How did the word/phrase "on" or "for him" in relation to pregnancy & periods

raveni · 28-06-2011 04:40PM

Elle Collins wrote: »

I agree with all the above. It's very obviously true. That does not mean that when I say I had my child 'for' or 'by' a particular man I mean to do anything other than identify who's the kids dad.

I personally had never heard the "for" way of saying it, so like some others I interpreted it negatively and thought it was a way of saying you were only having a child for the sake of the man. Because I interpreted it in the literal meaning, once again just because I'd just never heard the expression before.

Elle Collins wrote: »

Yeah you would, if you were speaking to me in some unheard of culture where "stupid bitch" was an endearment.

You completely ignored what metrovelvet was trying to say. Just because a certain phrase is commonly used by some, doesn't mean it is by others and it can be inevitable that people who haven't heard it before will misinterpret it.

al28283 · 28-06-2011 04:44PM

amdublin wrote: »

I am sorry! But this really p!sses me off.

Is the OP literally sorry for her views on this or just speaking in a way familiar to her?

Elle Collins · 28-06-2011 04:47PM

raveni wrote: »

I personally had never heard the "for" way of saying it, so like some others I interpreted it negatively and thought it was a way of saying you were only having a child for the sake of the man. Because I interpreted it in the literal meaning, once again just because I'd just never heard the expression before.

Well that's just a misunderstanding that comes about by way of not having been exposed to a collouquilism. That I don't have a problem with. What I have a problem with is people continuing to argue that there is a negative inherant to the term, regardless having been told there is no intention to suggest that the child was born 'for' the man in the literal sense of the word.

raveni wrote: »

You completely ignored what metrovelvet was trying to say. Just because a certain phrase is commonly used by some, doesn't mean it is by others and it can be inevitable that people who haven't heard it before will misinterpret it.

Maybe I took her too literally :pac:

Elle Collins · 28-06-2011 04:48PM

al28283 wrote: »

Is the OP literally sorry for her views on this or just speaking in a way familiar to her?

+1

Wibbs · 28-06-2011 05:14PM

OK folks can we cut back on the personal stuff please? Thanks in advance

Malari · 28-06-2011 05:17PM

al28283 wrote: »

Is the OP literally sorry for her views on this or just speaking in a way familiar to her?

Well, yes. It's like people who say "sorry there" when they mean "excuse me". It drives me nuts when I hear it, although I know what they mean.

seenitall · 28-06-2011 07:32PM

Elle Collins wrote: »

That does not mean that when I say I had my child 'for' or 'by' a particular man I mean to do anything other than identify who's the kids dad.

No, you don't mean to, nor do most others who use the expression, I get that. But the language we use can reflect the values of a by-gone era (for example), without us regular users even realising it, since we are too close to it, too immersed in it to realise.

Da Shins Kelly · 29-06-2011 01:42AM

I always just laugh whenever I hear someone say 'we're pregnant'. I don't object to people saying it, I just think it's funny for some reason.

Mellor · 29-06-2011 07:48AM

I'm not sure what's more ridiculous;

People who actually thought that people were literally saying they were having the baby for the father, or
People who know it's only a figure of speach, a colloquialism, yet are getting annoyed over it.

For your viewing pleasure

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVu9MDE5Sjk

Mellor · 29-06-2011 08:16AM

Oh, and for doesn't solely means intended to belong to. Like other prepositions there are plenty of other uses, all of which are acceptable.

And, for can actually be used as a conjuction also, although its less common.

This is likely the meaning behind pregnant for somebody, it's because of that person. In my experience, its normally used for an unplanned pregnancy. (esp when not married)

miec · 29-06-2011 10:14AM

I understand and have experienced that women go through the actual pregnancy but I personally do not see a problem with either the term 'I am having a baby for [insert father's name]' or 'I am having a baby with [father's name] or by X, side stepping the colloquial debate, the fact of the matter is that creating a child involves a woman and a man and it is important in our speech to recognize that procreation needs both sexes (irrespective of the method: sex, artificial insemination or surrogacy). It bugs the life out of me that speech around conception seeks to exclude the male role in it. It is not just about the woman, it is about both parties. Having a baby for a man does not mean it is about him owning the woman or the woman being a baby making machine. There is no inherent weakness is stating you are having a child for or by or with said partner.

