All Comments for: <i>We</i> Are Not Pregnant | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2007 > July (Web-only)

Christianity Today, July (Web-only), 2007 |

SoulWork

We Are Not Pregnant

The glory of men and women lies in their unbridgeable differences.

Mark Galli | posted 7/12/2007 08:55AM

A male friend, married to a lovely women, comes up to me beaming and says, "We're pregnant!"

"Wow!" I reply, with inappropriate sarcasm. "When I was a young man, only women could get pregnant."

I've heard ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 42 comments.

Page: 1 2

Show All

A Mom

Posted: July 24, 2007 1:34 AM

At first I thought "Where are you coming from?", but reading further I understand what your saying. Like it or not, we are different. Some "Christian" men take advantage of this and misuse scripture to satisfy their own macho attitudes. If we can all understand there are differences between the sexes and accept those differences and respect each other, this world might be a better place to live in. As far as the statement "we're pregnant", I disagree with you as both people are sharing in the experience, just in different ways.

BJ	Posted: July 20, 2007 10:10 AM


Just another example of nit-picking! This article was a waste of time for both the writer and the reader(s).

King	Posted: July 17, 2007 11:30 AM


The term is a colloquialism of this generation revealing men's desire to become more involved. Trying to stop well meant changes like that is like trying to stop a bull chasing another bull in heat. Ain’t gonna happen. Galli is just revealing his old fuddyduddyishness.

Jeannie

Posted: July 17, 2007 10:18 AM

Scientific studies have shown that men who are close to their wives and close to their children undergo hormonal changes throughout pregnancy and the child's infancy. Specifically, they become more nurturing. Your male friends who talk of being "pregnant" are trying to share an experience that you may have missed out on. Your points 1,2,3 seem pretty accurate for marriages in which rigid gender roles are observed. The question is, are these good results? In other words, are the gender differences you herald healthy for the child? Do they honor God? For example, you note that men are not as skilled at discerning whether a baby is hungry or in pain. Then you go on to say that men are better at enforcing household rules. I'm sure it would be easier to be strict about "the law" if one does not consider the needs of the particular child at this particular moment (hungry? in pain?) I also have to wonder how men can be better at teaching a child to manage pain, if men are un

Terry

Posted: July 16, 2007 9:32 AM


You could not be more wrong! When two people have a child together, there are physical as well as psychological changes that "real men" go through. By denying these, you cannot enjoy the full relationship with your children. This article shows that you truly believe in stereotypes and old school relationships and that you do not have the ability or desire to think outside the box.

Anonymous

Posted: July 15, 2007 5:43 PM

shallow, pitiful and insubstantial article which deals with a non-issue. Totally irrelevant to any deep soulwork and hardly scratches the surface of what goes on below the surface between men and women in Chrisitianity. No real issue of gender and spirituality, proper, was dealt with. Very very disappointing. I can only repeatly use the words "superficial and shallow" and hope my deep disappointment comes through.

Dru	Posted: July 14, 2007 6:55 PM

Without responding directly to either the somewhat valid arguments or the entirely ludicrous potshots of the previous commenters, I really appreciate what Galli said. The term "we're pregnant" does seem to be a slap in the face of women, though I suppose maybe some would not mind. Perhaps pregnancy--as Galli suggested--could be one time when the husband can hold his wife in special reverence, awe and care. I also was struck by his very non-"fundamentalist" (I use this term in a negative way) approach to men's and women's roles. Way to go--men and women are different--God designed us that way--but one does not have a superior gift to the other. Thanks a lot, keep up the good work.

Dan S.

Posted: July 14, 2007 3:57 PM

How sadly predictable- a white evangelical man has told us that we can now relax about gender! I guess it's safe to just settle back into our historically flawed "roles" where the man leads with authority and the woman serves with meekness. I'm disappointed that even in 2007, I am being told that I my wife's contribution is that she can breastfeed our kids better than me, while as the father, I am somehow better at "helping my children confront the challenges and opportunities in the world." Our problem as Christians is not that we've made the mistake of exalting "male traits" over "female traits", but that our definition of "male traits" is stuck in the 18th century. Mr. Galli sings the praises of hierarchical gender roles and then hopelessly tries to throw a bone to egalitarians by saying that women have "rightly learned a great deal about leadership" and men have "rightly learned a great deal" about nurturing in the last 30 years. Maybe so, but no thanks to him!

