# Is the comment "he gets the milk without buying the cow" an anti-feminist objectification of women? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 25, 2012, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-comment-he-gets-the-milk-without-buying-the-cow-an-anti-feminist-objectification-of-women/626201 "2012-06-25T01:44:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-comment-he-gets-the-milk-without-buying-the-cow-an-anti-feminist-objectification-of-women/626201/41 "2012-06-27T08:19:08Z")
> [@Tad](#): > > You’ve completely missed my point. No, I think I understood your point. Your second post is more of the same. You on the other hand don’t seem to understand my point at all. It’s nothing to do with a distinction between the phrase itself and its usage (particular in the instant case). You said that the phrase’s “_implication also denies the reality of the politicization of marriage (as in certain states/countries where certain types of coupling/marriage are taboo/completely denied)._” You also said “_At least, I don’t see that expression being especially useful (or meaningful) in gay couples or trans couples, etc._” and "_What (might) be more important is the way that it participates in othering certain kinds of relationships."_ In plain English, aren’t you saying that the phrase “others” or “denies”, for example, gay relationships? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-comment-he-gets-the-milk-without-buying-the-cow-an-anti-feminist-objectification-of-women/626201/42 "2012-06-27T11:11:22Z")
How do you other something? “Other” is an adjective, not a verb. Don’t use it as a verb. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-comment-he-gets-the-milk-without-buying-the-cow-an-anti-feminist-objectification-of-women/626201/43 "2012-06-27T11:23:33Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > How do you other something? “Other” is an adjective, not a verb. Don’t use it as a verb. 1/ And who died and made you king? I’ll use words however I damn want to thanks. You know that prescriptivism is silly and that damn near every word meant something else and was probably a different part of speech a few decades back anyway, right? 2/ Having satisfactorily disputed your right to push me around in such matters, I can now say: I’m with you, bro’. But you will note I was quoting someone. Not my fault they swallowed the social sciences style guide and now don’t write in English. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-comment-he-gets-the-milk-without-buying-the-cow-an-anti-feminist-objectification-of-women/626201/44 "2012-06-27T12:36:54Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > 1/ And who died and made you king? I’ll use words however I damn want to thanks. You know that prescriptivism is silly and that damn near every word meant something else and was probably a different part of speech a few decades back anyway, right? > > 2/ Having satisfactorily disputed your right to push me around in such matters, I can now say: I’m with you, bro’. But you will note I was quoting someone. Not my fault they swallowed the social sciences style guide and now don’t write in English. Using **others** as a verb doesn’t work with descriptivism, either, because people in general don’t use it as such. It is rather confusing. Proper prescriptivism works with descriptivism. The right way to say something is the way that it is used by the majority of people. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-comment-he-gets-the-milk-without-buying-the-cow-an-anti-feminist-objectification-of-women/626201/45 "2012-06-27T12:42:11Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > By and large, women seem to dislike being compared to cows. I was under the impression that the allusion to “free milk” was commonly made by women. _That’s when she told me a story ‘bout free milk and a cow And she said no huggin’, no kissin’ until I get a wedding vow_ - Georgia Satellites ---
**Author:** ![Slithy\_Tove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slithy_tove/32/18248_2.png) [@Slithy\_Tove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slithy_Tove)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-comment-he-gets-the-milk-without-buying-the-cow-an-anti-feminist-objectification-of-women/626201/46 "2012-06-27T13:24:49Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > I was under the impression that the allusion to “free milk” was commonly made by women. They do the lioness’ share of slut-shaming too. As a guy, I’ll accept that my gender commits the most sexual assault and exploitation, but women will take a natural act of affection/self-expression and commodify it and then persecute those who don’t buy into that and bring the market price down. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-comment-he-gets-the-milk-without-buying-the-cow-an-anti-feminist-objectification-of-women/626201/47 "2012-06-27T13:52:50Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Using **others** as a verb doesn’t work with descriptivism, either, because people in general don’t use it as such. It is rather confusing. > > Proper prescriptivism works with descriptivism. The right way to say something is the way that it is used by the majority of people. The main purpose of language is to get ideas from the talker’s head to the listener’s head. Using “others” as a verb to mean “make someone an other” does that well enough. It’s only confusing because continental philosophy’s use of the noun “other” is confusing. Philster was (I think) making fun of continental philosophy, which is always a worthy endeavor. ---
**Author:** ![dngnb8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/977dab/32.png) [@dngnb8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dngnb8)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-comment-he-gets-the-milk-without-buying-the-cow-an-anti-feminist-objectification-of-women/626201/48 "2012-06-27T14:07:46Z")
The statement seems a bit inaccurate if you ask me. I mean, if he is getting the milk, doesnt that mean she is lactating? And if so, did someone else give her the sausage without her buying the pig? Inquiring minds want to know. ---
**Author:** ![Tad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/278dde/32.png) [@Tad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tad)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-comment-he-gets-the-milk-without-buying-the-cow-an-anti-feminist-objectification-of-women/626201/49 "2012-06-27T17:10:05Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > How do you other something? “Other” is an adjective, not a verb. Don’t use it as a verb. I can and will because it’s a valid and useful political and theoretical term used by various thinkers: Edward Said (Orientalism most famously, but in countless other articles and essays), Spivak, Homi Bhabha, etc. etc. You’d need to be familiar with postcolonial theory, I guess? The term has broadened itself considerably. So even if you don’t like it very much, “othered,” “othering,” etc., is all very much correct in modern usage. ---
**Author:** ![Tad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/278dde/32.png) [@Tad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tad)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-comment-he-gets-the-milk-without-buying-the-cow-an-anti-feminist-objectification-of-women/626201/50 "2012-06-27T17:12:53Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > 2/ Having satisfactorily disputed your right to push me around in such matters, I can now say: I’m with you, bro’. But you will note I was quoting someone. Not my fault they swallowed the social sciences style guide and now don’t write in English. Oh, you’re _that_ guy. ---
**Author:** ![Tad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/278dde/32.png) [@Tad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tad)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-comment-he-gets-the-milk-without-buying-the-cow-an-anti-feminist-objectification-of-women/626201/51 "2012-06-27T17:16:01Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > No, I think I understood your point. Your second post is more of the same. You on the other hand don’t seem to understand my point at all. It’s nothing to do with a distinction between the phrase itself and its usage (particular in the instant case). > > You said that the phrase’s “_implication also denies the reality of the politicization of marriage (as in certain states/countries where certain types of coupling/marriage are taboo/completely denied)._” You also said “_At least, I don’t see that expression being especially useful (or meaningful) in gay couples or trans couples, etc._” and "_What (might) be more important is the way that it participates in othering certain kinds of relationships."_ > > In plain English, aren’t you saying that the phrase “others” or “denies”, for example, gay relationships? I’m saying that the usage of phrase, or choosing to give credit to the use of the phrase, given the meaning of the phrase, does that. It’s a limiting phrase for those who use it in certain ways. I’m not saying the phrase does (or can) do it on its own because it depends on the context of its use–which I assume by the first post to be said (or meant) seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-comment-he-gets-the-milk-without-buying-the-cow-an-anti-feminist-objectification-of-women/626201/52 "2012-06-27T19:32:39Z")
> [@astro](#): > > In some discussions of marriage or commitment avoiding men who co-habit with a woman, but do not want to get married, it’s commonly said that such a situations should not be allowed to stand because the man is “getting the milk without buying the cow”. > > This sentiment is often expressed by women in analyzing the situation, but what does that say about the woman wanting to get married? Doesn’t it some some level objectify her as a dispenser of sex and domestic services haggling to get fairly compensated for her services? When I first heard this expression co-habiting was not something proper women did (as it made what was going on too obvious) and so was not the point. Neither was non-sexual domestic services, since that was expected in any case. Besides the commercial transaction problem, what this expression was saying was that women couldn’t possibly be interested in sex except as an enticement for marriage, and that any woman not using it as that was foolish. My mother never said this. She was for the whole package, and told me when I was 17 that marriage was great because you could have your cook and eat her too. ---
**Author:** ![Taomist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/53a042/32.png) [@Taomist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taomist)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-comment-he-gets-the-milk-without-buying-the-cow-an-anti-feminist-objectification-of-women/626201/53 "2012-06-27T21:21:29Z")
Heck, even if women ARE enjoying sex, \ it still seems to be the biggest tool they have in the ‘How to Get A Guy To Do What You Want’ garage. Of course, more women want the guy to get in, get busy, and get the hell OUT than want them to stick around and be a pain in the ass than was usual even 100 years ago, but still… ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-comment-he-gets-the-milk-without-buying-the-cow-an-anti-feminist-objectification-of-women/626201/54 "2012-06-28T04:03:40Z")
> [@Tad](#): > > I’m saying that the usage of phrase, or choosing to give credit to the use of the phrase, given the meaning of the phrase, does that. It’s a limiting phrase for those who use it in certain ways. Which is exactly what I thought you meant and exactly what is unadulterated codswallop. Talking about a particular relationship does not deny that there may be other types of relationships. Just because I am at a given moment talking about one thing doesn’t mean I deny some other thing. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-comment-he-gets-the-milk-without-buying-the-cow-an-anti-feminist-objectification-of-women/626201/55 "2012-06-28T04:13:51Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Using **others** as a verb doesn’t work with descriptivism, either, because people in general don’t use it as such. It is rather confusing. > > Proper prescriptivism works with descriptivism. The right way to say something is the way that it is used by the majority of people. Except that: 1/ descriptivism does not seek to say what is “right” but only to describe. 2/ descriptivism explicitly recognises change and as such it is inherent in a descriptivist view that while “othering” may not be common usage it is just a normal part of language that the usage of the word may change to become common, and it is pointless to say that this is “wrong”. 3/ you all know what **Tad–** meant by “othering” don’t you, really? > [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > Philster was (I think) making fun of continental philosophy, which is always a worthy endeavor. Philster hasn’t participated in this thread. If you meant me then I only used the word because I was quoting **Tad–**. And I don’t think **Tad–** was making fun. ---
**Author:** ![florez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9e5f3/32.png) [@florez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/florez)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-comment-he-gets-the-milk-without-buying-the-cow-an-anti-feminist-objectification-of-women/626201/56 "2012-06-28T05:27:29Z")
Ideally the feminist would not require the marriage because the institution is sexist and makes the woman into the man’s personal chattel (this is old school feminism). If the woman requires a marriage and the man is unwilling, which is the concept of the cow and milk saying, it would be the woman who is anti-feminist to degrade herself to the status of a service providing object. I do not necessarily agree that a woman requiring marriage for security in a relationship is degraded, but maybe it does indicate some lack of power, especially if she believes herself to be providing services without adequate compensation. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-comment-he-gets-the-milk-without-buying-the-cow-an-anti-feminist-objectification-of-women/626201/57 "2012-06-28T22:11:55Z")
No, because of the underlying message. The whole problem with objectifying women is that it causes you to treat them worse. This does the opposite. Plus, it’s understood by everyone that it’s just a metaphor, and not a slam against women. Again, underlying message. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-comment-he-gets-the-milk-without-buying-the-cow-an-anti-feminist-objectification-of-women/626201.md?page=2)