# The "It" Factor - Let's Talk Ownership by Jackson Gallaxy utube



## Mitts & Tess (Sep 4, 2004)

The "It" Factor - Let's Talk Ownership - YouTube


----------



## Jetlaya67 (Sep 26, 2012)

That was very enlightening. Never thought of guardianship versus ownership. I like the concept. Referring to the it factor, I have never called an animal an "it". They have always being he or she. Even my fish, I select sexes for them based on their looks (silly, but unless they are beta fish, I have no idea how to tell fish sexes).


----------



## Jacq (May 17, 2012)

The beginning was interesting. I think there's maybe a cultural mindset difference here. Because health care for people are virtually nil here, it's honestly really surprising to me how much vets cost. (And, tbh, I can tell you it costs me *exactly* $314.46 for a cavity filling, because dental isn't really covered to the same extent.) I mean, I find the "You spent THAT much on a cat?!?!" much more obnoxious than someone acutally saying how much it cost. And I learned a lot about how much I should have in savings, hearing other ppl talk about vet care. 

The message is great, though. Preferred pronouns are cuper awesome and ace and more people should be aware of them in regards to both pets and people 

However, I dunno... the concept of ownership versus guardianship to me, is a little different. I feel, personally, that saying that I "own" a cat implies that I have a deeper, vested interest in their well-being, and also that I'm the ultimate arbiter of the cat's life and well-being. To say I'm the guardian implies that the cat has a little bit more autonomy than I'm willing to give them. I could expand if I didn't explain myself well, but that's my take on it.


----------



## cat face (Apr 4, 2013)

Oh well, I might as well become _completely_ unpopular.
I'm one of those people that thinks he's "full of it" to use Jackson's own words.

Not the concept, no, I agree with him on the concept of the way we should look at and respect others feelings of their pets, all of that, I agree with.

Where it goes off the tracks for me is the words that we should be using. To me that's just thought police stuff. 

Just the other day I used the term "put a cat down" and I don't think I'm cold. It's is a term that is used widely and there isn't anything "cold" meant by it.

I appreciate Jackson thinks it's cold and respect his feelings but to turn on the thought policing of how we should express our living with our pets and what we do with them is reaching in areas that don't need to be touched.

I'm sorry we call them "pets" I guess soon we'll be ostracized for calling them pets. 
Maybe it'll be _dependents_ or _quadruped occupants_. I don't know, all this 'use _these_ words', and 'not _those_ words' sounds eerily like 1984 stuff, and the world is getting bad enough at an amazingly fast pace without adding MORE for the sake of it.

I mean really, when was the last time your cat looked genuinely offended or hurt because you referred to them as "it"? Or because you remembered the cost of the vet bill to the cent, or exclaimed that you "owned" 2, 3 or 4 etc. pets?
Mine couldn't care any less, just as long as I put that food bowl down 3 times a day filled with stuff they like to eat.


----------



## Carmel (Nov 23, 2010)

I think in general I disagree... in Canada we don't pay much because of health care, and I would still know the cost of whatever I do need to pay, and I would still mention it as long as it's an expense out of the norm, much like I'd mention how much anything unexpected costs. Money is always a factor. Just recently my mother was talking about 400 dollar antibiotics she was on (which were mostly covered) but it was very shocking to hear their initial cost; mentioning cost is just part of the story, either for the 'wow' factor, or the 'poor you' or 'what a steal' angles. Or some from each category.

I think guardianship is much like Jacq said, and to elaborate on my thoughts behind it... is just another word. Everyone places different meanings and emphasis on a word, to me owner doesn't have a negative connotation, in fact in regards to pets I don't consider the word at all in terms of 'owning' as I would a pencil. There can be words used that sound the same or have similar origins but that hold no bearing to each other or depend on context. 

If guardian was to become the word or choice, much like anything that gets changed to be politically correct, it would loose effect when everyone started using it, then people would be looking for a new way to define the relationship with their pets that makes people think... never ending cycle.

And no expand on _that_, a little off topic, I was reading about the pitfalls of trying to be too politically correct awhile back and the problems associated with it in various languages. English doesn't have much of a problem with this as we're pretty much gender neutral but many languages have roots in certain ways of speaking that denote men as the ones in power/look down on women, sometimes when you look at them from a straight up direct translation the words it can be shocking. While there have been some concessions for certain words to get a female version, I believe the public just sees it as a part of language and not offensive, they have adapted their concept of the word to fit with the times.


