OK not a great blog, but here goes….
Sometimes I’m amazed at what Bastardette has unleashed in the past 6 weeks. The reaction has been informative for me and I’m sure other people. I agree often with the sentiment, but not always with context (or lack thereof) or strategies. And, as an equal opportunity hater, I can also dismiss everybody (including myself) as a crackpot if I feel like it
Some comments are overly harsh and even cruel, but I don’t think that is particularly bad in the long run, though knowing many of you on some personal level, I wish you’d be kinder to each other. Reading comments in a detached and non-personal manner, however, remind us of what Mirah Riben calls “the dark side of adoption”–a side that activists can never afford to forget if we want to succeed.
I am sure most of us are reasonably nice people in real life. Our personal adoption narratives however, have created alter-personas of anger and frustration. We are treated by the state and its client adoption “professionals” as insignificant and invisible. If permitted to grow out of our arrested development stage we get in the way of the “experts”” grand design of social control through better engineering.
Don’t serve the enemy.
We can each tear off our little chunk of adoption animosity, but until a viable political and historical analysis of adoption is developed and implemented into change, those little chunks will continue to choke us. The change will come from us and people like us. To create change everyone must step out of the vulnerable paranoid personal and into the brave new fora of public scrutiny.
Take the time to spew the same vitriol on our enemies as on our friends. Otherwise, we are Eldridge Cleavering ourselves. Public policy creates personal agony. We are not each other’s enemy. The state is our enemy.
Speaking of the enemy…I’m in Washington DC for a few days. I’m using time tonight and tomorrow to selected comments.
I’m sure we could all be kinder and gentler towards one another. But honestly, I am sick of the kind of counter-productive blathering that some people in the adoption reform movement have engaged in for literally years. I’m reluctant to speak for others, but many of us have stood by and swallowed hard for a long time rather than say what needs to be said.
When some idiot refers to evil adopters its useless rhetoric. All it does is alienate some people who might be on our side. Its also a generalization that is not much better than saying all African Americans smoke crack. My adopters are two of the kindest most decent people anyone will ever meet. Years ago, when I wanted to know about my background, they helped me search.
Now that I know my story it would be the easiest thing in the world for me to get out of the open records movement. I remain in it because I don’t think its right that other adoptees don’t have the same information I do.
I can accept that some had worse experiences. Life is often hard and unfair. What I don’t understand are people who think that bashing adoptive parents, bashing adoptees who don’t tow the party line, and bashing the whole notion of adoption is somehow constructive or going to result in open records. Its not behavior that’s likely to win support for a movement that has too few supporters.
Most political movements that have ultimately been successful found ways to be inclusive and find new supporters. Ironically, this movement seems more eager to alienate potential supporters in the interest of some weird kind of idealogical purity. I just hope that someday we figure it out.
Anonymous –
Talk about alienation and
counter-productive blathering…
You make a good argument for keeping the records sealed.
Also even decent kind people do things unimaginable things when they’re desperate.
Anonymous again cowardly asserts -What I don’t understand are people who think that bashing adoptive parents, bashing adoptees who don’t tow the party line, and bashing the whole notion of adoption is somehow constructive or going to result in open records.
Sigh. You’re just not getting it my dear. You keep insisting there is a party line and a huge conspiracy going on. It hasn’t gone unnoticed that you are one of an extremely small handful who keeps hanging on to this. Didn’t you use this same argument last year on the AARP boards?
Why don’t you be specific and name names instead of generalizing? Who is expecting you to tow some company line? What do you propose as a plan that will work to get open records for adoptees?
You are getting nowhere with your ranting rage and isolation – again repeating the same tactics of anonymously signing onto blogs and boards bad rapping whomever you perceive to be the enemy rather than coming up with some kind of valid plan. You’ve done absolutely nothing toward that end.
Even Marley has acknowledged that one’s being anti or pro adoption has nothing to do with the issue, yet you keep coming here to her blog and repeating the same rhetoric that does more to turn supporters against you than take your side. Whether you are sick of whatever you call blathering or not, the reality my dear is that you cannot shut people up because they don’t share your POV. Why can’t you accept that?
Now have the guts to name names and specifics if you really wish to be taken for anything other than a bitter, dottering old fool. And tell us (including BN, what you think should be done. Maybe then you could garner some respect from others that are here.
I believe you are totally clueless and if others won’t tell you and just wish to roll their eyes and snicker behind the scenes privately, that’s their business. Somehow you are invested in keeping this bitter diatribe alive, even in the face of others here intellectually debating or opinions.
Could the fact that your bmommy rejected you have anything to do with your ongoing rage? Because clearly you have it in for uppity mothers who dare to share our own viewpoint.
Anon, who do you include in the “adoption reform movement?”
To me, the “adoption reform movement” is industry/adoptor groups such as lobbyists NCFA, or Bastard Nation, a group of people not raised in ordinary families who express undisguised contempt for ordinary families and ordinary people (which is most of us, by the way).
These groups are working to change the system just enough to keep it going and to preserve their own power and privileges and status as “special.”
I don’t think you are getting that many of the writers here are not interested in reforming an inherently abusive and exploitative system, but in empowering families to move on to something better. And, yes, there is something better–better for families and children, not better for adoptors and the adoption industry, and not better for the religions and govts. that know if their subjects allow them to control their reproduction, they have achieved absolute power over them.
Anonymous said ..Now that I know my story it would be the easiest thing in the world for me to get out of the open records movement. I remain in it because I don’t think its right that other adoptees don’t have the same information I do.
Clearly you have no other opinion that the one you keep repeating. You show no concern and in fact even disdain for first mother’s issues – adoptees rights is your only issue.
May I ask why you keep coming here when the blogger has even expressed concern for the way mothers are treated? And why you keep coming here when you know very well that there are mothers of adoption loss who share a different opinion? And you haven’t once come up with a strategic plan either. Who are you anyway? What is your experience in effecting legislative change?
Someone told you earlier that you keep repeating the same comments expecting a different outcome. Marley even asked that you stop vilifying people on the same side and yet you pointlessly go off on another tirade! Are you hoping for an outcome that people will finally agree with you and turn on all the anti adoptionists?
If you can’t carry on a debate without name calling and finger pointing, then go somewhere else. It seems to me that you are even disagreeing with marley who owns this blog. Stop swallowing hard if you can’t handle someone’s different opionion and take your assanine arguements somewhere else. I would certainly never support any efforts you made for legislative changes because to be honest, you are the one who sounds like an “idiot”.
Now that I know my story it would be the easiest thing in the world for me to get out of the open records movement.
I’m curious too. Who is it you represent in the open records movement? Are you speaking on behalf of BN, ALMA, CUB, AAC? Or are you a movement of one?
You say you stay in the movement in spite of people you don’t care for – how? what? where? Since you know so much better than everyone here what should or should not be done, put up or shut up.
I have been relatively quiet on this issue. I do think that we fight viciously amongst ourselves. I believe it is to our detriment. The adoption industry and the state wins without even trying everytime we argue this harshly. I try very hard to be accomadating to everyone in the triad. Not because I am a good adoptee, but because of basic respect. I will call you anything you want me to call you. When I am at other blogs, other forums and such I show that respect. I respect all of those who are trying to change these archaic laws. How can I not? You have the strength to step forward and own your child. You have the strength to own your part. Yet you want to change/abolish adoption. You want open records just as I do. I may not agree with all of your ideas but I will listen to them. That is how I continue to learn. See I wish I had a biological/birth/first/original mother just like many of you, but I don’t I have a woman who is cold scared and selfish. She refused me. All I ask is that we respect each other’s position yet we join and fight the state and the adoption agencies/NCFA. I think that Marley is asking that as well.
The previous post was written by Amyadoptee. It seems that they have changed things again on blogger
She refused me. All I ask is that we respect each other’s position yet we join and fight the state and the adoption agencies/NCFA.
Amy, I agree with you and totally respect your position. I found a son with lots and lots of issues which have to do with his being adopted. He is angry and shut down and because his adopters refuse to acknowledge that his being adopted had anything to do with anything – he can’t even speak out about it. Instead he self medicates with drugs and rages at everyone, including his adoptive parents. I don’t respect these people and as a result, I don’t respect any parents (adoptive or otherwise) whose own need to project an image of a happy family jeapordizes the emotional health of the children they were supposed to provide for.
Amyadoptee, Your first mother and my son were damaged by their adoption experience. Yet we still are willing to work for the greater good, probably hoping on some level that our found family member just might benefit somehow by more openess.
I don’t believe that their actions have anything to do with us as people. It’s their own pain and guilt that they feel powerless to deal with. It’s sad but we can’t let them take us down into their angry abyss or then we become victimized, too. You are very wise in your assessment that we need to continue to listen to other’s viewpoint and agree where we can.
Labels and names are important to some of us but not others and that’s ok, too. But we’re at an impasse because a few can’t let go of their need to be right about every aspect of adoption reform.
I honestly don’t feel that I have to be right. I just wish to have my experience accepted as mine.
Amy, what I wouldn’t have given to have found someone like you. And as long as your mother and my son are on this earth – there is hope.
Carol C. You and I have spoken one on one a few times via CUB. My email is [email protected]. I agree with you that there is hope. Its just sometimes I am not hopeful. I really hate what adoption has done to people. I hate the way we all fight. I want us to change the laws.
Carol C wrote..
“Amyadoptee, Your first mother and my son were damaged by their adoption experience.”
We are all damaged by something.. Life is not easy..
I think Carol C your comment here is a sweeping generalization.. Who really knows why some people take a side trip in life.. Who knows why a woman refuses contact and never speaks of the child..
The trauma of giving the child up may not be part of the woman’s inability to cope.. The reasons why the adoptee is into drugs or something difficult may have nothing to do with the fact that he or she was relinquished..
Yes.. coping with adoption and relinquishment is something we all need to sort.. and if someone can not sort it then so be it..
But we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater IMO.
There are times when adoption is a good thing.. Even if we do not know it at the time..
You also wrote..
“Labels and names are important to some of us but not others and that’s ok, too. But we’re at an impasse because a few can’t let go of their need to be right about every aspect of adoption reform.
I honestly don’t feel that I have to be right. I just wish to have my experience accepted as mine.”
If you believe this then why do you speak of the damage done by adoption/relinquishment as a symptom of a disease or a symptom of something horrible..
Some people cope with life and some do not..
And open records are a very big part of this coping IMO.
If records were open then all of us are going to have to act like thinking individuals.. (something Marley has taught me through the years)
Not as someone who is damaged by adoption and needs to be protected.
And not as someone who was abused by the system.. And maybe.. because of that thinking allowing the system to speak for he or she..
Some will say that its okay that there is a contact veto.. I say then big brother is still in control.. still in control of the reunion and still in control of individuals that should be free to do as they please with whomever they please.
In another part of Marley’s blog. I spoke of how my belief in God helped me to heal from what happened all those years ago..
I was ridiculed by some..
I guess I would have been accepted if I had of spoken of damage.. I guess I would have been accepted if I had of become my disease so I could pull the pity pot out and ask the ‘powers that be’ to please please stop letting others use that bad birthmother word.. and please please let some have contact veto’s because a little bit is better than nothing..
Again..(as I did in 1965) handing my power over to someone else.. Handing it over so I can be part of the problem.. and not part of the solution.
Jackie
“”this movement seems more eager to alienate potential supporters “”
And whom might these ‘potential supporters’ be??
If you believe this then why do you speak of the damage done by adoption/relinquishment as a symptom of a disease or a symptom of something horrible
Jackie, this comment above of yours doesn’t even make sense. There are people here telling you that their adoption experience was awful. That means it was something horrible, for THEM.
Just because you didn’t suffer from your own choice that you feel you made doesn’t mean you have the right to tell others that their experience might have been for the best.
You are not God, jackie. Everyone doesn’t share your same belief system, so show some respect for other people’s right to their own opinion based on what adoption did to them. If you weren’t abused by the system, good for you. Plenty of us were and opening the records for adoptees is not going to help the mothers who have been treated like breeders.
If you’ve bought into that arguement, I think you are incredibly out of touch with reality.
Again..(as I did in 1965) handing my power over to someone else.. Handing it over so I can be part of the problem.. and not part of the solution.
I hate to tell you jackie, but you have AGAIN handed your power over to someone else. You’ve handed it over to Marley and BN – you are merely parroting their words while negating your own experience. Do you enjoy being a token birthmother for them?
“Some people cope with life and some do not..”
I think the statement pasted above somehow minimizes the depth and magnitude of how adoption has affected/afflicted the lives of so many.
Forms of coping can be learned and develop from an early age, and some people are more emotionally vulnerable than others to begin with, and sometimes it IS adoption-related issues that have put people over the edge in forming destructive ways of coping or non-coping such as suicide.
Sure there are some cases where safety or some other issue is a real concern where a child must be placed in another home, but why play Russian Roulette with so many people’s lives when it isn’t necessary… as they did with us, well adoptionists are doing it every day and we who know better shouldn’t minimize it or remain silent.
I believe that God can make something good out of our trials with a spiritual aim in sight, but that God has also said not to provoke others unto wrath… so I also don’t think He wants people to (knowingly) cause or allow severance of mother and child just because we think He’ll fix it all in the end… or because some haven’t suffered as much or haven’t sustained as much damage as others because they are “good” cope-ers. This is like playing God, and the hypocrites are out there doing it. I think he’d rather we would care about others’ pain, and to speak out against the injustices rather than become apologists for the deliberate manipulation of families- parents and children.
“I think he’d rather we would care about others’ pain, and to speak out against the injustices rather than become apologists for the deliberate manipulation of families- parents and children. “
I wrote the above but wanted to make clear that I include closed records as a grave injustice and didn’t want to imply the blogger is an apologist in any way shape or form, therefore mothers-please- she is not an enemy …”know your enemy”. As a first mom, I have supported open records and will continue to, even though efforts aren’t always seen as reciprocated. I think the causes are inherently mutually supportive when you think about it- so lets support each other and not minimize or stonewall.
didn’t want to imply the blogger [herself]
(meaning Marley)
I know a number of people who live in Kansas, or were adopted there, or were stripped of their children there.
I know some reunited people whose adoptions took place in Kansas.
Kansas has always had “open records’ for adopted people. From what I have heard, adopted people still grow up the same way in Kansas..still have some of the same ‘rejection and abandonment/identity issues'(I am not saying all adopted people..but certainly some of them..and open records in adulthood doesn’t fix all of that).One search/support group leader in Kansas told me that most adoptees in Kansas do not even know the records are open to them until they make the move to search. Then they find out the records are open to them.
Records in Kansas are not open to mothers.Mothers are not treated well in Kansas, and recently the CPS system in Kansas was under investigation.
Laws in Kansas include allowing mothers to sign a surrender 12 hours after the birth.There is also a pre-birth ‘consent” that is confusing and seems to imply surrender.
If open records for adopted people solved the problems of adoption, Kansas would be a very different place than it is.
There is much more involved in the problems of adoption, than opening records to adopted people.
“”There is much more involved in the problems of adoption, than opening records to adopted people. “”
AMEN!!! I do agree, but opening sealed records would start to put the kibosh on adoption, JMO. No more hiding. Fighting to open records to adoptees as well as mothers, just might work better than just to adoptees. Right now the Pro-Adoptionists use the Mothers Skirts to hide behind in saying, NAY!, to opening sealed records.
What would the Pro-Adoptionists/Anti-Open Records people, use for an excuse if mothers were included in the fight for open records? I for one would like to see ALL the records written, where my name appears. If that were to happen, I imagine the sound of paper shredding machines would be deafening.
And who in the hell were these foster parents that so many of our babies were left in the care of, many mothers not even knowing their baby was in fostercare after surrender? I was told that the apars were coming to the hospital to pick my baby up…was one more lie I would find out about After reunion. Truly they are the ‘invisible people’.
And why is the Amended Birth Certificate even legal? Who made that biggest bold faced lie, legal? When and by whom? And who are the Adoption Lobbyists in DC? Anyone have any names, other than NCFA? Like individuals?
” I really hate what adoption has done to people. I hate the way we all fight. I want us to change the laws.”
Amyadoptee, laws certainly helped to do all this damage, but changing all the existing laws will not fix it on a personal level. Changing existing adoption laws is like trying to build a new house on a cruddy foundation.
Law does need to play a part in this. There need to be brand new laws protecting pregnant women from being solicited by adopters and adoption facilitators. It should be illegal for any pregnant woman to even have the word “adoption” mentioned to her until her child is at least three months old, and preferably six months old. And then, it should not be about adoption as we know it but about a more humane mother/child centered arrangement that leaves everyone intact.
Not only is this an issue that needs to be confronted due to the extremely abusive nature of adoption (proven by all the damaged individuals it creates), but because more and more is becoming known about postpartum depression. How can a modern society that is learning about postpartum depression advocate for mindlessly removing babies from mothers? Wasn’t anybody but me shocked by the Dear Abby incident where the lonely and distressed service wife wrote to her for help–and Abby suggested adoption for the mother’s child and her readers wrote in by the droves trying to get their hands on the mother’s child?
