From: hide@unlinfo.unl.edu (harry ide)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: "my wife and I are pregnant", revisited
Date: 17 Dec 1992 22:07:45 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: unlinfo.unl.edu

rollo@xylogics.com (Dena Rollo) writes:

>But in fact, I'd bet that at least *some* of those men who talk about
>"babysitting" *are* in fact *babysitting* - that is, that they really 
>do feel that they are just filling in for the primary caretaker. In those 
>cases, what irks me is not the terminology, but the attitude.

>On the other hand, (and here I go again), there is just no way for the 
>future father to be pregnant - he can (and should) be a part of the 
>pregnancy experience - supporting the woman, being actively involved in 
>prenatal appts. and care, etc., taking on more household work if necessary. 
>He may experience his own emotional (or even physical) changes. But not 
>because he is pregnant - but because his partner is, and because he, too, 
>will soon be a parent. And for me (and I really don't see why this is
>so difficult to understand) declaring yourselves to both be pregnant takes 
>something away from the reality of what pregnancy is, and how it's 
>experienced by each partner.

Men's declaring themselves pregnant does involve a shift in the 
meaning of `pregnant'. Most people who've posted in favor of that 
shift have in effect (I think) argued in favor of it as representing 
the shift in men's attitudes toward children--a shift of which Dena 
obviously approves, given her comments. That change in attitudes can't
(at least yet :-)) involve men's actually conceiving and carrying a 
baby. So if we do make this shift (as a culture, I mean--not as 
individuals), we're saying that the aspects of pregnancy we can share 
are more important to us than the actual conception and carrying of 
the baby, since we will have eliminated a way of easily referring to the 
latter and replaced it by a way of easily referring to the former. So 
I think Dena has a valid point: if the shift in meaning occurs, it 
_will_ focus attention away from the different ways each partner 
experiences pregnancy. Clarification: I'm not trying to explain 
individual's decisions, but rather a broader pattern. I'm sure that 
most people's motives are simply to represent a more active role for 
the partner who hasn't conceived and carried the child. 

Having said that, I don't know whether I'm in favor of the shift or 
not. When Carol was pregnant, I did (sometimes) say `We're pregnant', 
and I felt good about it as representing my involvement in the 
pregnancy and my intended (and practiced !) involvement in caring 
for the baby. But I also felt awkward, because (I think) of the point 
Dena has made. I do agree that language is important, and the highly 
desirable shift in the way we think about childcare should be 
accompanied by (and will in part be caused by) a shift in the language
we use. Maybe the loss of easy reference to diversity is a (relatively 
short-term?) price to be paid for that, and once the attitude has 
shifted we can pay more attention to the differences in the ways we 
all experience pregnancy and child care.


--
Harry A. Ide                      |  `It's better to play dice with  
(Dad to Andrew, born 4.iv.1991)   |  children than to play politics 
                                  |  with you.' (Heraclitus)
Newsgroups: misc.kids