Elle Collins · 29-06-2011 10:33AM

seenitall wrote: »

No, you don't mean to, nor do most others who use the expression, I get that. But the language we use can reflect the values of a by-gone era (for example), without us regular users even realising it, since we are too close to it, too immersed in it to realise.

And some others mistake it as having connotations it does not have because they are too far from it, too removed from it to realise.

If a person is ascribing patriarchial origins to the use of 'for' in this context they may or may not be mistaken, but I think they most likely are. I say so because, as I've said already, 'for' is used here synonomous with 'by'. 'For' means because of that person, as Mellor has pointed out, and 'by' means by way of that person. These words are used in the same context and I can see no offense here that a woman need take. Whatever about its possible historical origins, a woman who is offended by this terminology is not understanding the modern-day context in which it is used.

seenitall · 29-06-2011 10:33AM

miec wrote: »

There is no inherent weakness is stating you are having a child for or by or with said partner.

Well, Mellor and you may not find it so, but that doesn't mean that the phrase doesn't strike other people as odd, for the reason we already discussed on this thread.

No one has to "win an argument" here, as we are all free to think of that phrase whatever we wish, and I am happy to stick to my opinion of it because, frankly, it is just a matter of a difference of opinion, and not the case where you can offer me proof positive of your pronouncements on it (or vice versa, indeed).

EDIT: @ Elle Collins, see above.:) Plus I am not offended by it, far from it. I just find it a bit "iffy" and wouldn't subscribe to using it in the context of my regular usage. Just a matter of personal preference. In any case, long may it live!

(How about that?)

Elle Collins · 29-06-2011 10:47AM

seenitall wrote: »

EDIT: @ Elle Collins, see above.:) Plus I am not offended by it, far from it. I just find it a bit "iffy" and wouldn't subscribe to using it in the context of my regular usage. Just a matter of personal preference. In any case, long may it live! (How about that?)

That's fine. I'm sure nobody has asked you to use it.

I would just ask others not to assume that those of us who use these terms consider ourselves "baby dispensers" just because they do not understand the context in which these terms are being used.

seenitall · 29-06-2011 11:12AM

Elle Collins wrote: »

I'm sure nobody has asked you to use it.

Yes, that's correct. Did I say/imply anyone did?

Elle Collins · 29-06-2011 11:27AM

seenitall wrote: »

Yes, that's correct. Did I say/imply anyone did?

Not to my knowledge.

Personally Seenitall, I couldn't care less what anyone else says but I do get pissed off when people ascribe negative meanings to the words coming out of my mouth and suggest, as has been done on here, that myself and everyone else who uses language in this way does so because we "don't know any better" and that on the back of that we all ought to be sent off to "sunday school".

pickarooney · 29-06-2011 11:27AM

Malari wrote: »

And perhaps suggesting that it stems from the fact that women were supposed to "provide" children "for" their husbands.

Surely the very existence of the question presupposed the fact that the father of the child is not the woman's husband?

Malari · 29-06-2011 11:37AM

pickarooney wrote: »

Surely the very existence of the question presupposed the fact that the father of the child is not the woman's husband?

No, I was thinking more from the point of view of "she gave him sons" sort of thing. Like it was the responsibility of the woman to give her husband kids.

seenitall · 29-06-2011 11:43AM

For my part, I don't think that what's been discussed on this thread so far is a big deal one way or the other. It is just about different takes on language, and not even any offensive or explicit language at that. Language is such a fluid thing, and it can also be very individual, let alone pertinent to communities. I get your point though, Elle, and I've deffo learned a bit more about the phrase, even.

There ya go...

Meinv · 29-06-2011 11:54AM

Hello, I see your point, but sometimes saying having a baby for someone you are in love with is a quite happy thing.

During or On period, I guess they deliver the same information...

pickarooney · 29-06-2011 11:57AM

Malari wrote: »

No, I was thinking more from the point of view of "she gave him sons" sort of thing. Like it was the responsibility of the woman to give her husband kids.

That I can agree with, but it's a completely different expression and context.

Realistically, when a woman asks another woman who she's having a baby for it's because she doesn't have a partner on the scene and most likely the father would not consider that she's doing him any favours by having the baby 'for' him. No?