Changing laws will not heal damaged mothers and children. Changing the foundation of what hurt them by telling the truth and exploding the old myths and delusions that make up adoption will be a beginning.
A PROUD HAPPY burfmudder but
“shamed” into it? traumatized by it yet “it was meant to be”? essentially wiped the child off her feet and now she is “healed”? Guess that should cover all the bases to get attention.
When your “amused” by relinquishing women of the same time are victims, your attenna is up but it’s not picking up the channels.
I do enjoy reading and listening to all of you. Your opinions are invaluble to me. I do fight for equal rights for all in the triad. I think we all need to have our stories heard. Even if it has to be repeated until those that are against are blue in the face. Yes the laws need changing but the public needs to be educated as well. I had a friend of mine that went bible thumping in the wrong direction. Her husband is an adoptee. She actually said that she is grateful her husband wasn’t aborted and that I should be grateful as well. She was also willing to let her daughter become a birth mother. All of which has appalled and offended me. She and I have ended our friendship as a result. I am one of those that puts her money where her mouth is. I support open records for all involved. I have written to the state leaders in Indiana. It seems that I must get ready to do it again and again until they hear me. I have written about twenty newspapers. Looks like I need to do it again and again until the public is educated. Just me I am trying. I educate everyone that I get a chance to. Its not just about adoption. Its also about women and children. Its their rights that are being violated. I don’t want that to happen to my daughters, my sisters, my mothers, my friends, or even my enemies.
MOTHER wrote:
Law does need to play a part in this. There need to be brand new laws protecting pregnant women from being solicited by adopters and adoption facilitators. It should be illegal for any pregnant woman to even have the word “adoption” mentioned to her until her child is at least three months old, and preferably six months old. And then, it should not be about adoption as we know it but about a more humane mother/child centered arrangement that leaves everyone intact.”
Marley replies:
You’re arguing that women should be forced to parent. That puts you in the same category as the Ceaseacus. It’s a pernicious patriarchial essentialist view that degrades women to nothing more than miindless baybee machines. It denies female agency and decision making capablities.
What do you with women who don’t want to parent? Lock them up in the county jail and force them to fulfill their motherly function as defined by you?
Do you support abortion or should women be forced to remain pregnant to fulfill your essentialist dream of mother and child?
CH wrote:
What would the Pro-Adoptionists/Anti-Open Records people, use for an excuse if mothers were included in the fight for open records? I for one would like to see ALL the records written, where my name appears. If that were to happen, I imagine the sound of paper shredding machines would be deafening.
Marley:
I agreek, but the legal argumengts are different. I think mothers and fathers should have full access to knoweldge of what became of their kids if they want it.
Mothers supporting records accdss for adoptees are included in all open records campaigns, but the oppositon pulls out one mother who doesn’t want records open and the whole thing blows sky high. The important thing to remember is opposition slogan “if it saves just one.” That’s what has pimped safe havens and it’s what pimps open records. (see I’m trying not to offend here!) comes forward saying she’s speaking for all of those closet cowerers who are terrified that their past will show up on their doorstep. Well, we have to save that “just one” don’t we?
You might be able to download the testimony of one of these women (who is also an NCFA employee”) on the Maine open records site It’s disgusting.
Ch:
And who in the hell were these foster parents that so many of our babies were left in the care of, many mothers not even knowing their baby was in fostercare after surrender? I was told that the apars were coming to the hospital to pick my baby up…was one more lie I would find out about After reunion. Truly they are the ‘invisible people’.
Marley:
Very invisble. Adptees aren’t even allowed to know who they were either.
Ch;
And why is the Amended Birth Certificate even legal? Who made that biggest bold faced lie, legal? When and by whom? And who are the Adoption Lobbyists in DC? Anyone have any names, other than NCFA? Like individuals?
BCs were amended way before NCFA was a gleam in Edna’s eye. Who opposes open records now. Here’s a selection, in no specific order but there are more:
NCFA
ACLU
Eagle Forum
National Right to Life (leaves it up to various chapters, but none support)
American Life League
Any anti-abortion organization
The Catholic Bishops (often in the guise of Catholic Charities, but not always)
Planned Parenthood
Numerous Christian organizations with lots of political clout
L-D-S Social Services
Bethany Christian Services
Gladney Center
Focus on the Family
Family Research Council
The American Center for Law and Justice
George W. Bush
Marley
ANON WROTE:
To me, the “adoption reform movement” is industry/adoptor groups such as lobbyists NCFA, or Bastard Nation, a group of people not raised in ordinary families who express undisguised contempt for ordinary families and ordinary people (whichis most of us, by the way).
Marley replies:
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Please document where BN has some policy of “undisguised contempt” towards families. Blame my attutude on Fredrich Engels and RD Laing but not BN. For over 35-years I’ve believed that the family is the root of all oppression. One doesn’t have to be a Marxist or a feminist theoretician to see that. Just sit in a foodcourt at the mall for an hour. You’ll see it all.
The family-root of oppression is just an unpleasant fact that nobody wants to acknowledge since it’s turns their worldside down.
BTW, I certainly have no interest in keeping adoption going. I have no idea why somebody would want to tie themselves down.
Marley’s List:
NCFA
ACLU
Eagle Forum
National Right to Life (leaves it up to various chapters, but none support)
American Life League
Any anti-abortion organization
The Catholic Bishops (often in the guise of Catholic Charities, but not always)
Planned Parenthood
Numerous Christian organizations with lots of political clout
L-D-S Social Services
Bethany Christian Services
Gladney Center
Focus on the Family
Family Research Council
The American Center for Law and Justice
George W. Bush
How could this list be possible? How could good and righteous (heavy sarcasm intended) Christians advocate the stealing of infants from their mothers. Has none of them even READ the 10 Commandments? Is “Thou Shalt Not Steal” or “Honor Thy Father and The Mother” actually the 10 Suggestions? How in the name of all that is (Un)Holy can an avowed Christian find an act of Charity in wresting a baby from its mother’s womb…for PROFIT!!? Oh, yeah, and that “Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged” thing….I would LOVE to sit on THAT particular court, and pull the lever on the chute myself!!!
I just started a thread on alt.adoption named.
‘From Marley’s BLATHERINGS FROM THE BELTWAY blog..’
I do not want to sidetrack this blog by going into (replying to) some of the replies to me here.. and I do not want to quote them over there so if anyone wants to get into a discussion on terms of my post to Carol C please post there.
Jackie
Jackie says,I do not want to quote them over there so if anyone wants to get into a discussion on terms of my post to Carol C please post there.
Jackie, not sure why you want to continue to carry on this debate and keep singling me out? There are plenty of others here who’s viewpoint is every bit as strong as mine. It seems to be alot more important to you than me that someone agree with you. If you think you’re right – go for it. It’s clear we see things differently, but unlike some of the alt.adoption folks – I don’t feel the need to obsess and childishly name call others just because we have some philosophical differences.
I will repeat again my opinion – intelligent and thoughtful people can agree to disagree. I merely expressed my opinion about certain terms and assumptions made here about individuals and groups etc. But it’s really not that important to me to spend any more time trying to change your way of thinking to mine. I have far more important things to do with my life than quibble over semantics and hopefully so do you.
You’ve got to let go of this. I have. It’s become tedious and repetitious.
Be well and take care of yourself Jackie. Life is too short. You care more about what we think of you than we do – I promise you that.
Carol C.
I thought you and others wanted to continue to tak about this subject..
I did not want to hijack Marley’s thread.
Its as simple as that..
I have no problem with letting any of this go.. I was basically trying to explain why I was not replying to the posts that were replying to my post to you..
We can agree to disagree..
Jackie
Jackie says,”The trauma of giving the child up may not be part of the woman’s inability to cope.. The reasons why the adoptee is into drugs or something difficult may have nothing to do with the fact that he or she was relinquished..”
Duh !!! I can’t believe you said that….
anonymous..Why is everything bad about a persons life blamed on the relinquishment of a son or daughter?
And why don’t you (and your friends) have the guts to go over to alt.adoption and really discuss this.
Jackie
Jackiedada said: “And why don’t you (and your friends) have the guts to go over to alt.adoption and really discuss this.”
Your invitation so reminds me of that little ditty…
“Will you walk into my parlor?” said the spider to the fly;
“‘Tis the prettiest little parlor that ever you may spy.
The way into my parlor is up a winding stair,
And I have many curious things to show when you are there.”
“Oh no, no,” said the little fly; “to ask me is in vain,
For who goes up your winding stair can ne’er come down again.”
Or like sending the accused a nice little engraved invitation to their own lynching!!
Come on, Jackie, anybody who has ever read at the ‘place of flame-retardant suits’, knows this is an invitation to nothing but insults and ridicule.
Can’t talk here Jackie? Why not?
Jackiedada said: “And why don’t you (and your friends) have the guts to go over to alt.adoption and really discuss this.”
What is wrong with discussing it here, Jackie?
Duh !!! I can’t believe you said that….
Believe it.
Traumatized?
It can’t possibly be adoption.
It MUST be something else.
Jackiedada said:
“….go over to alt.adoption and really discuss…”
LOL, now that’s an oxymoron.
“to argue with fools is to be one”.
Anonymous person:
“Jackie says,”The trauma of giving the child up may not be part of the woman’s inability to cope.. The reasons why the adoptee is into drugs or something difficult may have nothing to do with the fact that he or she was relinquished..”
Duh !!! I can’t believe you said that….”
Why not? Do you think “adoption trauma” is the cause of ALL ills?
There are a lot of conditions that have a genetic component. Certainly environment has a hand in development and outcome, but adoption itself isn’t going to cause someone to be bi-polar (as an example).
Believing that this is so is on par with the inanity of certain fundie LDS adoptors (not mainstream) who believe their adoptees don’t need to get their medical histories because their DNA changes once they’re sealed with their “new” family.
Science doesn’t agree with either of you. Don’t be sillier than you have to be.
ch said…
“Jackiedada said: “And why don’t you (and your friends) have the guts to go over to alt.adoption and really discuss this.”
::snip apropos spider/fly ditty::
“Or like sending the accused a nice little engraved invitation to their own lynching!!
Come on, Jackie, anybody who has ever read at the ‘place of flame-retardant suits’, knows this is an invitation to nothing but insults and ridicule.
Can’t talk here Jackie? Why not?”
To be fair, yes, alt.adoption has a scary rep, but it has been a much kinder and gentler place in the past year or so.
I think Jackie’s invitation to discuss there was extended simply to avoid hijacking the comment section of Bastardette’s blog.
Just as she said straight out.
Many people from Alt. are reading here. This is also an unmoderated forum. There is as much room to insult and ridicule here as there is on alt.adoption.
There’s really no need to sneer at Jackie for trying to be considerate. JMO, of course.
“Why not? Do you think “adoption trauma” is the cause of ALL ills?”
Straw man. Look it up.
“Science doesn’t agree with either of you. Don’t be sillier than you have to be.”
What do you know of science?
You aren’t even a science groupie, Lil, much less a scientist.
“Yes there should be warning signs to not get pregnant.. But IMO
because some girl or woman does not take that warning.. it does not give others the right to coerce her child from her. “
Jackie
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.adoption/browse_frm/thread/19d2191b8ff2f61/df7b06b5d37faed9?lnk=st&q=&rnum=892&hl=en#df7b06b5d37faed9
anonymous, again:
Me:
“Why not? Do you think “adoption trauma” is the cause of ALL ills?”
Anonymous:
“Straw man. Look it up.”
I don’t need to look it up. I get it. But with all the “adoptees who love their adoptive families are either brainwashed or Nazi traitors” bullshit, it’s hard to tell who’s walking the straight line without several cocktails under their belts.
All you anonymouses–the ones who make perfect sense and the ones who don’t–tend to blur into one.
Me:
“Science doesn’t agree with either of you. Don’t be sillier than you have to be.”
Anonymous:
“What do you know of science?
You aren’t even a science groupie, Lil, much less a scientist.”
So you believe that an adoptee’s DNA changes when their adoption becomes final? Color ME surprised!
Seriously, you don’t have to be a scientist or a science groupie to “get” it, if you live with it day in and day out.
Contrary to popular belief, adoptees ARE capable of listening and understanding information given to them by the grown-ups. Even the hard-to-understand stuff from the big important adults like doctors, and geneticists.
I’m in a great reunion, and I now have my medical history.
My “adoption trauma” didn’t give my kids disabilities.
But my genetics did.
“Sure, I was told, fairly recently, that I was selfish and irresponsible for
relinquishing because I wanted to, gasp, go to college. This, from a birthmother
who kept her baby for three months before realizing that her old boyfriend wasn’t
coming back, and then relinquished.
“Personally, the behavior of *most* of the *online* birthmothers that I have met
has completely horrified me. What is particularly interesting is that most of the
bmoms that i have met *offline* are completely different from the online bmoms.
For one thing, they are NOT psychotic. For another, they generally accept
responsibility for their actions, and while many of them (i.e. those who
relinquished in the 60s and 70s) wish that they had been offered more choices or
had been treated more humanely. Many acknowledge that *given their circumstances*
relinquishment was the best choice they could make. And none of them would even
think about inflicting the emotional torture on their misplaced progeny that some
online bmoms do.
“The particularly hideous bmom behavior that I have observed tends (though not
always) to come from women who have essentially been integrated into a
pathological “pack” of bmoms, rather than birthmothers who have dealt with their
issues on their own. The so-called “birthmother community” is, IMHO, one of the
ugliest and sickest communities that I have ever seen. Frankly, I think it is
made up of women who were likely self-absorbed and dysfunctional BEFORE they
relinquished, and relinquishment has just given them something to simultaneously
bond and bitch over. Every horrible stereotype about the selfishness and
instability of birthmothers ends up being validated by the writings that come
from these bmoms.
“But again, I feel that these women represent a very small minority of
birthparents. Again, MOST of the bparents that I have met off-line and apart from
“reform” groups are sane and normal people who deal with relinquishment in
healthy ways. Sadly, these unorganized birthmothers are unlikely to affect both
social and legal attitudes towards birthparents and their rights. And the
“organized” birthmothers are, due to their histrionics, likely to only make
things worse for birthparents in the future. It is a shame. “
Lainie
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.adoption/browse_frm/thread/da4c99eff9b9d282?hl=en&
To one of the anonymous:
The links you are posting are like 4+ years old. Your point in posting them seems unclear, unless your specific purpose is to stir some unknown shitpot. Got issues?
I don’t know about you, but I like to think that as each year passes, I learn and gain some perspective.
My opinions on adoption have certainly changed from the win/win/win scenerio I first came online with. I no longer believe that adoption is the best solution.
Got anything actually new (like within the last year) or relevant to post? Or are you just pathetically desperate to add more shit to the pot?
“So you believe that an adoptee’s DNA changes when their adoption becomes final? Color ME surprised!
Straw man. Dear Gawd, Lil.
The links you are posting are like 4+ years old.
See a few blog entries down, Lil.
Lainie is still singing the same old song.
You say alt.adoption people are reading here. We know that Lainie is reading here, since she commented on alt.adoption about a post here. That makes her past statements fair game.
I think it is important for the moms who are posting here and who may not be familiar with the poison that is alt.adoption to know where, exactly, the alt.adoption people are coming from. Although the recent kerfluffle with BJ Lifton was instructive to a fair number of women who previously had only heard rumors about alt.adoption, I think there are still a few gaps that need to be filled in.
anon again:
Me:
“So you believe that an adoptee’s DNA changes when their adoption becomes final? Color ME surprised!”
anon:
“Straw man. Dear Gawd, Lil.”
Sarcasm. Maybe YOU (I haven’t figured out to do italics) should look that up. It comes before “straw man” in the dictionary. Dear Gawd. 😉
Not surprised to see your total avoidance of the rest of my commment, though.
“Never could understand it myself, but Lord knows that I have encountered it.
Mostly from extremely damaged bmoms who have essentially appropriated the
standard anti-birthmother rhetoric (i.e. bmoms are selfish, bmoms are sluts,
bmoms are cold and uncaring, etc), but want to separate their own actions
from those of the “selfish” bmoms that they judge.
“The result is that any bmom who, in their opinion, had a choice about
relinquishment is condemned. Particularly condemned are women who do not
regret their decisions. Such women usually cause “certain birthmothers” to
explode with rage, which I can only assume is equal parts envy, resentment,
and anger. “
Lainie
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.adoption/browse_frm/thread/da4c99eff9b9d282?hl=en&
Not surprised to see your total avoidance of the rest of my commment, though.
You’re really not worth my time, sister. Learn some logic and get back to me. If I really just want to hear infantile insults, I can become a nursery schol teacher. Really, read what you wrote. It’s ridiculous. Responding to that kind of thing as if it is actually serious would be even more ridiculous.
