeah, my doctor never gives me treats, just good advice, which I even listen too, mostly.
On the other hand, he’s never grabbed me by the scruff of my neck and stuck a needle between my shoulders, either.
Comment by Susan Fox — April 22, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
The whole idea of the language we use for our pets started in the beginning — the word ‘Pet’ itself used to refer to a ‘beloved, spoiled child’ until the later 1500s. It eventually came to be used almost exclusively for our companion animals. So actually, we’ve -always- been calling them our ‘children’. =)
Comment by Pai — April 22, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
Pai —
Not according to my OED.
The uses are contemporaneous, and the emphasis in the sixteenth century was on the animal or child’s favored and spoiled status, not species.
There’s evidence that the origin was in reference to a lamb hand-reared in the house, a “pet lamb.” Which as any shepherd can tell you, can be big trouble, especially after they grow up.
The noun form predates the verb in literature by over a hundred years.
Comment by H. Houlahan — April 22, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
This is a topic that interests me personally very much. I’m glad it’s being discussed here.
I’ve had cats almost my entire adult life. I absolutely consider them family members, but never considered them my children or referred to myself as their “mom.” Which is not to say that I haven’t crooned to them, made up little nonsense songs, or on occasion, dressed them up. Even when I did that I recognized that I was doing so for my own amusement, and chose cats who were tolerate of my whims. Cosmo put up with hats so well that I finally got a hatbox to put them all in (people kept giving him more).
About 15 years ago, my husband and I started trying to have a family - human, that is. To summarize our experiences in a sentence or two is almost impossible. Let’s just say that I am - or have witnessed - a reproductive trainwreck. Seven pregnancies, with and without fertility treatment, and no living children.
So I am excruciatingly aware of the cultural trend toward addressing pets as children and the owners/guardians as moms/dads or (shudder) “pet parents.” I don’t particularly care what terms people use for themselves and their pets, although I find the trend toward the mommy/baby terminology a little disturbing. Some of it is kind of creepy. One cat site I visited - briefly! - used the term “Meowmie” (after which I fwowed up).
I literally cringe when people refer to me as a cat’s mom or call them my babies. With my history, I just can’t see them that way. Usually, I don’t bother to correct them - it’s generally someone who doesn’t know our background - but I do sometimes says something neutral like, “Well, I’m not his mom, but he is a member of the family.” A few times when I’ve done that, people are actually offended or look as though I grew a second head.
It’s the people who do know our story, yet continue to use parent/child terms for us and the cats that are maddening. Our former neighbors knew what we were going through and were sympathetic - once took us to the train station for an out-of-state treatment cycle. Yet they continued, despite repeated reminders, to refer to our cats as our “kids.” :0(
I find that people have a need to immediately pigeonhole you - or psychoanalyze you. So I am continually aware of what I do or say about my cats to others. I KNOW that some people assume that I have taken in so many cats, done foster/rescue, or been an advocate for cats BECAUSE I have no living children. Uh, no, it’s because there are so damned many cats in need, not because I’m trying to fill some void with substitutes, and I was involved in these areas before I started trying to have children. And that’s a hole that won’t be filled no matter how many cats I have or help.
This has been an interesting discussion, both the original post and all the comments. Thanks.
Comment by cerridwen — April 22, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
Clearly, I must be psychotic. There’s no other explanation.
Comment by Lis — April 22, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
cerriden, I understand how you feel. Not the same issue but how ill-chosen words can hurt, even if unintentional. (My issue: I used to weigh 200 pounds more than I do now. When you’re that obese, some people believe they have a right to insult or mock you when you walk by … or even trash you to your face.)
BUT … I came to believe that old saw about “no one can make you feel bad without your permission.” And I worked to act on that thought.
Words only hurt if you let them. Children and teens have little defenses, but as adults … we do.
It’s worth thinking about: If you cannot control someone else’s behavior, you can control your reaction to that behavior.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 22, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
Lis, huh?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 22, 2009 @ 5:32 pm
Pat, what did I say I call my pets?
What’s the apparently-unanimous opinion here on people who use that terminology?