Brandon Paris

Posted: July 14, 2007 6:50 AM


Don't the two become one at marriage? Seems fairly simple.

Patricia

Posted: July 13, 2007 7:17 PM

Let's clear up one thing. The core teachings of Christianity are to love the Lord God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus (anyone remember him?) did not say anything about how men are to act or how women are to act. He did, though, say plenty about how everyone should act, and meek (not the same thing as a doormat) is one trait all Christians should have. I'm tired of how many Christians are obsessed with gender roles. I guess it's a knee-jerk response to feminism, which in itself was a knee-jerk reaction to how culture and the Church saw women, the church's view stemming from a flat-out misinterpretation of verses in I Corinthians, Ephesians, etc. Mr. Galli, please wake up and smell the coffee.

Sharp

Posted: July 13, 2007 12:19 PM

I see where Galli is coming from. He is tired of the corruption of language to serve political correctness and I agree with him there. "We are expecting" is entirely accurate and conveys plenty of ownership for the men. However Galli's execution is poor and he throws in some stereotypes that undermine his credibility. I hate to break it you, Mark but women aren't any more meek than men. Has he never raised a daughter or managed a mixed group of employees or volunteers? There's no more "innate" pliability or teachability among the ladies than the men!

Hannah

Posted: July 13, 2007 12:03 PM

"The sad history of most cultures has assumed that male traits (authority and leadership) are superior to female traits (meekness and service)." From your quote above...These "cultural" stereotypical norms are just not true across the board, and if they are not true, they should not be looked down upon. We need to keep moving ahead of what the new testament writers started out to do. First we must understand the context in which they were writing, before we apply it to our lives today. There was a major hope of moving men and women ahead of their time, but Paul was still writing within his cultural context. It doesn't mean that this is the way men and women are supposed to be for all time. I would not be offended to have my husband say "we" are pregnant. I'm with peter on this one.

Doug Swan

Posted: July 13, 2007 11:43 AM

It seems to me that the author of the article misses something. I see the man's statement to mean that he was and is cooperatively "involved" with his wife in the anticipation of a new life being brought into the world as a result of their shared love. Isn't that how God designed it? What is lacking here in the authors position is the understanding of Genesis where God said, "...and the two shall become one flesh." And what is wrong with having an egalitarian view of being man and woman. To say otherwise brings us back to antiquated and wrong notions of one being superior and the other dependent and inferior, something I believe God never intended. Just ask my wife!

Anonymous

Posted: July 13, 2007 9:11 AM

The cowboy macho-style reminds me of how Brokeback Mountain is a send-up of all western movies where self-conscious manliness is actually a sign of hidden homosocial and thus also homosexual leanings. Comfortable security with one's gender makes it easy for the secure male to use whatever language is customary while still remaining right with God. I sincerely question this authors achievement at bringing us anything at all of worth in this article; nothing has come that has anything to do with the deep issues of church and morality and soulwork. Instead he has encouraged a self-aware macho-ness rather than authentic security in gender identity. It reminds me a bit of the worst of D.H. Lawrence's writings in which gender and sexuality lean heavily towards the romantic homosocial ideals; and so men and women are seen as romantic idols within isolated and then ever passionate and ever patriotic fervers. A western ideal of the most unconscious kind has crept into such a high place in God

Bill Bray

Posted: July 13, 2007 6:42 AM


Good stuff. Preach it brother! We need to hear this politically incorrect message far more often.

t.h.	Posted: July 13, 2007 6:10 AM

soulwork! What a shallow theme this author covers under such a deep heading. When it comes to soulwork our aim should be aligning ourselves deeply with Jesus. His concerns should surely be morality and sexual righteousness in the church between the genders, rather than whether married men used colloquial terms like "we are pregnant". A deeper issue is when men and woman treat the church like a dating game and when there is adulterous temptations between men and women in the church. The church, when shallow, is a meatmarket, a shambles, where men and women focus on their attractiveness to the other (and even same) sex all the time. Such issues of identity "in Christ" versus the sexual desire for one-another is a deep issue needing addressing. I feel this article is done as an epitomy of shallowness and superficiality. There are much deeper issues relating to relations between the sexes that apply to soulwork than the simple one of married men using modern cliches to describe pregnancy.

Wonders for Oyarsa

Posted: July 12, 2007 10:53 PM


What? Mark Galli is upholding the traditional Christian understanding of man as male and female, and challenging egalitarian cultural assumptions? In a Christian publication? Scandalous!!! Sack him! Burn him! Heresy!