So you’ll just have to be ridiculous all by yourself.
Anon:
“See a few blog entries down, Lil.
Lainie is still singing the same old song.”
Well the only link you posted to the quotes was 4 years old. Forgive my confusion.
Blog entries? Don’t you mean newsgroup posts?
And so what if she is? She’s as entitled to voice her experience as you are to yours. Your experience certainly isn’t universal.
Why are you trying to stifle the voice of another mother?
“You say alt.adoption people are reading here.”
Yes! Quite a few posters are!
“We know that Lainie is reading here, since she commented on alt.adoption about a post here.”
Is this some general “we”, or royal “we” or some super-sekrit-illuminati-first-parent-cabal-we’ve-got-our-eye-on-transgressors “we” you’re talking about? All these anonymosities are confusing and somewhat scary.
“That makes her past statements fair game.”
It certainly does!
But forgive me for pointing out the irony of your hiding behind an anonymous moniker while attempting to make her look bad for a view she still openly stands by.
Kind of makes you look a bit slimy, doesn’t it? And hardly trustworthy.
“Yep – she is now saying that she fled from
the marriage in order to protect their child
from his abusiveness. That wasn’t the old story. The old story was that he had, quite heartlessly, abandoned them both. Her valorous conduct to protect the kid from the asshole was nowhere to be found. The gist of it, back then, was his fuckheadery in leaving
the relationship, thereby leaving preggo Kathy and their soon-to-be kid in the lurch.
“What I am pointing out is two-fold. One, Kathy’s a lying sack. Two, her lie is totally
self-serving – especially designed to make Kathy look like some kind of brave and loving
Mama-to-be when the fact is, according to the older Kathystory, she was furious at him
for leaving – particularly at that vulnerable time of pregnancy.
snip
“Nope, she didn’t mention any conditions on
her wanting him to stay. She just expressed her anger and hurt at him leaving them in
the lurch. (and said he’d thrown in a few good punches before he’d left)
snip
“Maybe she did have some teenaged
fantasy that if he hadn’t left her they’d have worked it out and been a happy little family. That teen-dream seems fairly likely.
What she has now is a *very recent* (she *is* an adult now, umm… technically)
self-aggrandizing, revisionist historian’s version of events. She’s in the starring
role, as the sainted preggo fleeing the evil abuser, all for love of her baby. That’s
swell, but that ain’t the way she used to paint the picture.
“The difference is that she’s lying. And lying
to make herself look terribly sympathetic. For
my money, she was sympathetic enough in the old story, but apparently she found the fuzzies garnered from that one didn’t meet her needs.”
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.adoption/browse_frm/thread/da4c99eff9b9d282?hl=en&
This one is for Kathy, who has also been posting here. It’s one observer’s assessment of alt.adoption regular Kathy’s ever- changing story on how her son came to be adopted.
I am posting this to provide context for the moms posting here whose kids were taken from them illegally. This way, when they encounter Kathy, they will know where she is coming from.
“Blog entries? Don’t you mean newsgroup posts?”
No, I mean blog entries.
You can puzzle that one out for yourself.
“And so what if she is? She’s as entitled to voice her experience as you are to yours. Your experience certainly isn’t universal.”
Very few experiences are.
You can puzzle that one out for yourself as well.
“But forgive me for pointing out the irony of your hiding behind an anonymous moniker while attempting to make her look bad for a view she still openly stands by.
Kind of makes you look a bit slimy, doesn’t it? And hardly trustworthy. “
Whatever, dudette.
Some silly anonymous person (don’t know if it’s the same as all the other silly anonymous persons) wrote:
Me:
“Not surprised to see your total avoidance of the rest of my commment, though.”
Silly anon person:
“You’re really not worth my time, sister. Learn some logic and get back to me.”
What was illogical with what I wrote? “Adoption trauma” certainly didn’t cause my family’s ills. Genetics did.
Oh, and I’m not your sister. Remember, only blood counts!
Silly anon:
“If I really just want to hear infantile insults, I can become a nursery schol teacher.”
Me:
That would be “school”. And how did I insult you? I called you on your ignorant BS and responded to you sincerely.
Silly person again:
“Really, read what you wrote. It’s ridiculous. Responding to that kind of thing as if it is actually serious would be even more ridiculous.”
What’s ridiculous about it? Really, I’m interested!
Silly anon person:
“So you’ll just have to be ridiculous all by yourself.”
Here’s what I think. You can’t be flip and snide anymore because I actually live with the reality of genetic disability, and it would be politically incorrect for you to try the slapdown you’re just dying to give me.
Don’t worry about impressions. You already look like an idiot.
How’s that for an infantile insult?
“Here’s what I think. You can’t be flip and snide anymore because I actually live with the reality of genetic disability, and it would be politically incorrect for you to try the slapdown you’re just dying to give me.”
Like I said toots: whatEVah.
Marley,
Another pertinent development in the history of the access to records/abortion/adoption legislation political bedmates: the National Conference of State Legislators. I didn’t know about this conference, or how often it is held, but back about 6 or 7( or more) years ago, I happened to read in the paper that this national conference was held(in Chicago that year,I think). The purpose of the conference was to discuss legislative issues of interest to the states..in the article the issue was pro-life and pro-choice “compromise”. The legislators at the conference agreed that they couldn’t agree on pro-choice vs pro-life..and that they probably never would..soooooooo…they decided to “compromise” and their “compromise” would be adoption…..They decided, they said, to promote adoption instead of arguing over abortion so much.
I wish I could remember what year I read the article…I do know we have certainly felt the effects.The pro-life/pro-choice “compromise” is everywhere, and it has had an effect on legislation….and it seems to be responsible at least in part, for why so many groups(like NARAL) are now involved in adoption issues.
Lil says,Why not? Do you think “adoption trauma” is the cause of ALL ills?
I didn’t say it caused all ills ,however separation of mother and baby cetainly causes psychlogical and psychiatric problems to both. Separation inherently is a trauma .
To promote separation of mother and baby unnecessarily in the knowledge that it is harmful is reprehensible . Persons ( such as yourself and Jackie)who promote the barbaric practice in the knowledge it is harmful ,are as culpable as the person who impliments it.
….and it seems to be responsible at least in part, for why so many groups(like NARAL) are now involved in adoption issues.
Fill me in, kitta. What is NARAL’s position on adoption? Do you have any more particulars on this group of legislators and their compromise? If this was six years ago,I wonder how many of them are still in office?
“To promote separation of mother and baby unnecessarily in the knowledge that it is harmful is reprehensible . Persons ( such as yourself and Jackie)who promote the barbaric practice in the knowledge it is harmful ,are as culpable as the person who impliments it.”
Yep. They’ve got bloody hands and don’t know it, anon. They don’t want to know it either. They are in a really tight spot. They have allowed themnselves to be identified and defined by adoption. But adoption can be damaging and destructive. What a conflict.
That’s why they attack women who differ with them on adoption. They resolve the conflict by trying to minimize the destructive power of adoption, at least in their own minds. They give lip service to the pain and damage adoption causes, but they deny its real power. When evidence of the real destructive power of adoption comes along, especially in the form of an eye witness who is willing to testify to the damage, they attack that person for all they are worth.
And, like any big lie, once they say something enough, they begin to believe it.
I have not attacked anyone..
I do not do it here because I respect Marley and do not want to sidetrack her blog..
I really do not understand why you guys can’t go over to alt.adoption..
Di Welfare got some amazing discussions going when she was there.. and Melinda I will always think of you and your daughter..
(just in case you are reading this)
Jackie
kidnap,
I wish I could remember more about the article…it was at least 6 years ago…the National Conference of State Legislators. It was an associated press article, and I think the conference took place in Chicago. The legislators were from all over the USA…senators and state representatives from all over the country. Only a couple of names were mentioned and they were not familiar to me..and I don’t remember them now after all this time(and they might not be in office anymore).But the impact of the conference was what struck me…I was working in the area of parental rights legislation, surrender laws, and records access, and related issues and I figured this “compromise” would have an impact on us and I think that it has.I have noticed our legislature is eager to push adoption every chance it gets and “help” pregnant women to “sign as soon as possible”.Adoption reminders are everywhere…eagerly pushing the idea on young parents that adoption is a good choice..but there is no support for young families in the legislature…only adoption or abortion.
The NARAL woman I talked to about 6 years ago told me that adoption was a medical decision just like abortion and that meant that the records should be kept sealed like medical records….so she was against releasing any original birth records to adopted people, without the permission of the mother.She went on and on at length in our conversation about this woman who was working for her at NARAL who had “surrendered a baby with a promise of confidentiality and who would have had an abortion if she had not been promised confidentiality.” I was totally not expecting this speech from NARAL!
Another incident happened a few years ago when an “Amber ALert for Newborns and 9 Months Pregnant Women law” was being considered. A NARAL person sat behind me in the state legislature, expressing great fear that such a law would lead to abortion becoming illegal.The purpose of the law was to allow for Amber Alerts for 9 months pregnant women who were in danger of being kidnapped and having their babies taken from their bodies(via illegal c-section) and also for newborns who have been stolen.As you know there have been a number of such cases in the news in recent years…and at that time, Amber Alerts for newborns didn’t exist in the law, for such cases.The lobbyist for Planned Parenthood was there and the law did pass, but they took the part out about the 9 months pregnant women..
I remember that the NARAL member/woman was trying to read my notes and she was shaking all over…she said, “This is a very important bill”‘ and then she said”‘What does it say.”She had not read it but she was all upset about it…
I was especially concerned because of the safe-haven law, which allows anyone to drop off a baby at a fire station up to 3 days after birth, no questions have to be asked, no identities have to be verified.I did testify for the Amber Alert for Newborns and am glad it passed.
This is not the first time I have encountered pro-choice women who support sealed records and who have no interest in protecting pregnant women(who have chosen to continue their pregnancies) or newborns. We are not only being attacked by the pro-life right wing but by the pro-choice left-wing.
Kitta: “Adoption reminders are everywhere…eagerly pushing the idea on young parents that adoption is a good choice..but there is no support for young families in the legislature…only adoption or abortion.”
I don’t see this changing any time soon. IMO the political compromise of adoption is a cheap and easy solution for the people who push it. They will be able to claim they saved lives. They won’t have families on the welfare roles. And it won’t be them paying the life long price of a lost child.
I’m torn between working for a political solution and working to educate regular families about the potential ravages of adoption. Which would prevent more pain and damage?
“The NARAL woman I talked to about 6 years ago told me that adoption was a medical decision just like abortion and that meant that the records should be kept sealed like medical records”
Ah, but kitta, the adoption consents that are signed are nowhere near as comprehensive as even a simple medical consent form.
Medical consent forms list each and every complication that can occur, right up to death. These have to be gone over in great detail by nursing staff and the doctor before they can be signed.
I don’t think the same is true in adoption. Women aren’t made aware that they may develop severe depression that can lead to suicide, for instance. Are they even told about secondary infertility, anniversary reactions, or that the parenting of subsequent children may be affected? They aren’t told they may have trust issues that may last for decades. They aren’t told about the nightmares, the arrested development, and certainly not the splitting and repression that can occur.
If the two (adoption and medical procedures) are comparable, why aren’t we holding adoption practicioners to the same standards we use for hospitals, nurses and doctors?
Not only that, but if the two are comparable, then women should also be able to sue for malfeasance, negligence, malpractice and wrongful adoption, like they can in medical cases. Insurance should be available to pay for treatment of adoption complications like the ones mentioned above.
Kidnap,
The NARAL woman, (I think it was in 1999) was the first person whom I heard state the so-called argument that “sealed adoption records are medical records” but she is not the last. Planned Parenthood used an argument like that and so does ACLU. There is much that is wrong with their reasoning, as you have pointed out and more, and also there is much that is wrong with the way that so-called “consents” were taken beginning with the fact that they were usually under duress, uninformed, and were not even “consents”….And if the usual legal standard were applied, we were not of “‘sound mind and body”‘ having just given birth, being drugged, being threatened, being held in captivity,being underage,crossing state lines, etc. If a person signed a will in such circumstances, it could be challenged in court and invalidated.
A lawyer in my family told me that the way most surrender/consent laws are written violates the legal standard(and as you have stated, the medical standards are violated also)…..People don’t just give away their children…. and so usually a considerable degree of threat and coercive power is necessary to ‘do the job.”…and for some mothers, a flattering portrait of adoption, devoid of pain of course, will be painted during ‘counseling”…. which is a more common tactic today.
The NARAL woman’s argument was strictly about the birth certificate in that 1999 case, however, and whether it should be released to the adopted person…as a “medical record'”.In every state that I know of, the standard birth certificate law(not the sealed records law) allows for the certificates to be released to, at least, the child who is the registrant and to the parents.(There are usually some additional people included.)
So her reasoning was to try to connect adoption with abortion as a “medical prodedure.”
Now, I did give birth in a hospital and I did have a doctor, and I do have medical records…..but the birth certificate should be available to my child and to me…as it would be if there had been no adoption.
And regarding malpractice: We should still be able to sue for malpractice,(adopters are doing it and agencies are not immune) ,depending on the type of license held by the agency or other practitioner and the type of counseling or service. I was told that my “helping professional” was licensed to do mental health counseling by the state..and that she was governed by/held to the same standards as other mental health professionals in that state. Certainly, the so-called expertise she had should have been enough that she would have known not to tell a mother she would forget her child!!…as she told me. She would have known that was a lie…..a major violation…
Makes me think of the doctors oath, “First, do no harm……”
Kitta and Kidnap,
I love your thoughts on that. I find it funny. They consider adoption a medical procedure yet it is performed in a court of law. It is a legal procedure where abortion is a medical procedure. It seems that they are getting their information from someone very ignorant in adoption and abortion. I might post something on my blog about this very thing.
Jackiedada says: “”Di Welfare got some amazing discussions going when she was there.. and Melinda I will always think of you and your daughter..””
I have read some of the ‘amazing’ discussions, Jackie…about, to and around, Di and Melinda on alt.adoption.. If that is your idea of ‘amazing’, welllllll? I am left in a state of amazement!
“””The result is that any bmom who, in their opinion, had a choice about
relinquishment is condemned. Particularly condemned are women who do not
regret their decisions. Such women usually cause “certain birthmothers” to
explode with rage, which I can only assume is equal parts envy, resentment,
and anger. “””
Lanie’s above statement is not all that off the mark. Historically, in the USA there has always been approx. 2% of the female population who finds themselves pg, who truly has no desire to be a mother, does not want the baby she is carrying. That was prior to WWII and post WWII. I don’t believe that makes that pg female a monster or that she is in a state of ‘denial’, she simply is devoid of maternal instincts for whatever reason at that time in her life or possibly for the rest of her life. I have found that many a mother whether of the surrendering type or those who have kept, whether single or married, just cannot seem to believe/fathom that there actually exists a female who finds herself pg, who has no wish or desire to be a mother or mother someone.. Not every female that becomes pg, wants to be a mother. Rather her fertile body betrayed her. Now what to do with the kid born to that approx. 2% of the population of females who find themselves pg, who are devoid of maternal instincts, is another matter.
Kidnap says –
“I’m torn between working for a political solution and working to educate regular families about the potential ravages of adoption. Which would prevent more pain and damage?”
You’ve really articulated this well and it makes perfect sense. At some point I think I began to feel more comfortable with the idea of educating people as a more immediate and gratifying way to get the message out. In my state, we haven’t had a decent open records bill and I believe it will be years before we can garner enough support for open access. I don’t care to sit on my thumbs.. and actually mother of adoption loss issues have become more dear to my heart.
ch:”Lanie’s above statement is not all that off the mark. Historically, in the USA there has always been approx. 2% of the female population who finds themselves pg, who truly has no desire to be a mother, does not want the baby she is carrying. That was prior to WWII and post WWII. I don’t believe that makes that pg female a monster or that she is in a state of ‘denial’, she simply is devoid of maternal instincts for whatever reason at that time in her life or possibly for the rest of her life. I have found that many a mother whether of the surrendering type or those who have kept, whether single or married, just cannot seem to believe/fathom that there actually exists a female who finds herself pg, who has no wish or desire to be a mother or mother someone.. Not every female that becomes pg, wants to be a mother. Rather her fertile body betrayed her. Now what to do with the kid born to that approx. 2% of the population of females who find themselves pg, who are devoid of maternal instincts, is another matter.”
I agree with all you have said, ch.
As I see it, the problem with Lainies pronouncements arises because she argues from a presumption that the 2% somehow represent “normal” and that it is the rest of us who are harmed by the loss of our children who somehow are “deviant.”
She plays a bait and switch game, iow. Not only that, she does it quite publiclly on alt.adoption, giving lurkers who may not have a sophisticated understanding of adoption dynamics, the idea that it is deviant to complain about child loss.