Note that some of these opinions have been expressed here here after I made what, is, apparently, an Awful Confession of Bad Pet Ownership.
Comment by Lis — April 22, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
Really? Cuz I’m not getting that as a “unanimous vibe” at all. I’d put it at pretty evenly divided, with quite a few of us saying we use various forms of endearment (kids, furkids, babies, pet parents, etc.) while still being capable of understanding they’re *animals* and not little people in fur suits.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 22, 2009 @ 7:02 pm
I happen to see my cats as personalities in “fur suits” (I like the term The Other Pat used above).
Comment by Colorado Transplant — April 22, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
I have to add that I have, in the past said to my husband that I have an appointment with a veterinarian when in fact it was an appointment with one of my doctors.
One thing, I can keep on my clothes when I go to the veterinarian but that is not always the case when I go to certain doctors.
I am glad, though, that Gina doesn’t think I have a mental disorder in that regard!
Comment by Colorado Transplant — April 22, 2009 @ 7:25 pm
Well now … I’m not sure I’m the best judge of such matters. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 22, 2009 @ 7:30 pm
It is okay, Gina. My husband understands that I say one thing and mean another. :)
Comment by Colorado Transplant — April 22, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
Lis, I stand foursquare for never treating pets as children or child-substitutes and the whole “furkids” thing creeps me out but….I croon “baby, baby, baby” at our tamed feral cat Michiko because she responds to the sound positively and when the collie boy is pestering me, I tell him to “Go find Daddy”, at which point the ears and tail come up and off he goes. Snicker.
As near as I can tell, my biological clock was never plugged in, so kids have never been an issue. But, having two granddaughters (my husband’s son, etc.) I’ve been struck by how similar the issues are when raising a puppy or a child to be pleasant to have around.
“Z..stop running in the house!” “Niki, go to your bed!”
We think of the family critters as “dependents”, which is species-neutral. Since they are animals, we’ll never have to pay for college. Instead we’ll just see to their every need and desire for as long as they live. ;0)
Comment by Susan Fox — April 22, 2009 @ 8:23 pm
I think “dependants” is my favorite so far, Susan Fox. It works on a lot of levels.
Comment by Original Lori — April 23, 2009 @ 5:17 am
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 22, 2009 @ 5:26 pm:
cerriden, I understand how you feel. Not the same issue but how ill-chosen words can hurt, even if unintentional. (My issue: I used to weigh 200 pounds more than I do now. When you’re that obese, some people believe they have a right to insult or mock you when you walk by … or even trash you to your face.)
BUT … I came to believe that old saw about “no one can make you feel bad without your permission.” And I worked to act on that thought.
Words only hurt if you let them. Children and teens have little defenses, but as adults … we do.
It’s worth thinking about: If you cannot control someone else’s behavior, you can control your reaction to that behavior.
==========================
Gina, I’m sorry that you encountered what sounds like deliberate cruelty from people, and I’m glad that you found a method to filter it out.
I think part of my post was perhaps misinterpreted. When someone innocently refers to me as cat “mom” or my cats as “babies,” my reaction isn’t hurt feelings. It’s just that this cultural trend toward identifying pets as children intersects in a painful way with my own history. It’s always going to be an immediate, visceral reaction on my part - one that I don’t generally bother to share with people, because I’ve found that it isn’t worth the emotional energy on my part, and I’m aware that the other person didn’t do anything intentionally mean.
However, when someone who KNOWS what I’ve experienced and has been asked politely on multiple occasions to please not call my cats my kids - sorry, that behavior is deliberately insensitive, and shows an absence of empathy and compassion.
FWIW, I believe the original “old saw” was something more like no one being able to make you feel inferior without your permission (usually attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt). I don’t think that the concept translates literally to hurt feelings, however. Yes, when someone who couldn’t possibly know how their innocent comments affect me uses these terms, I don’t hold them personally accountable, despite the discomfort their words cause me. But when it’s done with obliviousness, yes, I do feel hurt, but try to use it as a “teachable moment.” Not with a lecture, just a sentence or two about how we don’t see our cats as kids, and how my husband and I are affected by such comments. My hope is to not just increase empathy for my own experience, but for all those who are involuntarily childless or bereaved parents - there are thousands of us. And when my simple request for understanding continues to be ignored, then my response sometimes means that I *choose* to engage less with “friends” who can’t be bothered to exercise a little sensitivity.