----------



## NebraskaCat (Jan 15, 2013)

I write for the shelter newsletter and am strongly discouraged from writing "pet owners," although I don't think it's a bad term personally. When I write I use pets' "people" or "humans" or "parents" instead of owners. For me, I prefer to think of myself as my cat's person or human. I accept being called their dad but don't really think of myself by that term.

I would never say "it" when choosing a pronoun for a cat.


----------



## Marcia (Dec 26, 2010)

I agree with Nebraska Cat. I prefer to think of myself as my cat's mom. Only with Sam did I consider myself his guardian and that was because his first mom died of cancer when he was 10. I tend to think she loved him very much because he had cancer himself and she went to extraordinary measures for him so I always thought of myself, not as his mom but as his guardian until he was reunited with his mom when he finally died last year. sniff. . . . sniff.

I, for one do not put animals on the same plane as people. I believe humans have been set apart and have dominion over animals. I do not believe we should neglect or abuse those that have been given to us for care. It all works for me. No one ever asked me how many pets I guard or are a guardian of. I'm always asked how many cats I _own_. I am a pet owner, cat mom, or guardian. I don't particularly get caught up in the semantics of it.


----------



## CharlesD (Jun 12, 2013)




----------



## Wannabe Catlady (Aug 6, 2012)

I agree with Jackson on this. Personally, I don't feel I own my cats. That's a bizarre phrase for me. I guess I say I 'live with' two cats, or just I 'have'. And I would never trust a person who refers to their cat as 'it'. Just sounds cold. 

I think that by changing language, you can change mindsets. I've talked with people who have never even considered thinking of their pets as family, and have 'gotten rid of them' in the past for misbehavior. By using the better language to refer to animals, it may rub off. 

I dunno. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Jacq (May 17, 2012)

I think the idea with the "it" thing is when you're referring to unknown cats, rather than our own. So, instead of saying;
"Your cat [of unknown gender] is an obligate carnivore, you should always feed _it_ meat."
he's advocating:
"Your cat [of unknown gender] is an obligate carnivore, you should always feed _her or him_ meat."
I'm not sure how he feels about:
"Your cat [of unknown gender] is an obligate carnivore, you should always feed _them_ meat."

Personally, I caught myself in my post about using "it" and edited it because I didn't want to get called out (  ), I said "saying that I "own" a cat implies that I have a deeper, vested interest in _its_ well-being." I don't think I'm the only one that maybe falls into this trap when discussing unknown or theoretical cats.

English is tricky because we lack singular gender-neutral pronouns, which is a bigger issue than just what we call our cats. "They" is technically incorrect as far as the grammar teachers are concerned, though most people are fine using the term for unknown _people_, but not unknown animals. And yet, I would feel pretty skeevy referring to a cat as _xer_ or _shim_ or _thon_ because I still consider these pretty people-specific, and would only use them in certain spaces and groups where they're accepted terms.

For what it's worth, I don't think I really care how my cat is refereed to. My mom can't, for the life of her, remember that my cat is female, and constantly refers to Io as "he." This only bugs me on a small level, like a "stop-cracking-your-knuckles" level, not on an "I am actually offended" level.


----------



## SamSim (Oct 7, 2012)

Like Jackson said, although it may be small things he is discussing, simple changes in semantics in our society can prove to change situations vastly.
Although when I think about it broadly, I don't like to put a lot of emphasis on how people say what they say, it's what people mean to say that matters. But this isn't the first time I have heard about the concept of changing small, almost menial phrases to completely altar the way society thinks of something. And it does make a lot of sense. People can get quite offended if you dont "word it just right". If you can ellicite such a negative response by accidentally/improperly using a word or two when trying to explain something, think of the positive influence changing animal "ownership" to "guardianship" could have on the incredibly large number of animals brought to shelters? Or how that may have people thinking twice about attaining "guardianship" of a cat/dog?

All in all, the best you can do is control what YOU say, not what the mass public says. Dont scrutinize and judge someone if they think they "own" animals, educate them if they ask or give you a questioning look when you say "yes I am the guardian of my cats", and see where the conversation goes.


----------



## DeafDogs&Cat (Mar 27, 2013)

I guess semantics are important to me somewhat. I used to volunteer with a rescue and would be deeply offended if someone asked me "how much to buy it" or "how much does it cost" when asking about adopting a specific animal. Also, getting "rid of" is a term that, in my mind, means the people didn't care about the animal at all.