Not only that, but she is also colluding with the agencies when she does that.
I do think that it needs to be made very clear what her game is.
She attempts to normalize what is in fact a very deviant situation, ie, child loss to adoption. Surrender is deviant; most people simply don’t do it. We would not have done it given a choice; we are normal women with normalmaternal instincts, as you have pointed out. This is one reason the things that were done to us were so criminal. We were forced to participate in a deviant act, often against our wills. When you hear women talking about having been “raped” by the system, it’s a good bet they are referencing forced participation in an act supremely anti-instinctual, and therfore, primally repulsive .
Further, she attempts to portray normal reactions to a deviant situation as somehow deviant themselves.
As has been noted elsewhere, Lainie was adopted as a baby. Lainie released a child for adoption herself. Lainie worked as a volunteer at an adoption agency. Lainie has stated in the past that she someday hoped to adopt.
I conclude from this that Lainie’s experience with adoption is far, far out of the mainstream — so far that, in my opinion, Lainie may in fact have little to no understanding of what the mainstream is regarding adoption. I evaluate her comments in that light.
Jackie says,
“Some people cope with life and some do not..”
Seems you don’t cope so obviously adoption damaged you.Otherwise why do you incessantly blather on about it.
ch said,”she simply is devoid of maternal instincts…. for that time in her life or perhaps for the rest of her life…now what to do about the kid …”
I have talked to women like that too , ch, and I think the mother that the NARAL woman was referring to was one of them, possibly it was herself she was talking about…and I don’t think they are monsters, either.
This is not a ‘perfect world’ and people don’t fit into perfect molds… no matter how hard religions and governments and families and schools and other forces try to shape and mold and shame them into whatever it is that “everyone” thinks they should do/be/think/look like/feel like/etc.
And it isn’t always “denial”..sometimes it is ..but not always.
I really wanted and loved my child and the majority of mothers I have talked to (and it is many hundreds of them by now) say they did too, but there are still those few who claim they didn’t want their children(or didn’t want to raise them) and yet they were still willing to go through the pregnancy (religious reasons?)and surrender.
One mother I know from the f2f support group I belong to said she had family support, a nice middle-class home, money, etc. and she still did not want to raise her child as a single mother.It was the mid-80s so it wasn’t a time of greatest shame, and there were other single mothers in her family who were doing okay. She just didn’t want the “job” at that time in her life, she said.She was 18 years old.
I can’t put myself in her shoes…I cannot imagine their feelings..but they don’t cause me to become angry. If they didn’t want to raise their child, then they didn’t.I take them at their word..
But I don’t think they should be assumed to speak for great numbers of others…and I have seen/heard that…I have heard pro-adoptionists testify before the legislature that “young mothers do not want to raise their children and they are being pressured to keep their babies against their will”.These proadoptionists make it sound as if the majority of young mothers do not want their children…and I don’t think that is at all true.
anonymous:”normal reactions to a deviant situation” “surrender is deviant” etc.
Exactly, the proadoptionists and those who would normalize adoption want to mainstream it so that those of us who react with outrage are seen as deviant. They want to present adoption as “just another way to form a family”‘ and therefore nothing to react to…or even to recognize as loss.
Interestingly, it took a long time for people to realize that divorce hurt people, too, but now that is beginning to be seen as the loss it really is.
I have always expressed my anger and sense of violation regarding the kidnapping of my child and have been told by some people that there are many mothers of loss who are “happy.” Well, that is the deviancy…not mine..but theirs…to be able to walk away and not feel the loss..that is deviant.
“I have always expressed my anger and sense of violation regarding the kidnapping of my child and have been told by some people that there are many mothers of loss who are “happy.” Well, that is the deviancy…not mine..but theirs…to be able to walk away and not feel the loss..that is deviant. “
Yes.
Thank you.
Deviant is a harsh word.
BUT that is what this is.
Very few people become invoved with child surrender. There is a good reason for that. Most people would sooner cut off their right and left arms than surrender their precious child to strangers.
Even though it is such a harsh word , I think we need to come to terms with it.
The violence inherent in forcing women into such an act can not be understated.
That 2% or so of the population can indulge this behavior without serious sequelae is certainly not a good enough reason to generalize it to the rest of the globe.
That vigorous attempts are made to present this behavior as normal should be a red flag to the observant bystander.
We can not allow the few exceptions to speak for us unrebutted. Not to legislators, journalists or even to public newsgroups.
They simply do not speak for us.
Their experiences were not our experiences. That’s just a fact.
They may have been able to walk away and not have it negatively impact the rest of their lives, but few of us can say that.
“”But I don’t think they should be assumed to speak for great numbers of others…and I have seen/heard that…I have heard pro-adoptionists testify before the legislature that “young mothers do not want to raise their children and they are being pressured to keep their babies against their will”.These proadoptionists make it sound as if the majority of young mothers do not want their children…and I don’t think that is at all true. “”
I so agree with you, kitta… Using the Minority as the example/excuse for the Majority.
Kitta said.. the proadoptionists and those who would normalize adoption want to mainstream it so that those of us who react with outrage are seen as deviant. They want to present adoption as “just another way to form a family”‘ and therefore nothing to react to…or even to recognize as loss.
Interesting and right on the money.
Negating the harm done to mothers of adoption loss reminds me of Gresham Sykes and David Matza’s neutralization theory which explains how “deviants justified their deviant behaviors by adjusting the definitions of their actions and by explaining to themselves and others the lack of guilt of their actions in particular situations.
There are five different types of rationalizations, which are the denial of responsibility, the denial of injury, the denial of the victim, the condemnation of the condemners, and the appeal to higher loyalties”.
One has to wonder why the small percentage of mothers who are comfortable with their decision to surrender their child to adoption, become so intolerant of those of us who dare to speak out publicly that in our case it WAS NOT our choice and no, we didn’t just “get over it”. And yes, we want to be acknowledged for our loss.
There are five different types of rationalizations, which are the denial of responsibility, the denial of injury, the denial of the victim, the condemnation of the condemners, and the appeal to higher loyalties”.
The constant harping on a public newsgroup about how selfish, dysfunctional and histrionic WE all are helps move the Overton Window in the direction the industry wants it to go. Talking about what a bad person YOU are and what a good person I am makes it a lot easier to introduce the idea of separating you and your newborn at at birth so I can raise your child.
It makes the radical idea of maternal/child separation a little less radical every time it’s repeated.
People who engage in this kind of talk are tools of the industry. No more, no less.
Anonymous says, “As I see it, the problem with Lainie’s pronouncements arises because she argues from a presumption that the 2% somehow represent “normal” and that it is the rest of us who are harmed by the loss of our children who somehow are “deviant”
What a brilliant post . I have always felt very upset when these apologists ,who are mothers themselves, minimize the experience of losing a child. I can only conclude that they are in desperate need of therapy .
Anonymous wrote about Lanie..
“She attempts to normalize what is in fact a very deviant situation, ie, child loss to adoption. Surrender is deviant; most people simply don’t do it. We would not have done it given a choice; we are normal women with normalmaternal instincts, as you have pointed out. This is one reason the things that were done to us were so criminal. We were forced to participate in a deviant act, often against our wills. When you hear women talking about having been “raped” by the system, it’s a good bet they are referencing forced participation in an act supremely anti-instinctual, and therfore, primally repulsive .”
I ask.. What about the children? What if a woman can not care for her child?
What if her life circumstances make it impossible to keep a child?
Is she deviant because she makes a choice to give that child to someone who can care for the child in a way that the child should be cared for?
And I also ask.. Is it okay to keep our heads buried in the sand so no real good changes are made in adoption/relinquishment.. No healthy way is found to give a child up for adoption.. i.e.. the potential birthmother getting to know the ones who will raise the child etc..
The anonymous person also writes about Lanie…
“Further, she attempts to portray normal reactions to a deviant situation as somehow deviant themselves.”
Again..I ask.. what about the child?
kitta3 said…
“I have always expressed my anger and sense of violation regarding the kidnapping of my child and have been told by some people that there are many mothers of loss who are “happy.” Well, that is the deviancy…not mine..but theirs…to be able to walk away and not feel the loss..that is deviant.”
One does not walk away.. One grieves the loss and then gets on with her life.. or his life..
That is normal to me.. Loss is part of life.. IMO
Anonymous said…
“That vigorous attempts are made to present this behavior as normal should be a red flag to the observant bystander.
We can not allow the few exceptions to speak for us unrebutted. Not to legislators, journalists or even to public newsgroups.”
Is it normal to keep a child and abuse it? Is it normal to say you love the child and then neglect it? Is it normal to put yourself before the child?
I do not think so..
Some of us slide through life and pretend that we are not hurting others..
Some of us have sex when we should not be having sex and decide that the normal thing to do is to keep the child and then neglect it..
Or have a child while on drugs and then keep the child in a home where a drug like meth is being manufactured..
What about the children in your world of black and white and deviant and normal?
Anonymous also wrote.
“Very few people become invoved with child surrender. There is a good reason for that. Most people would sooner cut off their right and left arms than surrender their precious child to strangers.”
And I guess what follows is that some people would think it okay to watch a child being raised in a situation that is not healthy is normal..
Its all about the woman with you guys.. Its all about the pain..
How self serving you are.
Jackie
Jackie asks “what about the child?”
My son told me that he didn’t like being adopted and wished he could have been raised by me.
Since he is/was “the child” I think his feelings and opinions should matter in our situation.He was very glad that I didn’t just “‘grieve my loss and get on with life”…I searched for him and we have been reunited for many years.
He didn’t care that I was “having sex when I had no business having it” either. He is glad to be here and is not a judgmental person..
He was very angry at his natural father for abandoning us, however.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
slyoung said…
Kitta and Kidnap…you said, “I don’t think the same is true in adoption. Women aren’t made aware that they may develop severe depression that can lead to suicide, for instance. Are they even told about secondary infertility, anniversary reactions, or that the parenting of subsequent children may be affected? They aren’t told they may have trust issues that may last for decades. They aren’t told about the nightmares, the arrested development, and certainly not the splitting and repression that can occur.
“{If the two (adoption and medical procedures) are comparable, why aren’t we holding adoption practicioners to the same standards we use for hospitals, nurses and doctors?
“Not only that, but if the two are comparable, then women should also be able to sue for malfeasance, negligence, malpractice and wrongful adoption, like they can in medical cases. Insurance should be available to pay for treatment of adoption complications like the ones mentioned above.”
SLY says: Just a thought…maybe if we pushed the full disclosure of the possible risks of surrender, as the medical community and the drug manufacturers do and the NARAL person suggested, and women REALLY were informed of the truth about what the surrender experience will be like for themselves and their offspring, including future raised children, they may not be quite so eager to jump on the adoption bandwagon. They would have to be told that the experience could affect their future offspring, could cause secondary infertility, could lead to lifelong depression, could result in suicide, could cause them to suffer illness, and could also produce the same effects on the children they relinquish. Truth like that is not pretty, but it is the absolute truth. And, if the medical community insists on being part of it, or has it dumped on them, then let us use this to our advantage rather than wait until the damage is done and then have to come at it from a stance of defending own positions.
I like to use the industry’s words against them, and by pointing out the truth, forcing them to hang themselves on their own lies; we could certainly cut their legs out from under them. The truth will ultimately set us free.
They cannot argue with the truth. They cannot tell us that we are wrong, as we are the evidentiary witnesses of the crimes they committed. I don’t see why we have to be the nice girls who wait for them to make a move and then give our position on it. Why can’t we go on the offensive from time to time? Worrying about being nice girls, worrying about being offensive to others is what got us involved in these groups in the first place. Why would we want to or allow others to use our own power against us again?
The women’s movement fell far short of what they wished to occur. This movement will too, if we don’t quit letting others determine alone how this will take place. Why must we continue to maintain our silence? I can’t help but feel that the industry did a bangup job on many of us with their message of shame and silence.
sly: “Just a thought…maybe if we pushed the full disclosure of the possible risks of surrender, as the medical community and the drug manufacturers do and the NARAL person suggested, and women REALLY were informed of the truth about what the surrender experience will be like for themselves and their offspring, including future raised children, they may not be quite so eager to jump on the adoption bandwagon. “
This seems to be the outcome of fully informed consent in Australia.
sly:” Why must we continue to maintain our silence?”
We shouldn’t. We absolutely shouldn’t.
sly: “I can’t help but feel that the industry did a bangup job on many of us with their message of shame and silence.”
This, coupled with the work of trying to dig myself out of the daily pain of losing my child is the reason I was silent so long. The social wrecker did threaten to take any other kids I might ever have if I ever told anyone how the surrender went down.
We have been on the defensive for far too long.
amyadoptee: I might post something on my blog about this very thing.
I would love to read it if you do. Maybe you could crosslink to this blog so we can find you?
carolc:”At some point I think I began to feel more comfortable with the idea of educating people as a more immediate and gratifying way to get the message out.”
It’s difficult to decide where to direct my efforts. I feel like more people will get the message if it’s taken directly to them somehow. The message being : “Don’t get involved with the adoption industry in the first place.”
I feel our lives and histories should be used as cautionary tales for the rest of society.
“I have always felt very upset when these apologists ,who are mothers themselves, minimize the experience of losing a child. “
They really turn the tables.
They behave as if the way they construct the experience of adoption loss (ie, as an event that one can survive without major suffering and lasting deleterious effects, up to and including suicide) is an accurate picture of life after adoption.
It may be accurate for a small segment of women — the population that certain very vocal women represent — but it is obviously not accurate for us.
I believe that women like us are in the majority, btw, despite all the screaming to the contrary.
If women could simply walk away , and get on with life, they would not be joining organizations like CUB, Origins, AAC, etc. There wouldn’t be the need. They wouldn’t be participating in newsgroups, web sites and mailing lists with such perserverance and passion, if they had truly moved on.
The fact that women, especially women who claim to have gotten on with their lives, even bother with adoption reform is proof positive they haven’t moved on.
“Exactly,… motherhood, parenthood, being in one’s heritage family…this should not need defending….how many thousands/millions of years has the human heritage family existed? But the “child transfer industry” has created new ways and reasons to sell the public, and “potential mothers(sources of babies)”, on the whole idea that children really belong somewhere other than their family of origin.The industry reinvents itself with the times.”
It does reinvent itself. The adoption industry is a shape shifter. The good news, though, is that 98% of the population just doesn’t buy what the industry is selling.
Their mamas didn’t raise no fools.
To attempt to convince regular people to part with their children is to fight a bedrock, primal, powerful instinct that is , imo, impossible to eradicate.
I think this is the other reason the damage done by forced adoption is so great. It’s not just the violence done by forcing a woman into the socially deviant role we discussed above. The role is deviant for a reason far deeper than social conditioning. There is a reason that society shuns the thought of parting with one’s own child. This is the reason: It’s massively, psychologically, destructive because it turns the most primal of instincts — the one we call maternal — against itself.
Again: The violence inherent in forcing (or, these days, marketing) a woman into that act can not be underestimated.
When you surrender that child, you are also surrendering your maternal instinct, an unconscious but profoundly powerful part of most women’s psyches.
Jackie says,Again..I ask.. what about the child?
Don’t you tell me that my child was better off being shocked by sudden removal ,deprived of breastfeeding and then placed with strangers , one of whom didn’t live long enough to raise him.
Jackie said:”Is it normal to keep a child and abuse it? Is it normal to say you love the child and then neglect it? Is it normal to put yourself before the child?
I do not think so..”
Gosh Jackie, you seem to be labouring under the illusion that all and only single mothers abuse their children. Well I’ve got news for you and it’s all bad. Married parents abuse children as do adopters.
“Some of us have sex when we should not be having sex and decide that the normal thing to do is to keep the child and then neglect it.. “
You might believe you son had no right to be born, but I for one am personally affronted by your inane rhetoric about us having sex “when we had no business having it.” If I didn’t “have sex when I had no business having it” my son would not exist today. And like it or not Jackie, my son has just as much right to exist in this world as any child of any married women who was conceived as part of her “wifely duty” to lie back and think of England whenever her drunken husband demanded his conjucal rights.
“Or have a child while on drugs and then keep the child in a home where a drug like meth is being manufactured..”
The system takes those children off their mothers. They are not voluntarily relinquished.
Who pays you to promote adoption?
Di
Jackie : “Again..I ask.. what about the child?”
Well…my kid went to a man who was working for organized crime. There were grocery bags full of twenty dollar bills in her living room at times. (Laundering drug money? Money from running girls? Money from runnng boys?) There were strange cars parked in the driveway at all hours. (Cars laden with drugs to be picked up by street dealers?) She was forbidden from answering the phone at home. (For her own safety, no doubt.) Her female owner used to hide her under the bed when strangers were in the house. Hiding in her own “home.” (Again, for her own safety, no doubt.)Her male owner eventually was caught in an FBI sting and went to the federal pen!!!