“Words only hurt if you let them.” I think that is a good rule to live by under certain circumstances - if you’re a public figure, for example. But in personal relationships, words matter.
Comment by cerridwen — April 23, 2009 @ 7:47 am
You’re right: I didn’t understand fully what you meant, and so didn’t respond appropriately. Sorry.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 23, 2009 @ 8:00 am
Thank you, Gina - no apology necessary, I just wanted to clarify. And I’m grateful that I got the chance to talk about this on your blog - gives me a forum to maybe reach a few more people on this issue. So thanks for that, too.
And now, even though I am not their mom, I will go fuss over a couple of cats, proclaiming how much I love their cold, wet noses, and for diminutive Teeny, tell her how *widdle* she is. ;0)
Comment by cerridwen — April 23, 2009 @ 8:35 am
This is a great post and discussion to find, as I have also struggled with what to call people who love and live with pets.
cerridwen, your post was very insightful honest. I am glad that you felt comfortable to share your perspective. Thank you.
I am a loving, enthusiastic mom to both small humans and pets, but not personally comfortable with “pet parent” yet. Like many of you noted, I have a bazillion gooey pet names for each cat, dog, chicken and goose that lives with us, but still searching for the “correct” term…
Great post!
Janet
Comment by Janet Tobiassen DVM — April 23, 2009 @ 9:04 am
In the past, I have called my cats angels, because when I am deeply upset by something that happens, they seem to want to help me out emotionally.
Otherwise, I use any term that fits the situation. I do feel like I am parenting my cats somewhat, even though they do not look anything like my children.
I wouldn’t want them to. I like to see the fur on my cats and the skin on my own offspring.
Comment by Colorado Transplant — April 23, 2009 @ 10:49 am
Remarkable and impressive article Dr. Robinson. Thank you for addressing this topic. I have read and reread your words. I was extremely impressed with your ability to articulate feelings and experiences into logal, data based, research writing.
It appears that those that are against the wording of parents/kids state this out of emotion, and it is a quiet reference that those who call their “animals” kids, or reference themself as dad are the “Boulder, extreme personalities.”
I do not care how people reference their animal/human bond but I do ask for a common denomiatior of respect for everyone’s family. I do believe your statement that your words determine your thoughts. I hope more people begin to call themselves parents or partner.
I have two adult human sons. I am not an emotional person. I am an old North Dakota, raised on a farm man. I am the C.E.O. of my insurance company. My daily life is logical and non-emotional in dealing with 500+ agents and employees. When I return to our home I look forward to seeing our boys. Our rabbit and our dog are our sons, our kids, our family. In your closing statements you summarized the dynamics of our family.
Please let your readers know that it is not only the emotional, tree hugger individuals that are parents and spiritual partners of “animals.”
We are all who we are and have the right to reference ourselves with the words that suit us, as long as there is respect for life! They are only words. Respect for unique, blended families of all dynamics.
Comment by Herbert A. Hill — April 23, 2009 @ 8:52 pm
‘Please let your readers know that it is not only the emotional, tree hugger individuals that are parents and spiritual partners of “animals.”’
I think you already did, in a more profound way than I ever could, and you spoke for many who have, as you said so beautifully, “blended families”.
Thank you, Mr. Hill.
Comment by Dr.Narda — April 23, 2009 @ 9:40 pm
A concept called “sentient property” has been proposed (by a vet, no less). This would be, unintentionally (I believe since there was no coordination between the guardian movement and the sentient property concept) a kind of compromise between the guardian concept and the current mere “property” designation.
Everyone who loves a pet knows quite well they are not MERE property, worth no more than their market resale price. Yet some of those same industries that USE the term “pet parent” or calls us our pets’ “mom” or “dad” have professional lobbying groups that simultaneously and hypocritically fight legislation to give our pets some greater recognition under the law.
