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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Heck, even if women ARE enjoying sex, <what a silly notion!> 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…
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.
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?
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.
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.