What about the child???!!!
You know what you can do with your question…right, Jackie?
as any child of any married women who was conceived as part of her “wifely duty” to lie back and think of England whenever her drunken husband demanded his conjucal rights. “
That’s a hoot, Di. I got a good laugh from it. In this part of the world, the punchline to that particular joke is delivered in a wifely tone: “Beige. I think I’ll paint the ceiling beige.”
“Who pays you to promote adoption?”
Shorter Jackie:
“Rah!Rah! Sis-Boom-Ba!
Adoption! Adoption! Rah!”
Woof.
Kidnap said: You know what you can do with your question…right, Jackie?
Amen to that, Kidnap. It’s about time all this fanciful bulls twaddle about adoption being in the interest of the child got debunked once and for all.
Di
Jackie says,”And I guess what follows is that some people would think it okay to watch a child being raised in a situation that is not healthy ..”
I agree that raising a child away from his mother’s watchful eye is not healthy for all sorts of reasons . There is no guarantee that the child is safe.Mothers who want and need their babies are normal and not self serving .
Did the thought occur to you that the bonding with your son at birth was damaged by rendering you unconscious and taking him before you woke up ? You think that is OK ? Hmm ? Your baby needed you to be there ..to be conscious to hold him for his safety and well being.That your newborn was negligently put into shock ,left in a limbo ,subsequently forced to adjust to strangers and grow up without his mother is child abuse and therefore not in the best interests of the child.
Kidnap: Beige. I think I’ll paint the ceiling beige.
Love it! LOL
Di
Jackie says: Again..I ask.. what about the child?
What about the child Jackie? You didn’t know if your child was dead or alive, abused, tortured or living the life of riley for forty years. What if he had suffered? Would you take responsibility for that? If your child did okay then he did it in spite of being adopted, not because of it.
BTW, if you want to protect your child from abuse you raise him yourself to ENSURE that no harm comes to him.You dont pass the buck onto others and keep your fingers crossed.
Di
Di:”Amen to that, Kidnap. It’s about time all this fanciful bulls twaddle about adoption being in the interest of the child got debunked once and for all.”
We both know what Clark Vincent, John Bowlby and Leontine Young had to say about “the best interest of the child.”
I’m almost as sick of that meme as I am of being called “hideous” “pathological” “self absorbed and pathological” “sickest and ugliest” and in a ” tiny minority” as opposed to “sane and normal people who deal with relinquishment in healthy ways.”
As if, huh Di?
Our responses are the responses of normal people in a remarkably crazy situation. A situation, I might add, that was both created by forced upon us in a violent way by an industry intent upon two ends; profit and punishment.
kitta and kidnap all you have to do is click on my nickname and it should hook you up to my blog.
Jackiejdajda said…
One does not walk away.. One grieves the loss and then gets on with her life.. or his life.. That is normal to me.. Loss is part of life.. IMO
This may be normal for YOU but don’t you DARE compare what is shedding “A” momentary tear “grieving the loss”.
Death is a part of life, losing your best friend is part of life, breaking up with your boyfriend is part of life, tragedies are part of life. Wanting to give your own child to strangers so it can grow up separated from it’s own family is not, it’s an abomination against life.
These “HAPPY-as-HELL-to-GET-RID-of-MY-KID BIRTHMOTHERS” seem to think they can hitch a ride on the coat tails of grieving the loss like the mothers who actually wanted their children do. This “oh it hurts so bad but feels so good” drama is absolute sick bull shit to anyone who sees through it!
Di said..
Who pays you to promote adoption?
I’m wondering the same thing. It’s like reading an adoption pamphlet.
yea, and the “HAPPY-as-HELL-to-GET-RID-of-MY-KID BIRTHMOTHERS”
try to influence other mothers to get rid of their kids too – after all why have everyone think your one of a few who’s happy about it.
here, here, take my baby…
take it…..I had sex when I wasn’t supposed to. ….here, take it…..
sheesh……
And Jackie – I’m pretty sick and tired of your comments on here and elsewhere that those of us who speak out about the injustice of taking our children against our will – wish to remain “victims”, as you insist.
A victim denies the impact of the crime committed against them – they wish to maintain the status-quo and act *as if* everything is just fine and they were able to get over it. Those of us who speak up about the impact the theft of our children had on us are NOT victims – we are survivors. Perhaps you could learn a thing or two by understanding the difference.
Victims are people who run their lives according to what others dictate. Victims usually operate from weakness; Survivors usually operate from strength and use their experience to become empowered.
There are 4 steps in eliminating victim traps in which we are held and controlled by others:
1. Learning how to size up our life situations.
2. Developing a strong set of non-victim expectations and attitudes.
3. Becoming aware of the kinds of victimization in our lives and in our culture.
4. Creating a set of principles which will guide us to detailed strategies to keep us from becoming a victim again.
Jackie – you want to stay stuck and pretend like you got over it just fine – that’s your business. But stop putting down mothers who wish to take our experience that we can view honestly and objectively and use it to prevent further abuse of women and children.
Di wrote..
“Gosh Jackie, you seem to be labouring under the illusion that all and only single mothers abuse their children. Well I’ve got news for you and it’s all bad. Married parents abuse children as do adopters.”
When I wrote that Di I was thinking of someone who did not have any money and did not have any help and did not have any parenting skills..
Did not have a support system in other words..
And kept (maybe) because she did not want to be considered deviant.. (I started a thread over on aa about this btw)
Love to see you over there.. your anonymous friends seem to be unable to find their way..
I wrote..
“Some of us have sex when we should not be having sex and decide that the normal thing to do is to keep the child and then neglect it.. “
Di wrote
“You might believe you son had no right to be born, but I for one am personally affronted by your inane rhetoric about us having sex “when we had no business having it.” “
I did not say that my son had no right to be born Di.. you are twisting my words.. You well know I visited an abortionist and knew I could not abort.. My son had every right to be born..
And on terms of the business of having sex when we had no business having it.. I have to say Di I was having sex in a random manner and I was not using protection.. And that in turn lead to me getting pregnant and having to deal with all of this..
I did it.. Di.. It was on me.. and I ended up in the system (way of it) of how it was done back then..
You write..
“If I didn’t “have sex when I had no business having it” my son would not exist today. And like it or not Jackie, my son has just as much right to exist in this world as any child of any married women who was conceived as part of her “wifely duty” to lie back and think of England whenever her drunken husband demanded his conjucal rights. “”
Its about taking responsibility for our actions Di.. that is what I was speaking about..
I wrote..
“Or have a child while on drugs and then keep the child in a home where a drug like meth is being manufactured..”
YOu wrote
“The system takes those children off their mothers. They are not voluntarily relinquished. “
Well Di I approached the agency.. I decided to not have an abortion and I called the agency..
My birth son did well in life and I know he loves his parents.. I know they love him..
I can not and I will not erase his life.. by pretending I can get him back..
I can not and I will not confuse my birthgrandbabies.. I love them.. you see..
Di questions..
“Who pays you to promote adoption?”
Di .. adoption is not going to stop in the US today.. Heck it is happening in Canada as well.. Private adoptions.. Lawyer and facilitator adoptions are going down.. I had a long conversation with a woman in Toronto who had just relinquished.. She told me some things that I was not aware of.
Also….
Babies are born addicted to meth and other terrible drugs.. Mothers and fathers are taking those kids home and pretending that all is well till the social worker comes and sees the neglect..
The kids and foster care is IMO a terrible situation.. I can not imagine what it is like to be neglected at home and then taken into an overburdened foster care system.. Talk about abandonment issues..
And I respect women and men and their decisions in life.. Respect them when they say they are not ready to raise a child..
I ask..
Why hide your head in the sand and pretend it all away when responsible answers can be found..
Now I hear the word deviant being tossed around..
Jackie
“If your child did ok, than he did it inspite of adoption, not because of it.”
Ever stop to think that while you make stupid generalizations like this you are insulting the vast, vast majority of us adoptees who didn’t turn into serial murderers?
If you want to bitch and whine about what the system did you than fine. But stop trying to generalize about the adoption experience.
And, while you pontificate over that read this dictionary definition and see if the shoe fits.
Main Entry: crack·pot
Function: noun
Pronunciation: ‘krak-“pät
: one given to eccentric or lunatic notions
– crackpot adjective
Carol C. said…
“And Jackie – I’m pretty sick and tired of your comments on here and elsewhere that those of us who speak out about the injustice of taking our children against our will – wish to remain “victims”, as you insist. “
Some of us did not have our children taken against our will Carol..
Ever pondered that sucker?
Ah but wait.. you got a name for those women.
Carol C wrote.
“A victim denies the impact of the crime committed against them – they wish to maintain the status-quo and act *as if* everything is just fine and they were able to get over it. Those of us who speak up about the impact the theft of our children had on us are NOT victims – we are survivors. Perhaps you could learn a thing or two by understanding the difference.”
Spin words Carol.. spin words..
You are saying it was done to you.. You are saying that the big bad old world had it in for you and took your baby..
That is victim speak to me..
Carol C wrote..
“Victims are people who run their lives according to what others dictate. Victims usually operate from weakness; Survivors usually operate from strength and use their experience to become empowered.”
Empowered with what? Empowered to tell women who want to call themselves birthmother that they can not do this?
Empowered to tell a pregnant girl that if she relinquished she is deviant?
Empowered with obsession on the wrongs done in the past.. I want none of that empowerment.. Sorry..
Carol C wrote..
“There are 4 steps in eliminating victim traps in which we are held and controlled by others:
1. Learning how to size up our life situations.
2. Developing a strong set of non-victim expectations and attitudes.
3. Becoming aware of the kinds of victimization in our lives and in our culture.
4. Creating a set of principles which will guide us to detailed strategies to keep us from becoming a victim again”.
So are you going to write a book Carol.. or a manual?
Carol C wrote..
“Jackie – you want to stay stuck and pretend like you got over it just fine – that’s your business. But stop putting down mothers who wish to take our experience that we can view honestly and objectively and use it to prevent further abuse of women and children.”
Further abuse?
The children are the ones who are going to be abused in the future IMO.
Used as a tug of war between people who live in a pretend world and want nothing to do with reality..
Jackie
Jackie,
question when did you give your baby up for adoption?
I decided to not have an abortion and I called the agency..
Who do you think your bull shitting? Abortion wasn’t even legal when you got pregnant. Your taking a ride on “I chose not have an abortion” train.
jackie,
you didn’t answer Di’s question:
What agency are you working for?
Jackiejdajda said…
Some of us did not have our children taken against our will Carol.. Ever pondered that suck
HAPPY-as-HELL-to-GET-RID-of-MY-KID BIRTHMOTHERS
“I had sex when I wasn’t supposed to be having sex”
Waaaaaaa. Bad bad me ! It’s a fucking pity party ! Sounds like
victim speak to me.
Its about taking responsibility for our actions
Like taking responsibility by getting rid of responsibility.
kitta3 said…
What agency are you working for?
Probably the same one she called when she decided not have an abortion. Lol.
What kind of creature is a “birthgrandbaby?”
JUST STOP MAKING EXCUSES !
If you wanted your child,
ADMIT IT.
If your child was taken for adoption against your will,
ADMIT IT.
If you had grief over the loss, ADMIT IT.
If you willingly gave your child to strangers,
ADMIT IT.
If you willingly chose adoption, no excuses it means you didn’t want your child,
ADMIT IT.
Stop the excuses like I had sex when I shouldn’t have.
Stop the excuses like I chose not to have an abortion.
Stop the excuses like I had grief over the loss.
Stop the excuses like the child had a better life.
It’s not taking responsibility if you’ve got a list of excuses, ADMIT IT.
kitta3 said…
What kind of creature is a “birthgrandbaby?”
I don’t know but I think it’s something like birthneighbors, birthfriends, birthhairdresseers, birthautomechanics, birthdogs, etc…
Essentially Jackie ..you are promoting unlawful practices. Did you know that the health professionals who rendered you unconscious and took your baby were violating the law?
And you want other mothers in the future to be victims also? And to spend the rest of their lives blathering on blogs as you do ? I swear your frontal lobes are missing.
(BTW Marley why do anonymous posters have to repeat the word verification x 2 in order to have their comments published ?)
“I don’t know but I think it’s something like birthneighbors, birthfriends, birthhairdresseers, birthautomechanics, birthdogs, etc…”
And today, birthTrickOrTreaters.
Happy Halloween, everyone.
Jackiejdajda said…
Carol C. said…
“And Jackie – I’m pretty sick and tired of your comments on here and elsewhere that those of us who speak out about the injustice of taking our children against our will – wish to remain “victims”, as you insist. “
Some of us did not have our children taken against our will Carol..
Ever pondered that sucker?
I am sure that you meant to say, “Ever ponder that, sucker”, calling carol a sucker. Your smug contempt for other women screams off the page, Jackie. Why are you so insistent that other women, who may not have made the “choice” that you seem to have made, and were not in agreement with the decision that was forced upon them are being victims? I don’t feel like a victim, and the loss of my son was certainly not of my choosing. However, rather than be a “Victim” I have chosen to seek justice for the crime that was committed upon me and my child. There is a big difference between people who are victims and people that are survivors. Survivors want to take the pain and make it worth something. They want to accomplish something from the strength that they have acquired. Victims only wish to stay in their victim status and will do almost anything to maintain it. I don’t think that many of the women here would meet those criteria. The women here are dong something just by being here, and most are doing other things to affect their circumstance. What are you doing, Jackie? Insisting that anyone who doesn’t do the same things you do automatically makes them a victim is the same thing as the industry saying that we all were crackwhores, or we all would forget…making sweeping assumptions and basing an entire argument (in their case, an industry) on it!
Then, to Carol you said…
You are saying it was done to you.. You are saying that the big bad old world had it in for you and took your baby..
How about this concept, Jackie. The big bad old world did have it in for us, for all of us, who dared to become pregnant outside the norm of marriage. I am assuming that you have read the Girls who went away, by ann fessler? You can see clearly that the world and society as a whole, did indeed have it in for us. But, being victimized and remaining a victim are two entirely different issues. None of us here, with a few minor exceptions, are still in the victim mode.
The you asked, Empowered with what? Empowered to tell women who want to call themselves birthmother that they can not do this?
Empowered to tell a pregnant girl that if she relinquished she is deviant?
Empowered with obsession on the wrongs done in the past.. I want none of that empowerment.. Sorry..
Jackie, what makes you think you know or even have a clue of what any of us are doing? That is a pretty presumptuous statement on your part to assume that you know what we are doing. Shame on you…you know what happens when you ass-u-me. Only this time it isn’t “me” that looks like an ass. And, if you don’t want any of that empowerment, fine, don’t have any of it. Nobody asked you to. I don’t see a line of women requesting your presence at our meetings. If you don’t want to be part of that particular empowerment, then we will be happy to accommodate you. You are not a part of it. There, do you feel better???
don’t know but I think it’s something like birthneighbors, birthfriends, birthhairdresseers, birthautomechanics, birthdogs, etc
LOL …and maybe sort of like birthcrackpots?
No matter how articulately we explain where we are coming from as INDIVIDUALS, Jackie insists on speaking in generalities and just can’t seem to grasp what’s going on. I find that sad.
Oh and Jackie – I enjoyed having sex when I had no business having it. I kind of think it’s a natural expression of caring for someone. It’s also a biological urge that I for one, don’t think is dirty or evil.
…how very provincial you are in your thinking, Jackie.
Kidnap said… I’m almost as sick of that meme as I am of being called “hideous” “pathological” “self absorbed and pathological” “sickest and ugliest” and in a ” tiny minority” as opposed to “sane and normal people who deal with elinquishment in healthy ways.”
If anyone is sick and pathological it’s those who refuse to face reality because its suits their agenda not to. Or they’re intellectually challenged sheep.
kidnap: Our responses are the responses of normal people in a remarkably crazy situation.
Absolutely. Every mother I know has had their children technically stolen from them either through commission or ommission, under the guise of adoption practices. If we’d been married women that this was done to society would be up in arms and the police would be out looking for the abductors who ran off with our babies.
Adoption’s myths have created a perverse alternate thought process in the minds of many.
carol c.,
jackie cannot understand what you are saying because she speaks Birthlanguage…and you do not. She truly does live in an alternative reality..a creation of the mind and of the adoption industry.
carol c.
right you are…sex is best when we have no business having it…and having it ..and having it..
An anon. wrote:
Essentially Jackie ..you are promoting unlawful practices. Did you know that the health professionals who rendered you unconscious and took your baby were violating the law?
I reply:
Then a whole helluva lot of women who gave birth in the 1950s and 1960s who were treated illegally.Why would it be illegal to knock out somebody during childbirth? I’d demand it. And if they denied me, I’d bat my head in with a hammer. Why would anybody WANT to be conscious?
(BTW Marley why do anonymous posters have to repeat the word verification x 2 in order to have their comments published ?)
I reply:
I have no idea Sometimes when I post replies I have to do it 2 or 3 times. I think it’s just a Blogger quirk. Blogger does lots of eccentric things.
Marley
4:29 PM
Another anon person wrote in part:
If you willingly gave your child to strangers,
ADMIT IT.
If you willingly chose adoption, no excuses it means you didn’t want your child,
ADMIT IT.
I reply:
What’s so wrong about not wanting it? Some women–like me–can’t stand kids. I never had one. On purpose. Death before birth.
Marley
Another Anon quoted Jackie:d…
I decided to not have an abortion and I called the agency..
Anon then replied:
Who do you think your bull shitting? Abortion wasn’t even legal when you got pregnant. Your taking a ride on “I chose not have an abortion” train.
I reply:
I really hate to ask this question, but how old are you? Just because abortion wasn’t legal doesn’t mean that women didn’t get them. All the time. We had 2 abortionists in my hometown that I knew about when I was 15: a slimey doctor and a realtor. There were probably more. I knew several girls in high school who had illegal abortions between 1960-1963. It was no big deal. Not like now where women are villified for doing something legal.
My rightwing Bircher cousin in Miami was married to a Miami Vice cop (and he was no Sonny Crockett!) in the 1960s. She was a “volunteer” for the Miami PD. She’d pose as a woman seeking an abortion, set the doctor up, actually disrobe, and get in the stirrups and then her husband and his colleagues would beat the door down and bust the guy. How sick is that? I was appalled. She thought it as fun and her civic duty. It’s how she got her jollies.
“”I reply:
Then a whole helluva lot of women who gave birth in the 1950s and 1960s who were treated illegally.Why would it be illegal to knock out somebody during childbirth? I’d demand it. And if they denied me, I’d bat my head in with a hammer. Why would anybody WANT to be conscious? “”
You are correct Marley back in the good ole days, many mothers (to include married ones)giving birth were rendered unconscious and given lots of happy pills, sleeping pills, etc., post delivery. Difference is.. one mother was taking her baby home where she and the kid would dry out. The other mother (mostly unmarried) was having so-called legal documents shoved in her face to sign. Life-altering documents for both mother and baby, that many a single mother would be signing while under the influence. See if that kind of document signing (any document), under the influence of mind-altering drugs, flies today.
So as far as I’m concerened Marley, that argument doesn’t hold water. Way too many surrender docs were signed from hospital beds, while mommy dearest was basically Stoned, thanks to the good docs and I am sure with a few nudges and a wink, from the agency/sw workers.
Marley,
I do think abortions were more easily available to some people than to others.Some people had the money for trips to Europe where they were legal in some countries, at least in the 60s.
I know that illegal abortions were commonly done in the state where I lived…even my own mother admitted it to me. Women would go to the hospital for a “D&C for unexplained bleeding.” There was an awful lot of unexplained bleeding “going around” in those days, as I recall.
And quite a few states had legalized it before Roe v Wade, starting with Colorado in 1967.
Yeah, I don’t recall the stigma against abortion then, that there seems to be now, when it is legal.
Jackiejdajda said… When I wrote that Di I was thinking of someone who did not have any money and did not have any help and did not have any parenting skills..
Did not have a support system in other words..
Jackie you have just described your own situation and that of possibly all of us. Our vulnerable situation is what the adoption system relied on, and preyed upon, to pry our children off us.
Jackie: And kept (maybe) because she did not want to be considered deviant..
Does it ever occur to you that the vast majority of mothers are hot wired by the very process of pregnancy and giving birth to love and protect their babies, that mother nature installed that wiring into mothers as a means of ensuring the continuation of the species?
Jackie: “Some of us have sex when we should not be having sex and decide that the normal thing to do is to keep the child and then neglect it.. “
It is a normal thing to keep one’s own baby. Tell me Jackie, of all the young mothers you come across on your adoption.com site, how many actually neglected their babies and had to give them up for adoption? How many gave up their babies because they were drug addled? There are something like 4 million babies born in the US each year. How many of them end up in care through neglect? Not even a miniscule fraction of one percent, that’s how many. So the odds of the child being abused by neglect is miniscule.
Jackie: I did not say that my son had no right to be born Di.. you are twisting my words.. You well know I visited an abortionist and knew I could not abort.. My son had every right to be born.. “
By its very implication, your claim that we had no business having sex, means we had no right bringing our children into this world.
Jackie: And on terms of the business of having sex when we had no business having it.. I have to say Di I was having sex in a random manner and I was not using protection.. And that in turn lead to me getting pregnant and having to deal with all of this..”
I’ve got news for you Jackie. Statistics show that 70% of the population had had sex before marriage back then. 25% walked down the aisle with a bun in the oven. A-line dresses hid a multitude of early pregnancies. We lived in a hypocritial society that was quick to judge others who were doing exactly the same thing. But we got caught out.
Jackie: I did it.. Di.. It was on me.. and I ended up in the system (way of it) of how it was done back then..
Yes it was the way things were done back then Jackie but it was illegal to deprive us of our rights and that includes deprivign us of our right to make a free and infomr choice. I dont tak etoo kindly to having been unlawfully harvested of my child in such a cruel and inhuman way. Did you know that you as a single mother had the very same parental rights as that of a married father? Do you think the system would have gotten away with denying a married man a right to his own newborn child ?
Jackie: Its about taking responsibility for our actions Di.. that is what I was speaking about..
Taking responsibilty is rearing the child you conceived, not palming that responsibility onto others. While there are numerous mothers who for various reasons are put in the untenable situation where they have no real option but to consider adoption for their child, I have met only one or two mothers online who did so willing, without deep remorse, or because, they claim they didn’t want the child. And they were possibly even more damaged psychologically than those who wanted to keep because their guilt was eating them alive.
Jackie: Well Di I approached the agency.. I decided to not have an abortion and I called the agency..”
Did the agency suggest ways in which you might keep your child? Did anyone even consider that an option at all?
Jackie: My birth son did well in life and I know he loves his parents.. I know they love him..
I can not and I will not erase his life.. by pretending I can get him back..I can not and I will not confuse my birthgrandbabies.. I love them.. you see..
And you think mother who seek justice for the crimes committed agaist them don’t? Is that what you’re trying to imply?
Jackie: Di .. adoption is not going to stop in the US today..
And you’re as sure as hell going to make sure it does continue arent you. Shame on you Jackie for not warning mothers of the lifelong trauma and grief they are going to be in for if they choose adoption. You’re as bad as, no worse than, the professionals who promote it, because you personally know the pain of it all, and you still lure young mothers into it, knowing how they are going to suffer. And that’s a dispicable thing to do.
Jackie: The kids and foster care is IMO a terrible situation.. I can not imagine what it is like to be neglected at home and then taken into an overburdened foster care system.. Talk about abandonment issues..
There is no greater abandonment issue imposed on a child than knowing his mother willingly gave him away at birth. Children in foster care know they were taken from their parents, not give away. They have huge problems too of course. Their abandonment issues stem from not understanding why their mothers didn’t come back to get them.
Di
Marley asks:
Why would it be illegal to knock out somebody during childbirth? I’d demand it. And if they denied me, I’d bat my head in with a hammer. Why would anybody WANT to be conscious?
There are lots of women who PREFER birthing au natural because they want to be present in the birth of their child. Each to their own. That option was just not available that I am aware of back in the old days.
And I was one of the mothers who was asked to sign surrender papers in the delivery room, even though I insisted before giving birth that I was going to find a way to keep my baby. but while still groggy, it was insisted that I was signing a “release” to take the baby and me back to Booth Home.
That’s illegal no matter how you cut it.
Not now. Now then.
Anonymous said…
Ever stop to think that while you make stupid generalizations like this you are insulting the vast, vast majority of us adoptees who didn’t turn into serial murderers?
What do serial murderers have to do with this? Stop being so touchy.
Anon: If you want to bitch and whine about what the system did you than fine. But stop trying to generalize about the adoption experience.
Oh I get it. You think I was meaning the way you were raised by your adopters. Wrong. You might want to try differentiating between the adoption process (ie separation) and the people who reared adopted children. They are two entirely separate issues.
Anon: And, while you pontificate over that read this dictionary definition and see if the shoe fits.
Main Entry: crack·pot
Function: noun
Pronunciation: ‘krak-“pät
: one given to eccentric or lunatic notions
– crackpot adjective
You seem to be confusing me with someone who cares what you think.
Di
Marley Greiner said…
Then a whole helluva lot of women who gave birth in the 1950s and 1960s who were treated illegally.Why would it be illegal to knock out somebody during childbirth? I’d demand it. And if they denied me, I’d bat my head in with a hammer. Why would anybody WANT to be conscious?
It wasn’t the drugs they gave us during labour that was illegal Marley. It was the barbiturates they used during the postpartum period that denied us our right to be in a fit condition to make an informed decision and to sign legal documents that created the illegal situation. Those barbiturate btw were known at the time to have a retrograde amnesia effect, which is why so many mothers don’t remember much if anything about the period surrounding the birth. The idea behind it was to take the baby and try to oblitetate all memoery of having given birth. All part of the ‘clean break theory’ according to one doctor giving evidence at our parliamentary inquiry.
Di
“What’s so wrong about not wanting it? Some women–like me–can’t stand kids. I never had one. On purpose. Death before birth.”
Nothing is “wrong” with not wanting kids. Nothing. Nothing.At.All.
What’s wrong here is the assertions of Certain BirthMothers. (And yes, I use that most objectionable word in the sense that these women do in fact seem to regard themselves as mere incubators and HandMaidens.) Additionally, they seem to have recovered far more easily from their loss than those of us who still struggle with it, decades later.
Surely there is a spectrum of observed responses to the insanity of coerced/forced adoptions. Perhaps the CB’s vaunted ability to give birth, sign away their babies, and then move on (in the emotional sense, of course)into the fields of life, to labor like a beast of burden in a Pearl S. Buck novel, is somewhere on that spectrum. IMO, it’s somewhere waaaaaaaay out on the farthest edge of that spectrum.
The rest of us still struggle with it. My best guess is that our reponse to the illegal taking of our newborns, as well as the criminal acts commited upon us while we were pregnant, is
the common, understandable response. Most people recognize a major social injustice when they see one.
Parenthetically, Marley, this is something that the CBs don’t seem to “get.” They don’t get that people who are not adoption affected wouldn’t just grieve the child and then move on. They don’t seem to get that most people would never give up their children willingly…smilingly.
Most people would never swallow that.
And many, many of them would seek justice for themselves and their taken child. And you know what? Many would not be as patient as we have been. Nor as naive.
Still, our well justified and universally understood fury with the way we and our kids were abused by the adoption system seems “hideous” to the CBs.
That they still assert that we who still struggle are somehow a “tiny minority” who are “pathological”, is what is wrong. Characterizations of us as “insane” and “self absorbed” because we find it impossible to get on with life – as ordered – are…fanciful, to say the least.
I can’t tell you how many times I have wished that I could do just that. Just forget, stop feeling, and move on. Oh, how I wished for a magical cure for nightmarish memories and endless pain.
But there are no magical cures.
So, their assertions and characterizations are what’s wrong here. They are beyond rationality, even belief. They are what’s wrong. Their assertions are at once both fanciful, and destructive.
Destructive beyond belief.
But you know what’s even more destructive, imho?
For them to attempt to use their
“adaptation” to loss as some kind of an implied promise to other women who are considering adoption.
That these women too, will grieve their child and move on, just like that.
Not likely.
IMO, people who make those sorts of implied promises and peddle their own hatreds as fact have some of the (metaphorical) blood of these ruptured families, on their hands.
carol c.and marley,
I was given only the medication that I asked for, during labor and delivery, but I was not in a maternity “home” and I had a private doctor(I was in a guardianship arrangement in my own extended family). But the nurses in the hospital took my baby from me as soon as he was born.I was fully conscious and I had not signed anything at all and they wouldn’t let me see him…and that was illegal.
Marley says,Why would it be illegal to knock out somebody during childbirth?
If it is implimented sans the mother’s consent and for the purpose of taking a newborn then of course its unlawful…Sheesh
Marley responded to this :
Anon said in part,
If you willingly gave your child to strangers,
ADMIT IT.
If you willingly chose adoption, no excuses it means you didn’t want your child,
ADMIT IT.
Marley said:
What’s so wrong about not wanting it? Some women–like me–can’t stand kids.
I never had one. On purpose. Death before birth.
Marley , the issue isn’t the right or wrong of “wanting” it.
The issue is “admitting it” without making a whole list of excuses.
Hey Jackiejdajda, if you think Carol is a sucker then that must make you a birthsucker.
Marley said,
I really hate to ask this question, but how old are you? Just because abortion
wasn’t legal doesn’t mean that women didn’t get them.
I don’t think anyone is ignorant of what went on pre roe v wade.
Jackie has a million excuses for getting rid of her kid and the “I chose not to abort” happens to be one them. Like those lifemothers who want to be recognized as some sort of saint for not choosing abortion.
Just wondering if you walk around saying “adoption saved me from abortion?
Marley said,
I really hate to ask this question, but how old are you? Just because abortion
wasn’t legal doesn’t mean that women didn’t get them.
I don’t think anyone is ignorant of what went on pre roe v wade.
Jackie has a million excuses for getting rid of her kid and the “I chose not to abort” happens to be one them. Like those lifemothers who want to be recognized as some sort of saint for not choosing abortion.
Just wondering if you walk around saying “adoption saved me from abortion?
Regarding what was done to mothers in hospitals and illegalities: it is significant to note how practices differed with regard to married vs unmarried women.This I realized at the time..that I was being treated differently than the married mothers.Professional care should not have differed according to our marital status, but it did.
I did have a good and ethical doctor, but the instant his back was turned, the nurses began their abusive and neglectful behavior. I would even wonder if there weren’t some mothers (and babies) who died as a result of medical malpractice, some type of deliberate neglect or criminal actions of one sort or another.This wouldn’t surprise me
at all.
Why waste time on someone like Jackie who’s motivation is to undermine and discredit Mothers who wanted their children? Your not going to find oxygen on her planet, only caustic fumes.
There were many illegalities and no one is going to stop the truth from being exposed.
For the anonymous person who asked when I gave birth.. and relinquished my son.. I gave birth in Miami in 1965.
Di I would love to reply to you properly but this blog reply software is not easy…
To some anonymous person… I did not call.. Carol a sucker.. I said something like “Sort that sucker”.
I wrote.. about the woman relinquishing today..
“Did not have a support system in other words.”
Di replied..
“Jackie you have just described your own situation and that of possibly all of us. Our vulnerable situation is what the adoption system relied on, and preyed upon, to pry our children off us.”
Well what about the women that approached the black market system in our time Di..
Solinger writes about it in her book.. Wake Up Little Susie.. Page 32
She wrote that because some of the agencies did not provide money etc before the birth the women went into the black market..
Victims?
Di wrote..
“Does it ever occur to you that the vast majority of mothers are hot wired by the very process of pregnancy and giving birth to love and protect their babies, that mother nature installed that wiring into mothers as a means of ensuring the continuation of the species?”
Its all very nice Di that women are so called hot wired to love and protect their babies.. The problem is that some women can not care for their babies properly.. Can not provide for them..
And you know damn well that women from the beginning of human time on this earth have given their babies to someone that can care for he/she when she can not..
Di wrote..
“It is a normal thing to keep one’s own baby. Tell me Jackie, of all the young mothers you come across on your adoption.com site, how many actually neglected their babies and had to give them up for adoption? How many gave up their babies because they were drug addled? There are something like 4 million babies born in the US each year. How many of them end up in care through neglect? Not even a miniscule fraction of one percent, that’s how many. So the odds of the child being abused by neglect is miniscule. “
Di I do not look for women considering relinquishing on adoption.com.. I look for the ones who are searching and actually finding the bson or bdaughter and are heading into reunion.. Women my age and women who are isolated.. adoption.com is the first place they hit.
I wish to give them support and help..
I wish to tell them they are not alone.. I wish to tell them that the dark ages are gone from adoption.. The secret keeping etc..
But maybe thanks to you and your lot it will not be gone..
Words like ‘deviant behavior’ may well drive the relinquishing a baby into the black market again.. And safe haven may be part of this..
Hell maybe you guys are being used by the safe haven folks.. Do you get paid by them?
Di wrote..
“By its very implication, your claim that we had no business having sex, means we had no right bringing our children into this world.”
Oh crap.. Di..
Having sex when not using protection is asking for it.. Getting pregnant when you can not support or care for a child is wrong. Di.
It’s a terrible thing to do to another human being.. And giving that child to someone that can care for the child is something right.. not wrong..
Di wrote..
“I’ve got news for you Jackie. Statistics show that 70% of the population had had sex before marriage back then. 25% walked down the aisle with a bun in the oven. A-line dresses hid a multitude of early pregnancies. We lived in a hypocritical society that was quick to judge others who were doing exactly the same thing. But we got caught out.”