Every time I go to the vet, when they call me to pay the bill, they say: “[pet’s name] Mom . . . ” or when I call, and they tell the vet, they say: “It’s [pet’s name] mom on the phone.” When my mother calls, they say “are you the grandma?”
OK, fine.
Then WHY is the AVMA sending their lobbying goons around the country, fighting proposed legislation that would provide some recognition that our pets have value beyond their market resale price? They have been critical to defeating that legislation in state after state.
Whatever you think of individual vets, many of which may agree that our pets deserve greater legal recognition and protection, it is nonetheless true that as an ORGANIZED LOBBY veterinarians are as often opponents of our pets’ interests as they are proponents.
Comment by Stefani — April 27, 2009 @ 7:05 pm
Because, Stefani, vets have it both ways. They are respected, educated, well-compensated medical professionals who treat living beings who are beloved members of our families.
Until they destroy them, that is. Then they essentially become repairmen who gummed up our dishwasher.
Alive, our pets are the other half of the human-animal bond that is most lucrative for the doctors who treat them. Dead, they are nothing more than trashed appliances for which there is no meaningful accountability for their destruction.
Why on earth would the AVMA want to change that? It’s the best of all possible worlds for them. For us and our pets, not so much.
Comment by Julie — April 27, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
Beautiful article! And I am the proud GUARDIAN of beautiful and lovable dogs—I love them exactly like I do my only child!
I would highly recommend that you send this article to the AVMA so they would reconsider their position on our companions’ status. We have highly skilled veterinarians and equipment equivalent to human medicine, we have patients (companions), we have babies, moms, dads, so why do veterinarians INSIST that our companions’ legal status MUST NOT CHANGE? WHAT ARE THEY AFRAID OF? The only thing comes to mind is ACCOUNTABILITY, because there is NONE presently, thanks to the archaic law that considers our companions “mere property.” I would personally be embarrassed to be addressed as “doctor” of property!
It doesn’t take a genius to figure it out:
Law change of animal status = Veterinarian Accountability for any wrongdoing on their part.
Comment by Fotini — April 27, 2009 @ 8:11 pm
Any individual veterinarian I have met has always has loved their pets and do the best they can by them—some of them taking the cats and dogs that nobody else wants because of physical disability.
When any of my cats have been in trouble, I rush to the veterinarian and am very thankful they are there for assistance.
Comment by Colorado Transplant — April 27, 2009 @ 8:27 pm
Personally, I’m tired of all the meanings that “labels carry”, and am not offended when anyone uses: mom,furkids,petparents,guardian,owner,pet or companion. I know many humans w/ human children & grandchildren that use the all of the above terms.To me they all express endearment and the meaning of the relationships they have with their “non-human family members”. I’m old enough to see many “words” change to become pc or not pc.
But I agree with Stefani, the “status” of a companion animal needs to change and evolve to something other than mere inanimate property.And as far as “animal rights”, nearly every state has its set of animal welfare statutes, unfortunately not enforced as they should be.
Comment by Barbara A. Albright — April 27, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
Let’s see - I rest my mouse on Stefani’s name and I get “badvetdaily.blogspot.com”. I rest my mouse on Julie’s name and I get “www.vetabusenetwork.com”. I rest my mouse on Fotini’s name and I get “alabamavetboardwatch”.
Am I the only one seeing a pattern here . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 27, 2009 @ 8:51 pm
And four lines into Barbara’s site is the line “NH veterinary abuse, malpractice, and cruelty”.
I had no idea there were so many people out there who had it in for vets!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 27, 2009 @ 8:54 pm
Clever observation, The OTHER Pat. It is so easy to trash veterinarians but so hard and long to become a one.
Comment by Colorado Transplant — April 27, 2009 @ 8:59 pm
Basically, the only term that irks me is ‘guardian’, namely because of its legal implications. I don’t want the state inserting itself into my relationship with (or decisions regarding) the boys. As long as we’re not talking about an abuse/neglect situation, I think a pet’s care is always best left to the owner and the owner alone. (And, if we are talking about an abuse/neglect situation, in most places there are already laws on the books- they simply need to be *enforced*.)
