indicating that the woman didn't have a choice in becoming pregnant? If so, what should we replace it with?
Thanks to Dino Chrome Brigade for inspiring this question.
2007-10-02 15:39:09 · 26 answers · asked by Lioness 6 in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
LOL @ Rio. Yeah I agree that this would be a true statement in case of forced pregnancy (rape etc.).
2007-10-02 15:49:24 · update #1
Blue Flamingo: How can you hate women when you're one? :(
2007-10-02 16:10:41 · update #2
Not always. There have been rapes resulting in pregnancy, after all. Other than that, it's both their responsibility. You could just say that his bun decided to take out a nine-month lease in her oven.
2007-10-02 15:48:18 · answer #1 · answered by Rio Madeira 7 · 8⤊ 5⤋
This is a good illustration of the way in which language influences our attitudes about one gender or the other. In this case, the male is demonized for his role in reproduction. In the same way, she will be called a gold-digging b**ch when she asks him for money to help feed and clothe the baby.
It's all blaming language. And it all stems from being in a position of dealing with an unplanned pregnancy. Ever notice how a couple trying to conceive will proudly proclaim "We're pregnant!" or "We're expecting!" when they discover their efforts have been successful? It's a whole different attitude.
I don't have any alternative phrases, but I'm glad you raised the question.
2007-10-03 00:36:27 · answer #2 · answered by not yet 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
And where was she when all of this was happening?
EDIT 1: There seems to have been a bit of a linguistic shift. The term pregnant, in its original meaning, referred to the quality of expectancy generally, not just the bloated state of a woman's belly. At one time, people would have understood what one meant by the statement, "There was a pregnant silence." Everyone hearing such a statement would have readily understood that the hearers were eagerly awaiting the next profound words of the speaker. So, "They got themselves pregnant" would be much better.
EDIT 2: Also, even given the linguistic shift in the term "pregnant" to refer primarily to the bloated state of the woman's belly, the notion of "He got her pregnant" acts like as if the man is the only active partner in the sex act while the woman is a mere passive receptacle. Darn, sex would be boring if that were true!
2007-10-02 15:47:45 · answer #3 · answered by Theodore H 6 · 9⤊ 1⤋
It is only fair, when the woman in question was raped. Otherwise, it takes two to tango, so both have to take responsibility for the consequences. Something like ' They are pregnant' would be closer to the reality of the situation.
2007-10-02 15:49:30 · answer #4 · answered by ms.sophisticate 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Its all semantics, really....and whether or not someone wants to nit-pick about terminology....
In reality, a woman cannot make herself pregnant. And I don't think that the term necessarily insinuates that the woman didn't have a choice. I think, if we are going to take the saying apart, it is actually quite accurate.
But if I may, I would love to toss in my two cents on another saying....and that is "We're pregnant". No, actually, only the woman is pregnant. Together, you are expecting a baby, but only one of you is pregnant...
2007-10-03 02:39:50 · answer #5 · answered by Super Ruper 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
To 'get her pregnant' is a particular action that can only be facilitated by a man (with traditional impregnation).
To get her pregnant = to impregnate her
It's the same as "She got pregnant". Yes, he contributed, but she is still the one who is pregnant.
Edit: Okay, I guess my answer was concrete, instead of addressing the question's intentions.
What should be stated, is a matter of reference. When someone says "He got her pregnant", they're speaking in reference to the man. When someone says "She got pregnant", they're speaking in reference to the woman. When someone says "They're having a baby(or something similar)", they're referring to the man and the woman as a couple. So, this has to do with linguistic differences in relation to what 'personal pronoun' we use, based on who we are speaking about.
2007-10-02 15:58:16 · answer #6 · answered by Nep 6 · 7⤊ 1⤋
Well, "she got herself pregnant" just doesn't sound right. So I'm going to have to go with something along the lines of, "she partook in a conceptual conception".
2007-10-02 18:47:51 · answer #7 · answered by Smiley 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
well he did get her pregnant. I mean neither had a choice but regardless without putting the two together you have no baby.
do i think its right? absolutly not. the women has just as much of a choice to say whether or not she wants to be put in the position to get pregnant. its both the peoples decision
2007-10-02 17:44:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Perhaps not, but I'm having trouble coming up with a better way of puting it. Interesting question though. "They got her pregnant" is a good start, but in terms of semantics, it won't always fit. but it can be easily varied. As in "Hey, what's new with Donny?" "Oh, he and Sandy got pregnant."
2007-10-02 15:54:15 · answer #9 · answered by Priscilla B 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
no, it isnt. it implies that a woman is not a participating party to conception, and unless it was unconsensual sex, she was indeed participating. It implies that a woman is something to be acted upon, and it reduces her role in the conception process. it does indeed take two to tango.
I think it should be replaced with "she is/was pregnant and he is/was the father." its clear cut and both parties are given equal consideration.
2007-10-02 18:51:46 · answer #10 · answered by bluestareyed 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
No if isnt fair in a concentual situation.
May it could be replaced with, It took two to tango and soon to be three.
2007-10-02 16:12:03 · answer #11 · answered by rickane5 2 · 8⤊ 1⤋