Malari · 29-06-2011 11:59AM

pickarooney wrote: »

That I can agree with, but it's a completely different expression and context.

Realistically, when a woman asks another woman who she's having a baby for it's because she doesn't have a partner on the scene and most likely the father would not consider that she's doing him any favours by having the baby 'for' him. No?

Well, I don't know! That's the whole point, I've never heard this expression before reading the thread and I can only say the impression I get from hearing it.

metrovelvet · 29-06-2011 12:03PM

pickarooney wrote: »

That I can agree with, but it's a completely different expression and context.

Realistically, when a woman asks another woman who she's having a baby for it's because she doesn't have a partner on the scene and most likely the father would not consider that she's doing him any favours by having the baby 'for' him. No?

I am 'pregnant with [insert father's name]'s child'. You wouldnt ask who they were having the baby for. You would ask who's the dad wouldnt you if you really wanted to stick your nose into other people's business.

"For" still sounds like surrogacy to me.

pickarooney · 29-06-2011 12:10PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

I am 'pregnant with [insert father's name]'s child'. You wouldnt ask who they were having the baby for. You would ask who's the dad wouldnt you if you really wanted to stick your nose into other people's business.

"For" still sounds like surrogacy to me.

Personally, if I really felt I needed to ask someone that question I wouldn't use 'for' (and it does sounds like a term for surrogacy whereby essentially she would be having it 'for' two people) but it's just one example of thousands that I wouldn't use but would not object to others using it. (e.g. "quarter of nine", "living there with five years").

Elle Collins · 29-06-2011 12:20PM

pickarooney wrote: »

Realistically, when a woman asks another woman who she's having a baby for it's because she doesn't have a partner on the scene and most likely the father would not consider that she's doing him any favours by having the baby 'for' him. No?

Well, to answer your question, no! You wouldn't ask a woman who was married or in an LTR who she was having her baby by or for, because you would naturally assume that she was having her baby by or for her husband/partner. In the use of this lingo, you have a baby by or for the father, whoever he may be.

It's really not that hard to wrap your mind around:

For = 'Because of that person'

By = 'By way of that person'

pickarooney · 29-06-2011 12:24PM

Now I don't know if you said No(No)=Yes or No(Yes)=No or whether you agree or disagree or what. Stupid English language.

Elle Collins · 29-06-2011 12:51PM

pickarooney wrote: »

Now I don't know if you said No(No)=Yes or No(Yes)=No or whether you agree or disagree or what. Stupid English language.

I meant no as in 'no, you wouldn't ask a woman ect ect...'

Diddler1977 · 29-06-2011 01:01PM

amdublin wrote: »

When people are talking about a woman who is pregnant and reeferring to the father I hear ALOT of people say "she is having the baby for xxxx" ie he is the father of the baby.

I am sorry! But this really p!sses me off. We are not machines here to facilitate men who put in orders for babies.

Surely if you are having a baby it should be referred to as "she is having a baby with xxx" not for!!! If the lady is not with the baby father than definitely the phrase "for" should not be used. Probably something like "xxxxx is the father of their baby".

Does anyone else find this "having a baby for someone" phrase hugely insulting and degrading?

I am irked when I hear anyone say this. I find it intensely derogatory to the woman who is pregnant.

If the woman is a single mother to be, is she pregnant for someone? Of course not. She is "pregnant by X"

It is not commonly used in my circle of friends and work colleagues, etc. (Thank God!)

Elle Collins · 29-06-2011 01:53PM

Diddler1977 wrote: »

I am irked when I hear anyone say this. I find it intensely derogatory to the woman who is pregnant.

If the woman is a single mother to be, is she pregnant for someone? Of course not. She is "pregnant by X"

It is not commonly used in my circle of friends and work colleagues, etc. (Thank God!)

Yeah.. thought so. That's why you don't understand that the term you're complaining about and the one you're offering as an alternative mean the exact same bloody thing.

This thread has turned in ground-hog day. I'm outta here.

Dudess · 29-06-2011 03:49PM

Never heard anyone in real life say "I'm having a baby for him". Rarely hear "on my period" or "on my pregnancy".

How did the word/phrase "on" or "for him" in relation to pregnancy & periods

Comments