Matt K

Posted: July 12, 2007 10:29 PM

The danger in this thinking is that even if the tendency is for women to be meek and men to be bold, to hold all women and all men to this generalization is unfair. Since the author does note that historically women have been oppressed under this system of thinking, we can also conclude that if making percieved gender diferences is dogma it will continue to result in sexual discrimination. Ambitious and capable women will suffer the demeaning looks and derogatory gossip, while men who choose to be homemakers will have their sexual orientation questioned. Besides, did Jesus have a specific gender in mind when he said "Blessed are the meek". And finally, I'd take stuff you read in "Touchstone Magazine" with a grain of salt. Its basically high-church fundamentalism. Extremists with an extreme agenda who don't look kindly on us evangelicals.

enzyme6

Posted: July 12, 2007 9:22 PM

To those that quote Gal 3:28, what about Gal. 3:26 and the word 'sons'? Which takes me back to my original question (which no one answered :().. Is there no gender leaning (for lack of a better word) towards men conveyed in scripture? if not, how do we deal with 1 peter 3:7 or 1 Cor 11:7? and the repeated requests for wives to submit to husbands? I understand that God looks at men and women without favoritism, but how do we justify the differing roles we are to play?

Nathan

Posted: July 12, 2007 8:28 PM

The point is well taken, but the jumping off point -- "we're pregnant" -- is an awkward one. While I recoiled every time I heard my brother say this during the nine months prior to my niece's birth (because that is what brothers do when their brothers say effeminate things), I never took the phrase to suggest anything more than "we're in this together." Seems like an appropriate and noble sentiment to me.

Kim	Posted: July 12, 2007 7:56 PM

First of all, please don't take things so seriously. I know that men can't actually get pregnant, but I kinda like the phase. A child must have(biologically) both a mother and a father and in a culture that so often devalues fatherhood it's refreshing to see a father(to be) portray himself as equally important in his child's conception and upbringing. As for the issue of differences between men and women I question whether the differences, besides the obvious physical ones, are really as big as some people think. The Bible says "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"(Gal 3:28). I take this to mean that such physical and/or worldly traits as race, gender or economic status hold little weight in comparison to our (Christians') position and faith in Jesus Christ. While many people might fit loosely into 'stereotypical' roles, I am glad our culture gives people the freedom to be themselves and use the gifts God gave them.

Anonymous

Posted: July 12, 2007 6:38 PM

Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." The glory of men and women is that they are "in Christ" and so share with him, as part of one body, the mind of Christ. That means they are humble and courageous and have all the gifts of the spirit to help them in their anointed ministries. What is a danger to the church rather than unrecognised differences between the genders is a leadership figure that is unanointed and ungracious and who shoots from the hip like a hyped-up testosterone filled macho character in a cheap cowboy movie. This article is such ungracious shooting from the hip and belongs in a saloon-bar chewing backy.1 Corinthians 2:16 ""16"But we (all) have the mind of Christ."" So, if it is adherence to the words that uphold our faith, then it is the words of scripture that should encourage us all to share with each other, male and female, beaing pne another's burdens. 1 Cor 13 vs 4Love is not rude.

David

Posted: July 12, 2007 6:00 PM

For all his attempt to have others be precise in the use of language, Mark is sloppy himself. Leadership is a behaviour, not a trait (one must lead to be a leader). Authority describes what a person is given (because of position, or skill, or education etc.), not who he/she is. Service is also a behaviour, not a trait. And who decided that meekness is innately female or that females are innately meek?

Alex Chediak

Posted: July 12, 2007 5:47 PM


I meant to give to give 4 stars. sorry about that!

Garrick

Posted: July 12, 2007 4:39 PM

As a guy who says sometimes, "my wife is pregnant" and sometimes "we're pregnant" and who is also an egalitarian who believes in and affirms the differences between men and women, the phrase in question is not quite as pregnant (pun intended) with meaning as stated above. Having children is a wonderful work of God, and one thing American egalitarian culture has done, is allowed men to be a greater part of the birthing process and fathering process. This is possibly more biblical, and at least stands in contrast to many cultures where the man is a passive bystander in the entire process. Or worse yet, a culture where the woman is nothing more than a functional carrier. Certainly after having seen my wife's great endurance, strength, and fortitude during pregnancy and child birth (all of which I would not be able to withstand) I want to affirm her value and exceptionality as a woman, in contrast to my maleness.

Page: 1 2

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment