That people use "it" to refer to babies but not to any other human. We don't call seniors or disabled people or teens or pregnant women, "it," and yet you hear parents refer to their own babies as "it." Overheard at the bus stop this morning, a guy was talking about how his daughter was reacting to the new baby. "She was really excited at first about having a little sister, and then she started kicking it." I thought it quite interesting in light of the abortion debate. We basically refer to humans all through pregnancy and up until (when?) about a year old as a THING. The fetus, the infant, the baby, "it."
I think it's because without the mother, this thing can't possibly live so in essence it isn't it's own creature yet. It is attached to and depends on the mother until the age when it starts walking, talking and eating solid food. At which point we refer to IT as daughter, son, niece, nephew, child, kid, him, her, she, he or their name but never it. It reminds me of my women's studies days in college where we spoke of lexicon a lot and how it's shaped by cultural attitudes and yet can also actually shape our views. This is the argument behind why waitress became waitperson, stewardess became flight attendant and mailman became mail carrier. While when those names were invented it may have been appropriate because those were gender specific job, they no longer reflected our culture and needed to be changed so as to avoid reinforcing outdated ideas.
So is it that we used to think of babies as objects, not people, and we are perpetuating an outmoded societal view in our language? Or is that that we still view babies as objects which is why the majority of Americans, while not in FAVOR of abortion, support a woman's right to choose? Because this thing doesn't have it's own life until it's no longer a baby and it's right to life doesn't start at conception?
3 comments:
I really like the questions you raise here but I think that the baby="it" thing arises mostly when the person speaking does not know the gender of the child. I have never heard a parent describe a living breathing baby as "it." I find it odd that a parent would, unless the child were in utero. Which again brings us back to your astute questions but also again offers the simpler answer: the speaker does not yet know the gender of the zygote/fetus whatever (whomever) and so is using the genderless "it."
Ha ha, I love your optimism but you're wrong. People actually DO refer to babies all the time as IT, just like we would a dog or cat. I'm not saying it's out of some sort of maliciousness but I do think it curious that it's sort of OKAY to do it because there's a chance you don't know the gender (even though I think that's just an excuse). If you had a co-worker whose gender you didn't know you or whose NAME you didn't know, you would go through all kinds of vernacular hoops to make your point about that person without referring to them as "it." That's all.
Well I am one step ahead with my 7 months human cub, from thing to animal, while he is getting the consciousness that will lead him to the human cathegory.
In fact I never say I have to go to the pediatrician, but to the veterinary (In my town a guy with a white coat that reviews how much weight has the patient gained, what is best to feed him and vaccinates him, is a veterinarian)
Although sooner that expected he will become a person, and better than that become independat, (more in the mentally way than in the economical/material way), and being able to recongise that point and act in consequence is one of the biggest challenges for parents.
Post a Comment