NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/misc/kids/31036

Text File | 1992-12-22 | 3.5 KB | 71 lines

Newsgroups: misc.kids
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!amym
From: [e-mail] (Amy Moseley Rupp)
Subject: Re: "my wife and I are pregnant", revisited
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin Tx.
References: <31323@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:14:39 GMT
Lines: 59

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (The Idealistic Cynic) writes:

>*Everything* was in her name, regardless of which one of us talked to
>the person involved -- even in the more liberal places, and even when
>it was for information only!  If I called asking for information, they
>wanted my wife's name.  Every time.  Seriously -- in not a single case
>involved with the pregnancy did anything I requested or registered for
>stay in my name; they *always* requested my wife's name and we were
>registered by her name.

I agree with most of your post, but I have to take exception to this.
Things like childbirth classes probably should be registered in the
couple's name, but there are some things that should not be.  In
this age of single motherhood, there is ALWAYS a mother involved
in childbirth, but only SOMETIMES a father.  It's easier for recordkeeping
to just keep the mom's name, although I believe that the effort to keep
both names should be made.  Not that the dad should not be involved;
it's strictly a recordkeeping thing, like having my husband listed in
the phone book without my name, although I help pay the bill!

Secondly, however much anyone wants to change the fact, the woman
is the medical patient, with rights of privacy.  It is her name that
rightfully should go on all medical-related stuff.  When I had
my daughter, it was not my husband who had to:  weigh in check blood
pressure pee in this cup this gel will be cold press this button
when you feel the baby kick I'm sorry you'll have to stay in bed
for the next four weeks you can't take this medicine you're pregnant
I'm going to induce labor I'm hooking you to an IV I'm sticking you
5 times for a blood test Let me check your dilation I'm breaking
your waters Let me catheterize you.  He was not the patient.

And finally it was me and not my husband who was strapped to
an OR table and carved open.   I wish it WAS him but it wasn't.

I'm not trying to be hostile, only trying to emphasize that
in some way, the HUGE contribution of the pregnant woman must be
recognized via semantics.  As they say, the man is involved the
woman is committed.  If the man decides to run off to Bora Bora,
he's off the hook.  (for the pregnancy/l&d etc)
If the woman goes, she's simply pregnant in
Bora Bora instead of wherever she was--she still has to go through
pregnancy/labour/delivery/recovery.

The man deserves 'credit' too, but I don't think it has to be in
the form of 'we're pregnant' or having their name on all forms.
Because the concept of having men involved with their partners'
pregnancies is so new, the language has not evolved to fit the
situation.  I think 'pregnant' is a word best reserved for the
woman.  There needs to be a new word, I guess, for the 'pregnant'
father.  It's too bad 'expecting' is looked upon as a 50's
euphemism because it really does describe the couple better
than 'pregnant' does.

My $0.02, no flames intended.
--
Amy Moseley Rupp            Mother to Elizabeth AnneMarie,
[e-mail]        born 11/4/92
[phone]