"Shore," said the farmer, "but what's time to a hog?"
And what, in a woman's eyes, was time to a father?
The second type of mis-statement was a pure omission. The thing the baby books didn't mention was that most women felt ten times worse during their second pregnancies.[1] At this time life became almost unbearable for them—and it was, as a consequence, completely unbearable for their husbands.
Not one baby book or article mentioned that fact. That it was a fact I proved by a personal survey. Every mother questioned revealed that she felt horrible during her second pregnancy. She was surprised that my wife and I didn't know this.
I was not surprised. Nobody ever mentioned it, that is why we didn't know. I think it was at this time I first asked myself: Is there a subconscious conspiracy to keep this kind of information from leaking out?
It wasn't important that women didn't know this. They had selective memories (proof of this was that mankind lasted as long as it did). If they were maternally inclined (as most of them were at one time or another), the disadvantages of pregnancy faded into a sort of merciful blur.
If there was a conspiracy, it was aimed at fathers. It was intended to lull them into the logical supposition that conditions usually improve and that experience is the great teacher. Pure delusion! With women, things are always worse, and they are born with all the knowledge they will ever need.
Babies could be divided into two kinds: "most" and "occasional." Consider, for instance, the following quotation: "Most babies in the early months sleep from feeding to feeding; an occasional baby won't fall into this pattern but insists on being sociable after his meals."
The first time I read that I supposed that this business of "most" and "occasional" was a statistical matter. That was my fatal mistake. If there was any statistical backing for that statement, I never found it.