Admittedly, I’m not particularly fond of ‘furkids’ either.. kinda cutesy, but I can deal. Guardian? No go. Don’t support it, won’t use it.
Comment by 3FabulousFelines — April 27, 2009 @ 11:14 pm
CT & Pat — these are all people who have had really horribly bad experiences with vets. I believe the first three, at least, have over-generalized from their bad experiences. Barbara is more focused on the particular individuals who caused her trauma, and the lack of legal accountability for what happened.
I’ve had some bad experiences with vets, too, many years ago, and not as bad as these posters’ experiences. The result in my case is that I don’t just assume that any vet at all is competent and caring; the vast majority of them are, but I insist on references so that I don’t accidentally take my pets to Dr. LazyButt or Dr. Sleptthroughthatclass when they need care. (Or, as Dr. Khuly has sometimes referred to them, Dr. Badvet and Dr. Incahoots.)
There are many, many caring, capable, dedicated veterinary professionals out there. Unfortunately, the exceptions have burned some people very badly.
Comment by Lis — April 28, 2009 @ 5:12 am
You have deep insight, Lis, into the situation.
In every profession, there appears to be the incapable and the incahoots.
However, if we do our research before we go to a professional, we will more likely be successful in solving the problem or problems we are dealing with.
Comment by Colorado Transplant — April 28, 2009 @ 5:29 am
It is REALLY sad and telling that you think its “trashing” veterinarians to convey true stories of vets who have harmed animals. FYI, badvetdaily presents almost exclusively findings from Veterinary State Boards — so it’s panels of peers who have made findings that the vets have violated standards or other elements of the practice act.
I guess you think those vets — including the ones that actually physically abuse their patients — are equally deserving of adulation and respect as are those who practice at a higher level.
Frankly, I think the attitude of protecting these bad apples is what is “trashing vets” — by equating the quality practitioners with those who demean the profession through their actions.
Comment by Stefani — April 28, 2009 @ 5:47 am
Stefani et al … you hijack the threads on the Dolittler blog to turn them into a “bad vets” show, but you are NOT doing that here. If you decide to contribute to the discussions here, you will stay on topic, period. Or, you will leave, period.
No one is disputing that there are incompetent vets, out of touch vets, mentally ill vets and vets who care more about money than pets. No one is disputing that state disciplinary boards largely give professionals (of all kinds) a pass when they should be struck off.
But these bad vets are the minority, as they are in every profession.
You are all intelligent, caring and articulate people, and I know you can bring a great deal to these discussions. Stay on topic, and we’ll be fine.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 28, 2009 @ 5:56 am
Stefani, I just found it sort of odd (and telling?) that within less than 2 hours, FOUR posters - essentially one after another - showed up here to write posts critical in some way of vets and that - sure enough - they each had sites/blogs critical of vets.
That just makes me think it’s less about contributing to this discussion than it is about furthering an agenda. Which - of course - can destroy a discussion in a hurry.
I know about bad vets. For example, a friend’s vet let his dog die of undiagnosed diabetes. It was negligence, plain and simple.
But knowing that doesn’t mean I’m suddenly going to climb on some “Don’t trust vets!” bandwagon. Rather, I will continue to do as I have always done. Select vets based on recommendations from people I respect. Contact the local veterinary teaching hospital to inquire whether the vet has an established relationship (i.e. does s/he refer cases when needed, or does ego get in the way?). And then trust my gut in my interactions with said vet. If something seems “off”, it probably is, and it’s time to go looking for another vet.
(Hey Gina - yet another blog topic idea - how do folks go about “vetting vets”? I gotta million of ‘em!)
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 28, 2009 @ 6:30 am
Spot on, Gina. You truly have been given the gift of words (unless you worked hard to develop such a skill).
The reason I feel like a parent to my cats is that I have to tell them no so many times, I have to feed and clean up after them, I have to take them to a professional medical healer if they get sick, etc.—just like I did for my children when they were under my care.
It is up to the PUBLIC to lead the cry about changing the word guardian if it is so objectionable. Words are changed, anyway, as new generations evolve—like an earlier commentor mentioned.