I don't use guardian tho. But ownership to me means alot. I "have" pants... I "own" my pets. I own them for life and am responsible for their care for that lifetime. Guardian just doesn't mean that to me... besides, as much as my pets are family members and I am their "Mom", they are not children. They are not four legged little people. They are animals and there is a distinct line in my mind... though I'll do as much for them as any hypothetical children I might have... including living in my truck if I cant find a place to live!


----------



## Mitts & Tess (Sep 4, 2004)

Just got a plea to foster a cat that's going around to all the local rescues. A man who was living in his car! He was admitted to a local hospital and he had been living in the car with his cat. They needed a foster home for the cat. It broke my heart to read that. Talk about not giving up your animal! I'm waiting to hear if anyone stepped forward.


----------



## doodlebug (May 13, 2006)

Jacq said:


> English is tricky because we lack singular gender-neutral pronouns


"It" is a gender neutral pronoun. 

I see nothing wrong with referring to a cat of unknown sex as "it", that's what the word means. I do get really irritated with people who use "it" to refer to their own cat or dog though. Or just say "the cat" and never use it's name. 

Owner doesn't bother me so much, in the eye of the law in most states dogs are property but not all states consider cats property. I don't see any reason to change the word pet to something else...the trend seems to be towards "companion" which sounds very hoity toity to me. Heck the definition of the word pet is 

_A domestic or tamed animal or bird kept for companionship or pleasure and treated with care and affection._

vs. the definition of "companion"

_A person or animal with whom one spends a lot of time or with whom one travels._

I'd rather be a pet.


----------



## NebraskaCat (Jan 15, 2013)

We saw the change here in rural vets where they used to designate veterinary specialties of "large animal" or "small animal" to mean horses/cows vs dogs/cats. But people with large dogs or small ponies or whatever drove the change to "working animals" and "companion animals".


----------



## doodlebug (May 13, 2006)

If you call the working animal vet...will he know how to treat a working dog but not an companion dog?


----------



## NebraskaCat (Jan 15, 2013)

Usually the working animal vet will know how to treat livestock. And he'll be willing to treat dogs and cats, just not a specialty.


----------



## doodlebug (May 13, 2006)

I get that...I was just pointing out the absurdity of changing the names. When it was large vs small, the large animal vet could still treat a pony even if it wasn't his specialty and the small animal vet could treat a large breed dog. They just traded one set of inconsistencies for another.


----------



## jusjim (Jun 30, 2009)

Mitts & Tess said:


> The "It" Factor - Let's Talk Ownership - YouTube


I've been using guardian on this site for a while now. I also add friend, companion. My view is that cats are intelligent, and ownership of an intelligent animal (this would include the human animal just shouldn't be so. 

I doubt that he'll get widespread acceptance soon, but just speaking about it is good.

My belief in non-human animal intelligece goes much futher than cats, but I don't have the six-month to spare to write a book


----------



## FurbyFace (May 13, 2013)

I agree with some point that he makes. I have never said that I own an animal, I am a cat parent. I also try not to call animals It, if I don't know the gender I usually say "the kitty" or "the doggy" until I find out the name and gender. I work at a zoo/aquarium and all of our animals are referred to residents and family members. 
I also dislike when people say they are giving a pet away. My neighbor gave her puppy Max back to the shelter because he was too hyper. It made me so mad. She made a commitment and just abandoned him. 
I do think that sometimes putting a pet down is the best option. My sister had a hamster, Shnoodles, who we had to put to sleep. She had a tumor and the vet told us that if we didn't put her to sleep she would be in constant pain until she died. The tumor was crushing her organs (she doubled it weight as it grew) so every bodily function was difficult. It was hard, but we had
To do it. 
He has some great and some debatable ones. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Torbie (Jan 21, 2013)

I would never dream of calling Katniss or any animal "it" It just depersonalizes them, to me putting them on the same level as an object like a piece of clothing I have. A pet is obviously not the same as a piece of clothing or any inanimate object though. If I don't know the gender I tend to say "them" or "the cat/dog/whatever animal they are" I do believe words make sort of a difference in the way people view things.


----------



## cat face (Apr 4, 2013)

Evita said:


> Well, in a legal sense you do own the cat. If someone drives up to your front yard and snatches your cat, they stole something that you own. When you purchase a cat from a breeder, you now own that cat.
> 
> But does it matter much what we call it?



Certainly an undeniable truth. 