You are making an excuse Di.. It’s the old everyone is doing it so why can’t I do it..
Getting pregnant when you have not business getting pregnant is wrong..
Di.. wrote..
“Yes it was the way things were done back then Jackie but it was illegal to deprive us of our rights and that includes deprivign us of our right to make a free and infomr choice. I dont tak etoo kindly to having been unlawfully harvested of my child in such a cruel and inhuman way. Did you know that you as a single mother had the very same parental rights as that of a married father? Do you think the system would have gotten away with denying a married man a right to his own newborn child ?”
Di I have read this argument of yours for years.. Heck I even agreed with you at one time..
But no more..
IMO society deals with its problems in many ways.. In the sixties this is how they (the collective) dealt with pregnancies and babies being born outside of the norm.. Born to folks who society considered wrong..
In one of Marley’s blogs she cited a man who wrote about how in today’s society in the US today.. there is going to be a white underclass (along with the black underclass) because of poor women keeping their babies.. http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/050410_underclass.htm
Or drug addicted women keeping their babies because that drug addicted women does not want to be considered deviant.. etc.
Hence resulting in children being raised in deplorable conditions..
Do you not have a problem with this? I sure do..
Di wrote..
“Taking responsibilty is rearing the child you conceived, not palming that responsibility onto others. While there are numerous mothers who for various reasons are put in the untenable situation where they have no real option but to consider adoption for their child, I have met only one or two mothers online who did so willing, without deep remorse, or because, they claim they didn’t want the child. And they were possibly even more damaged psychologically than those who wanted to keep because their guilt was eating them alive.”
This is not about the woman who can not keep her child Di.. not to me..
Its about the next generation of children that are going to be raised in homes that have no business raising them…
And if you and your friends drive this underground.. we are going to have a group of people who are either sold in a black market situation or given over to a safe haven..
As Bill Pierce wrote.. a second tier of adoption..
Yes women and men get hurt when they have to give the baby up.. but geez.. this can be grieved and this can be dealt with..
And I think telling a woman that she will never get over what happened is doing her a disservice..
Di wrote..
“Did the agency suggest ways in which you might keep your child? Did anyone even consider that an option at all?”
The agency was not in business to give me answers to my problem.. The agency was in business/charity work to deal with the adoption/relinquishment of a child..
And you know damn well most agencies in the US today are a business.. They are not a social place..
And wishing such agencies were a social place is a fools errand..
You and your Origins pals got a bunch of kids wishing this Di..I get angry every time I read a post written by them.
Fairy tale time..
Di wrote..
“And you think mother who seek justice for the crimes committed agaist them don’t? Is that what you’re trying to imply?”
Its not going to happen in the US Di.. Not in a million years..
Di wrote..
“And you’re as sure as hell going to make sure it does continue arent you. Shame on you Jackie for not warning mothers of the lifelong trauma and grief they are going to be in for if they choose adoption. You’re as bad as, no worse than, the professionals who promote it, because you personally know the pain of it all, and you still lure young mothers into it, knowing how they are going to suffer. And that’s a dispicable thing to do. “
Its not life long.. that is a myth you and your friends are trying to ‘make so’.
To me its despicable what you are up to.. What about the adoptees that are going into reunion today that are dealing with a women that is still in victim mode? What some of you perpetuate.. Women who were done in by the system.. and the so called bad people that run it..
Do you even think of them?
Di wrote..
“There is no greater abandonment issue imposed on a child than knowing his mother willingly gave him away at birth. Children in foster care know they were taken from their parents, not give away. They have huge problems too of course. Their abandonment issues stem from not understanding why their mothers didn’t come back to get them.”
What a spin doctor you are Di..
Its all about blame to you.. Blame the system.. blame the women who knowingly gave their child up because the child came first..
Di can we please take this over to aa.. I hate long replies on this blog software..
Jackie
Anon 175,767 wrote:
Just wondering if you walk around saying “adoption saved me from abortion?”
Anybody who has been around me knows my stand on abortion. I am not pro-choice. I am pro-abortion. Abortion: anytime for anybody. No restrictions.
“Adoption saved me from abortion” is the last thing I’d say. I’ve always wondered why “abortion not adoption” hasn’t become a slogan.
Marley
Jack(death)adda says , “Again..(as I did in 1965) handing my power over to someone else.. Handing it over so I can be part of the problem.. and not part of the solution.”
You are part of the problem by promoting the unnecessary separation of mother and newborn. You are part of the problem when you ignore the mental health research on the harmful effects of adoption.You are part of the problem when you provide no solution. I bet you have haven’t lifted a finger to help young moms in the community .You just sit at the keyboard and condemn them to death by adoption.
Jackie says,
“Di can we please take this over to aa..(ALT.ABDUCTION) I hate long replies on this blog software..”
..(ALT.ABDUCTION)
I’m gathering that some heavy reconstructive brainwashing may be going on over there…..
“gave the child up because the child came first”..
Those are famous adoptionspeak birthwords…..as if:”She loved you so much she gave you away.”
That isn’t even deviant anymore..it is perverse.
Jackie said…
Its not life long.. that is a myth you and your friends are trying to ‘make so’.
To me its despicable what you are up to
Who in the hell do you think you are jackie. Telling someone who feels that their experience had a life long impact of emotional devastation that they can’t own their own experience!
You are so far out of line and out of touch emotionally and intellectually with this topic that you should be embarrassed. We are all describing our own experience and you continue to not only deny that the pain did not have a lasting effect on you (good for you, girl) but that we are wrong!!
Speak for yourself and allow others to speak for themselves. And if you think it’s wrong that we speak the truth and therefore should be concerned about searching adoptees – you must live in total denial. Authentic people do not hide the truth.
With all due respect, you can yuk it up all you want about people who get professional help for their issue, but you just might wish to go check it out to get another objective opinion about the way you treat others. You are merely a mouthpiece for Marley, sister.
And why are you so desperate to get people over to Alt. adoption? I receive the list and have never felt compelled to post. I won’t get into my specific reasons why, but suffice it to say that I believe it would be impossible to have an objective discussion there without all kinds of banal, pointless and crude insults being thrown about. Each to their own but it’s not my cup of tea.
Take a hint Jackie. Why can’t you just agree to disagree with other people’s experience? For someone who is just fine with her decision to give up her baby, you sure protest a bit too much IMO. Why keep coming to us and debating? Go tell your story to someone who cares what you think. I’m really sorry to sound rude but you need to know that you do not make a bit of sense.
kitta3 said…Those are famous adoptionspeak birthwords…..as if:”She loved you so much she gave you away.”
If Jackie was a good birthgrandma she would convince her son to stop being so selfish and give away her ‘birthgrandbabies.’ I’m sure between us all we could find a luverrrly adoptive couple who are far better off than he is.
Di
Jackiedamnda said,
“Well what about the women that approached the black market system in our time Di.. Solinger writes about it in her book.. Wake Up Little Susie.. Page “
If I recall Ricky claimed around 39% were black market. That figure doesn’t imply that it was the mothers who were selling their own babies on the black market.
You know what Jackie, it’s impossible for you to grasp that mothers wanted their babies. It’s also impossible for you to accept that unlike you there were mothers who had their babies taken. And because everything you profess is a farfetched malicious spin in an effort to discredit mothers it’s highly improbable that you were ever pregnant and had a child.
Marley wrote:
Anybody who has been around me knows my stand on abortion. I am not pro-choice. I am pro-abortion. Abortion: anytime for anybody. No restrictions.
“Adoption saved me from abortion” is the last thing I’d say. I’ve always wondered why “abortion not adoption” hasn’t become a slogan.
I know, I was being sarcastic.
And you know, I never heard
non-adopted people walk around saying they were “saved from abortion”. It’s adoption propoganda.
Anon 175,767
Anon said: If I recall Ricky claimed around 39% were black market. That figure doesn’t imply that it was the mothers who were selling their own babies on the black market.
I can’t speak for US history but in Aus “black market” adoptions were private transactions between clergy/ hospital matrons/doctors, relatives etc., and adopters, where no adoption consent was ever signed and no legal papers ever filed with the Courts. Such private baby trading was outlawed in Aus in 1965 when our Govt took over control and allowed only licenced agencies and the State to arrange adoptions. It hs been estimated that almost as many unofficial adoptions occurred as officially registered one were. Those adoptees have no way of knowing their identities because no paper work was ever filed. They don’t even have an original or legally amended birth certificate but have been issued with a small piece of paper providing the name they were given by their adopters as a means of proving that they officially exist.
Jackie doesn’t know what’s she’s talking about.
Di
This song is dedicated especially for our dear friend…Jackiecaca
Hope you enjoy it as much as I do!!
‘Crazy’ by Gnarls Barkley
I remember when, I remember, I remember when I lost my mind.
There was something so pleasant about that place,
even your emotions had an echo, and so much space.
And when you’re out there, without care, yeah I was out off touch.
But it wasn’t because I didn’t know enough, I just knew too much.
Does that make me crazy?
Does that make me crazy?
Does that make me crazy?
possibly…
And I hope that you are having the time of your life.
But think twice, that’s my only advice.
Come on now, who do you, who do you, who do you, who do you think you are?
Ha, Ha, Ha! Bless your soul. You really think you’re in control?
Well, I think you’re crazy!
I think you’re crazy!
I think you’re crazy!
Just like me…
My heroes had the heart to do their lives out on a limb.
And all I remember is thinking, I wanna be like them.
Ever since I was little, ever since I was little it looked like fun.
It was no coincidence I’ve come and I can die when I’m done.
But maybe I’m crazy.
Maybe you’re crazy.
Maybe we’re crazy.
Probably…
Jackie: “And you know damn well most agencies in the US today are a business.. They are not a social place..”
Yes, we know that adoption agencies are a business, Jackie.
And, like any successful business, they exist to make a profit.
kitta: “That isn’t even deviant anymore..it is perverse.”
It’s doublethink, Kitta.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
“it’s doublethink”
yes, reminds me of the anti-sex league.
Jackie: “…there is going to be a white underclass (along with the black underclass) because of poor women keeping their babies.. http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/050410_underclass.htm“
Jackie, you are truly clueless.
TRULY CLUELESS
The damn blog you cite is a reactionary right wing rag that links to the likes of the rabid Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Phyllis Schafly, the Minutemen Project and NewsMax.
These folks and their buddies are the ones who have supported the misbegotten invasion of Iraq in which over 600,000 Iraqi citizens have died. These people you cite bear quite a bit of responsibility for the way America has gone down the tubes for the last six years.
The only people missing from the group you’ve chosen to cite are the theocons – Christian Dominionists led by James Dobson, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.
The other half of the failing Republican coalition.
These people are hate mongers, war pimps, fear peddlers , woman despisers, and race baiters. They will be kicked to the curb in six days’ time when the congressional midterm elections are held.
You really picked a doozy of a group to align yourself with, Jackie.
Here’s a clue for you:
The coming white underclass in America will develop as a direct result of the policies of a corporatist American government.
kitta: “yes, reminds me of the anti-sex league.”
bellyfeel: “The word “bellyfeel” means a blind, enthusiastic acceptance of an idea.
“The word likely comes from the idea that any good Oceanian should be able to internalize Party doctrine to the extent that it becomes a gut instinct – a feeling in the belly.”
blackwhite:
Blackwhite is defined as follows:
” …this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink.
“An understanding of the word ‘blackwhite’ is important to understanding Nineteen Eighty-Four because it embodies several of the essential themes of the novel. It is both an example of Newspeak and doublethink. Perhaps more important however is that the word represents the active process of rewriting the past, control of the past being a vital aspect of the Party’s control over the present.”
goodsex and sexcrime:
“Goodsex is any form of sex considered acceptable by the Party; specifically, this refers only to sex within marriage, not for pleasure, and for the express purpose of providing new children for the Party. All other forms of sex are considered sexcrime.”
List of Newspeak words:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwhite
Further observations from the Wikipedia article on doublethink:
“Real-world doublethink
“Some people think that doublethink is a concept unique to Nineteen Eighty-Four, and others think that it is a real psychological function. Among those who consider doublethink real, there are two conflicting definitions:
“1.”believing contradictory beliefs for reasons of practicality, convenience, and/or emotional stability” or
“2.”enjoying the malicious pleasure of the contrast between what one believes to be true and what one knows to be true.”
Sound familiar, anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
(directed at Jackie)
“Why don’t you go tell your story to someone who cares what you think?”
Its somethin’ to watch the anguh being directed towards Jackie.
It all fits into what I said earlier. If you don’t “toe the party line” they try to shut you up. Than they sit around and convince themselves that all but the evil adopters think the way they do. Tsk…Tsk.
toe/tow the line (definition Websters New World Dictionary)
to do what you are ordered or expected to do. He might not like the rules but he’ll toe the line just to avoid trouble. Ministers who refused to toe the Party line were swiftly got rid of.
kidnap:
I have the book and there is an interesting note in the “Afterword”…
“It is one of the most characteristic and destructive developments of our own [western] society that man, becoming more and more of an instrument, transforms reality more and more into something relative to his own interests and functions.” page 322, 1984, George Orwell,copyright 1949, afterword by Erich Fromm
Fromm discusses the idea that Orwell saw that it wasn’t just the “Russians”‘ and the “Red Chinese” who were twisting the truth to suit political aims and ends. The goal was power and western countries were just as vulnerable to corrupt lying and doublespeak…so we shouldn’t be surprised to see the widespread, worldwide violations of families and the use of adoptionspeak birthlanguage in diverse cultures around the world. People really do think they can create “brave new realities” with their minds….and nevermind what it does to other people.
kitta: “Fromm discusses the idea that Orwell saw that it wasn’t just the “Russians”‘ and the “Red Chinese” who were twisting the truth to suit political aims and ends. “
It seems the adoption industry took more than a few pages of their playbook from 1984.
Carrie said…
..(ALT.ABDUCTION)
I’m gathering that some heavy reconstructive brainwashing may be going on over there…..
Not quite. Jackie’s desparate need to be approved of has taken her back to the very people who have ridiculed and belittled her for years. Right now she is peddling as fast as she can to desparately apologise to all and sundry for having a different opinion from the rest of the jackals on a.a. I love it. I’ll given ’em a week before they’re attacking her again and shoing her over to the safety of her pals at adoption.com. LOL Sad. no. Pathetic.
Anonymous again shares her broken record opinion – “Its somethin’ to watch the anguh being directed towards Jackie.”
Sweetie – the only anger directed is from Jackie to anyone who isn’t thrilled with the fact that their babies were taken from them because she’s just fine, thank you, with her decision. It’s obvious that our Jackie is desperate for approval and feels threatened by mothers who feel differently than her. So she lumps us all together as if we’re all part of one big groupthink. Tsk. Tsk. Tsk…and so are you.
“It all fits into what I said earlier. If you don’t “toe the party line” they try to shut you up.”
Clearly you have no other original thought on this matter than to continue to accuse anyone with a different experience or opinion of not “toeing the company line”??? Do you really think this is witty or even relevent? Read my lips – there is NO party line and your simile is not the least bit clever or rationale.
If anyone here is toeing any kind of party line (such as the Bravo Adoption party!), it is you! You’re an adoptee who is totally brainwashed into believing adoption is wonderful, just because your adopters treated you better than your “birth” mommy did. That may very well be your reality, but it’s not everyone’s. I have to wonder why that is so threatening to you that you stay on her while hiding your identity but spewing vitriol at mothers? You are NOT a mother of adoption loss, so butt out. Your off topic snide comments are beginning to sound desperate.
Now, when is it that you are going to tell us about all the work you do for the open records movement? Remember you insisted in your first post on this topic that you’ve remained in it for years in spite of all the crackpots and idiots?? Yet when we ask you who you are and what you’ve done to work for adoption reform, you refuse to respond???
All you care about is OPEN RECORDS FOR ADOPTEES. OK. So?
Kind of cowardly behavior you’re exhibiting though, for a person who professes to be such a mover and shaker in the “Movement” as you call it.
Now who is toeing/towing any kind of party line?
“It all fits into what I said earlier. If you don’t “toe the party line” they try to shut you up. Than they sit around and convince themselves that all but the evil adopters think the way they do. Tsk…Tsk.”
Sweetheart,
It’s really not about “party-line”, but in fact, our thinking and words here are based on the REALITY of our experiences. WE were rendered voiceless for decades, Shut-Up through Imposed shame, and now that we found our voices we’re not going to shut up.
If you are not an affected mother, you will not understand and therefore are only speculating about what you do not know.
I for one am not part of a “party-line” but part of a very real experience, a horrific one at that. And personally speaking, I don’t think ALL adopters are evil, but that the industry and institution of adoption is.