Comment by Colorado Transplant — April 28, 2009 @ 6:33 am
I happen to be a client of one of the “supposed” bad vets trashed by one of the posters, and I admire and respect him very much. He has done well by me and my animals, both with their diagnosis and course of treatment.
There are always 2 sides to any issue. I will not stop having my animals treated by this vet on the strength of one person’s opinion.
Comment by Anne T — April 28, 2009 @ 8:50 am
Folks … again … on topic. I’m not going to allow threads to be hijacked here and turned into endless vet-bashing, or counter vet-bashing.
Enough.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 28, 2009 @ 9:04 am
I have no plan of hijacking Gina, and upon careful re-review, my post IS on topic. It isn’t cool to be constantly trashed or baited by others either: Colorado Trans & other Pat???
And the only bashing, seems to be personal.
Lis, Thanks for your kind words..
Gotta run and take one of my furkids to the vets, Ike’s Mom http://walnut-hill.bravejournal.com (for cute pic of Ike!)
Comment by Barbara A. Albright — April 28, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
What part of “enough” are we having problems understanding? Again, I am just letting everyone know that I have a very limited tolerance for those who turn every topic into their own crusade, related or not.
Again, let me say that you are all intelligent, articulate and caring people, and I think you can add to the discussions here. Stay on topic, and we’re fine.
And yes, I think “how to vet a vet” is a great topic for a future post. You can all jump in on that one.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 28, 2009 @ 4:23 pm
Gina, the original blog entry raised the question of the difference between the way we see our animals and the legal status of animals, as well as the relationship between those two. As my original post was about the legal status of animals, it was on topic. It wasn’t until someone misrepresented it as “vet bashing” that it became a discussion of vets. My comments were re: AVMA lobbying activities in the context of the legal status of animals, which appears very relevant to the original conversation.
It is usually not ** we ** who draw the thing off topic — its those who can’t tolerate any criticism of vets and I guess that extends to teh veterinary lobby, namely the AVMA, who continues to support the “MERE property” designation regardless of the fact that more and more pet “owners” consider their pets part of the family.
Comment by Stefani — April 28, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
Your original comment was on topic, I agree. But … here you are again, dragging this into your crusade. You don’t seem capable of discussing anything else.
I don’t know how many times and in how many ways I have to state this:
I am well aware that in any profession there are people who should be struck off, and in every state the regulatory bodies generally let professionals off with a slap on the wrist, if that.
But … in a single day you have shown that you will turn every discussion into your personal crusade on this topic, despite my request that you not do so.
Now, you can take it elsewhere. Your comments are automatically deleted.
Hate mail to petconnection@gmail.com. I get plenty, so what’s a little more?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 28, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
Gina, I have a question for you, but I am afraid you might cry if you answer it (as you said in an early comment).
When my cat kneads me, does she knead me as though I am her mom?
You have your right to answer or remain silent, but if you answer, it will be the 100th comment.
:) (The devil makes me do this.)
Comment by Colorado Transplant — April 28, 2009 @ 7:03 pm
I could say the answer is in “Cats For Dummies” and you’ll just have to buy a copy. :)
But yes, it’s thought to be a hold-over from behavior kittens use to keep milk flowing from mom. It’s relaxing to her, and relaxing to us.
Having watched this behavior in puppies the last three weeks, I wonder why dogs don’t “knead” us, too? But then, since they don’t have wonderful soft paws as cats do, it’s probably just as well.
(100)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 28, 2009 @ 7:18 pm
Well, MY vet…..
Just kidding ;0).
Comment by Susan Fox — April 28, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
Bulldogs “sudge”. They will sometimes suck on a favorite toy, or your arm, and close their eyes and then begin to knead with their paws on the toy or you.
Sweet, but sticky!
Comment by JenniferJ — April 28, 2009 @ 7:36 pm
Hey Gina, YOU were Dr Robinson’s 100th comment!
Comment by JenniferJ — April 28, 2009 @ 7:38 pm
Her mother tricked me. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 28, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
Ah, but the choice was yours. :-D
Comment by JenniferJ — April 28, 2009 @ 7:48 pm