I don't think it matter what we call it at all. I tend to refer to 'it's' gender if I know it but if I don't, I refer to the kitty as it.

To me they are my pets. I am responsible for them, I speak for them, I take care of them. All a commitment I am happy to take on but unfortunately it doesn't turn them into little humans or me into a feline, and since I pay the bills and all that... :neutral:


----------



## Mitts & Tess (Sep 4, 2004)

I think how we refer to our compaion animals speaks to people what postion and value they are to us in our family. Weve started calling feral cats community cats to take away the stigma of the word feral in the english language. The same applies to our own cats how we refer to them shows our commitment.


----------



## TinyPaws (Jun 23, 2013)

He's made some good points. A lot of the way people look at their animals isn't great but being an owner is being a guardian. I think it's just a case of people not fully understanding the responsibilities they have when an animal is in their care. Thats where the issue is..


----------



## lovetimesfour (Dec 1, 2010)

I am a cat owner. They are my cats. They belong to me. My life revolves around what is best for them, first. 

I abhor calling any animal "it", even the wild ones, I always assign gender to wild animals just because that's the way I feel, and if I am discussing a pet animal I will say s/he if I don't know the gender.

Saying "it" relegates the animal to a thing, an inanimate object with no feelings or cognizance, in my opinion.

But, while I can see calling a squirrel or a raccoon "it", what _really_ burns me is when the pet owners call their _own_ animals "it".


----------



## jusjim (Jun 30, 2009)

Evita said:


> Well, in a legal sense you do own the cat. If someone drives up to your front yard and snatches your cat, they stole something that you own. When you purchase a cat from a breeder, you now own that cat.
> 
> But does it matter much what we call it?


Well, yes. Guardian/caretaker inplies responsibility. Ownership means you can throw it away when you no longer want it. There are people like that.

Cats are intelligent animals with emotions and the capacity for love. I don't see how ownership of an intelligent animal can be claimed. People used to think people could be owned; some still do. It's wrong. I'm not sure why, just that I'd tend to rebel against being owned.


----------



## lovetimesfour (Dec 1, 2010)

There are people who throw away animals, regardless of the jargon of the decade. It's illegal to abandon or abuse animals, no matter what you call the state of caring for one.

I agree that words can be powerful, and create meaning, which is why I object to calling animals "it".

But my cats belong to me. They are not going to grow up and reach their majority and go off on their own. They are with me for life.


----------



## Blakeney Green (Jan 15, 2013)

jusjim said:


> Well, yes. Guardian/caretaker inplies responsibility. Ownership means you can throw it away when you no longer want it. There are people like that.


For me, the words have the opposite connotation, actually. In my work, I see human guardianship situations - and that is usually temporary, can be contested or withdrawn, does not make the person an official member of the family, and becomes meaningless when the minor child reaches the age of majority. To me the word "guardianship" is very much a "for now" thing with no indication of a permanent commitment - the animal is in one's care for the time being, but that could change at any time.

That's not to say I'm right and you're wrong... just that different people can have _wildly_ different perceptions of the same word based on their own experience, and meaning is often very much in the ear of the listener.

I use pet ownership (because it implies to me that you've taken ownership of the responsibility of having a pet) or pet parenting.


----------



## cat owner again (Dec 14, 2012)

At some point, I will have to relearn the English language to be politically correct. 
1. I get what he is saying and I do think the way we speak about animals may improve how people look at animals over many, many, years. 
2. People purchase animals from breeders and so "own" seems appropriate as used towards things we purchase. I can understand the confusion and agree to put animals on a higher plane than a possession.
3. I always know how much I pay for a doctor for me or my pet. I don't have a lot of money - it matters. The less you have, the more meaning the cost has. 
4. Some people grow up and animals have a different meaning to them. Words won't matter to them. My husband grew up on a farm. His dog ran free, ate table scraps, rarely saw a vet, and money was tight. The dog did not equal a person. I grew up in the city, our dog was a "pet", a family member, saw a vet, ate dog and people food, and did all we could for the betterment of his life. We both loved our dogs.
5. I see people who truly abuse animals as dangerous to our society. I look at it as a respect for life. It makes me nervous that a person could watch a living thing suffer. Suffering is suffering. I gave up my bird watching, bird feeders and bird bath because I have two cats that live with me. 
6. I live in CA and cringed when he said that an animal has less chance to live here if given up. I think they passed a law to only hold the animals a few days to save money on the budget.


----------