‘anonymous’ said – which one God only knows as it appears to difficult for them to assign themselves a name – even a ficticious one-
Right now she is peddling as fast as she can to desparately apologise to all and sundry for having a different opinion from the rest of the jackals on a.a. I love it. I’ll given ’em a week before they’re attacking her again
Unlike you ‘jackals’ who are treating her with such love and respect because her opinion is different from yours. What a hypocrite you are!
kat (one of the a.a. ‘jackals’)
Kat said it right.
Di wrote..
“Jackie doesn’t know what’s she’s talking about.”
What I was commenting on Di was what actually happened in those years not the statistics..
Page 32 Wake Up Little Susie.. Rickie Solinger
There were, however, two personal decisions a white woman could make
that would queer her relatively protected status. She might decide to
forgo the sanctuary and services offered by the maternity home and
adoption agency in favor of an independent adoption, as approximately
39 percent of all unmarried mothers did in the late 1950’s and early
1960’s.. If she chose to pursue this route, guided perhaps by her
obstetrician or lawyer, she would be entering into the “black market’
dealings.
Social service providers, encouraged by Children’s Bureau personnel
and policies, devoted an extraordinary amount of time and effort to
dissuading white women from this course while championing state
legislation to outlaw black market adoptions. The concern of many
professionals about improving the standards of community care for
white unwed mothers was supported by a belief that this was the only
way to induce some women to go the prescribed route. Katherine B.
Oettinger, head of the Children’s Bureau, cited the black market in
white babies as one of the main concerns of the Bureau in the late
1950s: “The unmistakable fact is that the unwed mother needs
help….And until she can get and use these services anywhere in the
country, the black and gray market placement of children for adoption
will continue.” A Seattle program begun in 1951 was designed
specifically as an antidote to the allure of the black market.. New
and higher-quality services were provided to unwed mothers in order to
protect those “who now get into wrong hands and who are encouraged
indeed obligated to give up their babies in order to pay their own
freight.”
Notes on this at the back of the book..(John H Hall, “An Experimental
Program for Unmarried Mothers,” Child Welfare (May, 1951))
I thought you had the book Di.. but I guess not..
I bet you got that Ann Flesser book.. The booo hoooo book.
I never took you for a coward Di. I really wanted to talk this out..
What is happening today alarms me..
Jackie
jackie now says “I really wanted to talk this out..
What is happening today alarms me..”
Me too, Jackie. Me too. It really alarms me that we HAVE been talking this out for weeks and because you see it differently than the majority of mothers who lost their babes to adoption, you keep insisting we’re wrong and you’re right. Didn’t you ever learn how to debate like a big girl? You seem to be having a temper tantrum because so many of us disagree with you.
Get over yourself Jackie. You’ve been told over and over that you are entitled to your opinion but no matter how much you quibble and rant, many women are going to see it differently.
As far as your intrepretation of Solinger’s book – your point is moot! Have you ever met Rickie or attended one of her lectures or workshops? I have. Were you at the conference in NY where she and Fessler did a joint presentation which included research of the damage done to women who lost children to adoption? And the incredible coersion that was the norm during the BSE? Of course you haven’t. Anyone can take a passage or two out of any book and use it to say something is the opinion of the author. But you’re making yourself look foolish. Why not write to Rickie and ask her rather than debating here with us as to what YOU (the happy beemom) think she’s saying?
Hate to tell you this Jackie, but you’ve become the Ann Coulter of natural mothers and you continue to beat this dead horse. Stop bleating that you’re the one misunderstood and that any mother who continues to talk about the corruption in adoption is a victim. You’re the victim, Jackie. You’re the mouthpiece for the adoption movement – a good little bee mom who insists that it didn’t bother her in the least to give away her baby. Go tell it on the mountain because I for one, am sick of your same silly rhetoric. Personally, I think if you’re so happy with your choice, you must not have a maternal bone in your body. This is neither bad or good. It just IS.
And the other stupid thing you keep trying to debate is that you think adoption as it is will never be abolished in the US. So what? Maybe it will. Maybe it won’t. That doesn’t mean people cannot make an effort to change it or abolish the unfair practices. It’s like debating with a child.
And the other stupid thing you keep trying to debate is that you think adoption as it is will never be abolished in the US. So what? Maybe it will. Maybe it won’t. That doesn’t mean people cannot make an effort to change it or abolish the unfair practices.
Just wanted to clarify on the comment I made above. There are plenty of people who insist that access to adoptee’s OBC will never happen in every state in our lifetime.
Again. Who cares. They might and they might not. But activists continue to put forth their best effort to change unfair practices. You’re such a defeatest.
All I know is that the minute we stop trying to get justice, it guarantees that there is NO chance to get it.
Look how ridiculous you sound when you say “Adoption will never be abolished so therefore I’m going to support it”? With all it’s warts and pimples, you’re willing to support it because you don’t believe it can be changed.
Good thing you were never an African American slave.
carol c.:”the Ann Coulter of natural mothers”…good comparison..
Even some of my arch-conservative relatives have told me they cannot stand Ann Coulter because “She is too mean.”
After awhile, it matters when you come across as cold and uncaring and a mother who acts like surrendering a baby is no big deal comes across as cold. And that mothers can simply be replaced by other people…and it is all just a lot of ‘boo hoo”..
Carol c.: I wish to clarify that I didn’t mean that you were the Ann Coulter of natural mothers. In your post you referred to jackie, I think.
It is sad when a mother comes across as not caring if she gave away her child, as if it is no big deal.
“Didn’t you ever learn how to debate like a big girl? “
NO she didn’t, Carol.
Have you ever read Jackie’s words where she says we “don’t let her” call herself the b word?
We don’t let her?
Maximum passivity, massive victim-speak.
She’s still stuck in victimhood.
“Unlike you ‘jackals’ who are treating her with such love and respect because her opinion is different from yours.”
The problem is, Jackie is projecting her opinion onto and generalizing it to all first mothers. One thing we won’t allow is to have our own realities erased by anyone, anymore. for me, it’s nothing personal about Jackie, herself, just her message.
Jackie, maybe you haven’t realized how many adoptees have been helped in reading Anne’s book. I have personally heard from a couple of them that have been transformed by it. Maybe it would also help you to read Margaret McDonald Lawrence’s speech to the AAC if you haven’t before, to understand what kind of thinking so many of them grew up with. Why perpetuate the myth?
by Margaret McDonald Lawrence
(From a speech to The First National American Adoption Congress, Washington D.C. May 4, 1979)
No-one could have encapsulated the need of the adoption industry to manufacture the demonization of the natural mother as the most pivotal and necessary requirement in the promotion of, and social acceptance of adoption, as Lawrence when she states how:
In order to bring the issues surrounding the intermediary system into clear focus, it is necessary to examine the myths and motives that surround the adoption experience. Outsiders need to realize that social agencies not only control adoption procedures, but also control the information about the institution which is provided to the courts, the legislature and the public.
It is the child welfare establishment that has provided the picture of [natural] mothers as indifferent – as mothers who abandon their unwanted children with a wish to remain forever hidden from them. They know that this is seldom true, but it helps to facilitate their work for the public to believe this. Society does not dismiss the importance of the natural family as readily as the social planners, and so it is useful to portray [surrendering] parents as different from caring parents.
The [natural] mother must be different, an aberration; for if it were true that she had the same degree of love for her child as all other mothers, the good of adoption would be overwhelmed by the tragedy of it. Adoptive parents are somewhat relieved of guilt if they can be assured that the [natural] parents truly did not want their child; for, under those circumstances, it is possible to feel entitled to claim the child of others. Neither society nor the mother who holds the child in her arms wants to confront the agony of the mother from whose arms that same child was taken. But that agony is real, as we have come to learn through our experience with reunions.
———————–
Carrie
carrie,
The social workers not only control the ‘information” that is supplied to the public, the courts,, the adopters, the adopted people, etc..but they also, of course….invent it.
The ‘reports’ social workers supply to the courts must contain “reasons” for the ‘necessity” for the surrender of our children. Can you imagine what those reports might say about us??
Is there any reason why we would think these reports would show our agony, our coercion, our pain, the actual age we were, even if we were residents of the places where we supposedly lived….and the real reasons for the surrenders of our children..
I think not..
I do have some of my documents..managed to get some of them after the agency was sued and bought out by some other people who no longer do adoptions.
It is shocking what this country’s judicial system will accept as “legal proof’..but then adoption has never been about truth anyway.
kitta,
“It is shocking what this country’s judicial system will accept as “legal proof’..but then adoption has never been about truth anyway.”
agreed.
“The [natural] mother must be different, an aberration; for if it were true that she had the same degree of love for her child as all other mothers, the good of adoption would be overwhelmed by the tragedy of it. “
Hence, the constant push to present us as abberrations; and the joyous approval of the very rare, actual abberrations , ie, women who actually did not want their children.
Hey, Jackie
One of the most influential Evangelicals in the country, Ted Haggard, just got busted for buying gay sex from a prostitute and for, yes…using methamphetamine.
Why don’t you just run over to his website and pull some juicy quotes about how unmarreid white moms are ruining this country and need to give their babies up?
I am not quoting Solinger for the sake of quoting her..
I was attempting.. more fool me.. to get a point across..
The point being that some women (in the bad old days) wanted to relinquish their unborn child .. Some women approached (looked for) the black market in order to get money..
Solinger the history buff.. found that information.. and put it down in her book.
Some women do not consider the child taken..
Some women do not consider their children lost..
And I did meet Rickie Solinger.. and I did see her speak at a conference.. All that is duly reported on aa..
Jackie
now jackie exclaims – “was attempting.. more fool me.. to get a point across..
The point being that some women (in the bad old days) wanted to relinquish their unborn child .. Some women approached (looked for) the black market in order to get money”
Still, this is moot!!! There have always been a very small percentage of mothers who did not want to parent their children and/or were desperate for money, freedom or whatever. Jackie! No one is denying that. Why do you continue to bring this point up as some kind of refute to so many of us explaining that OUR EXPERIENCE was different…. And that most of the mothers who you seem to wish to be critical of – DID wish to parent our children and we were denied the opportunity in spite of our desire. We were tricked, drugged, duped and lied to in order to take our babies against our will.
And if you heard and read Solinger, Fessler, Schaefer, etc. etc. you have to admit that we were in the MAJORITY.
Jackie. What is your point? You seem to be constantly looking to argue. That’s no way to live. Are you absolutely sure it didn’t bother you to give up your baby? Not trying to be mean spirited, but something is just not ringing true between your obsession with AA and need to keep telling bmothers we didn’t feel or experience what we said we did.
kitta3 said…
Carol c.: I wish to clarify that I didn’t mean that you were the Ann Coulter of natural mothers. In your post you referred to jackie, I think
LOL Kitta, I knew what you meant and I agree with you. It is sad that Jackie cannot/will not acknowledge or feel pain at the loss of her child. One would think that even if a mother felt she made the right choice, she would still be able to acknowledge the sadness of not being there for her child.
Jackiejdajda quoted…
“There were, however, two personal decisions a white woman could make
that would queer her relatively protected status. She might decide to forgo the sanctuary and services offered by the maternity home and adoption agency in favor of an independent adoption, as approximately 39 percent of all unmarried mothers did in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s.. If she chose to pursue this route, guided perhaps by her obstetrician or lawyer, she would be entering into the “black market’ dealings.”
Those “black market” dealings you are so concerned about Jackie, are the very same private arrangements that are de rigeur TODAY in the US. Adoptors today STILL pay large sums of money for the mother’s medical and living expenses in return for her child. And you know it. It’s been debated ad infinitum on a.a for years. The rest of the world outlawed those “black market” and exploitative arrangements in the 1960’s. But not the US. They are the VERY reason you still have such high adoption figures while adoption in the rest of the western world has been reduced to a trickle.
However did you manage to misunderstand what you are quoting?
Jackie: I thought you had the book Di.. but I guess not..
I do. Whatsmore I read and and unlike you, understood it.
Jackie: “I bet you got that Ann Flesser book.. The booo hoooo book.’
You’re disgraceful. You spent the better part of a decade on a.a wanting understanding and sympathy for the loss of your chld and you then dismiss the loss and grief of other mothers.
Jackie: I never took you for a coward Di.
Yeah I’m a coward Jackie. Only cowards stand up to entire governments and get proven right. Sheesh. Were you dropped on your head as a baby?
Jackie: I really wanted to talk this out..
That’s right It’s all about you, and what you want. Well here’s a little advise on etiquitte, Jackie. If you want something from someone you don’t get your way by insulting them. You’re a waste of my precious time I’m afraid.
Jackie: What is happening today alarms me..
Are you kidding? What’s happening today was happening back then. It’s us, the women you love to denigrate, who are trying to stop it and protect todays mothers from those same ‘black market’ adoptions that worry you so much. Get help. For everyone’s sake.
Di
Carrie shared – Margaret McDonald Lawrence
(From a speech to The First National American Adoption Congress, Washington D.C. May 4, 1979)
Thank you so much Carrie. It’s been awhile since I’ve read that. And I agree that one of the biggest issues we face is the adopters not being able or willing to accept guilt for raising the child of a mother who desperately wished to do so herself.
My son’s adoptress loves to point out to him that he would have had a lousy life with me since I was so young and still a student when he was born. She is totally invested in marginalizing my role. How sad for all of us.
From: Black Market Adoption by M. Haviland
“A typical black market adoption might work like this: a young, unmarried pregnant woman paid a fee to stay with the doctor until she gave birth. Once the baby was born, she was free to return home with no one the wiser as to why she had gone away on “vacation.” The doctor would then, usually unbeknownst to the birth mother, sell the baby to adoptive parents . Perhaps these parents would be given a birth certificate, filled out by the doctor, listing them as the birth parents so there would be no need for a legal adoption, and the sale could never be traced. Other details on the birth certificate may have been changed also as to date of birth, and place of birth. If the adoptive parents insisted on legal adoption, some doctors provided falsified birth mothers’ consents as well. Another method of black market adoption involved the birth mother checking into the hospital under the adoptive mother’s name so that all subsequent records of mother and child would be listed under the adoptive mom’s name. Many adoptees were sold by these methods to loving parents, but since no backround checks were done, some were exposed to physical, psychological, and sexual abuse as a result. The doctors, attorneys, and other individuals became rich.“
http://www.angelfire.com/fl2/colebaby/story.html
Who got the money, Jackie?
Rickie Solinger is a feminist and did not lose a child to adoption, so I would doubt even her objectivity about what really happened in the black market or private adoptions. Did she hear the stories directly from the horses’ mouths? The mothers themselves? I wonder what her sources were for information about these desperate women “getting money for their babies”. Surely the very small minority of women who might have gotten any money beyond medical expenses would have been punished with guilt the rest of their lives. Shame on the facilitators taking advantage of desperate people.
Many adoptees grew up thinking their natural mother got money for their adoptions, because some people choose to magnify these aspects. Most of us did not get anything but lost what was most important to us, our child.
Marley says, “What’s so wrong about not wanting it? Some women–like me–can’t stand kids. I never had one. On purpose. Death before birth.”
The focus of our concern are those who do want children …who are not their own.
“The focus of our concern are those who do want children …who are not their own.”
Right. I understand that. But there is an underlying girrly girl essentialism here that still assumes that all women like and want baybees, and that’s just not true. And if they are too pussified to get an abortion, then what do they do with them? I suppose ya’ll don’t like guns either.
Marley
Jackie says,
“The point being that some women (in the bad old days) wanted to relinquish their unborn child ..”
Those few who were a few standard deviations from the mean may have wanted relinquishment . However your type of comment is most unhelpful to those mothers who didn’t want to separate from their babies.
Sadly there are a majority of mothers who are unable to find the words to deal with the critical experience of having their babies removed from them and subsequently can’t deal with the experience.
For decades someone I know , could not deal with the terrible experience in the delivery room . That dreadful place was where her nightmare began ; she could not cope with what was happening to her because there was nothing in her experience that corresponded to it and neither could she escape the terror. She subsequently separated from her body and disappeared somewhere . What was left , was not the same person who screamed at her predators “I want my baby.” Her world view had been permanently changed .
Time was lost and for the rest of her life , the terror of that time emerged only in situations where there were reminders. Those reminders or “contextual cues” threw her into chaos over and again. I think that what kept her in that trap/trance state was the double bind messages she received from the adoption professionals . She could not transulate those double bind messages .
Life falls apart with the realization much later , that her integrity has been violated by the taking of her baby and that the abductors knew of the harmful effects and did it anyway. People ask , “Did this mother receive anything in return for her baby ?” A resounding YES . She received a “gift” called PTSD .
Marley : “But there is an underlying girrly girl essentialism here that still assumes that all women like and want baybees, and that’s just not true.”
Fine ,Marley , but that’s not the issue for our purposes ,is it ?
The issue is about women who have actually reached full term , going through labour in the most difficult of circumstances and being assaulted( akin to sexual assault)and having the process shortcircuited by theft of the baby by so called caring professionals behaving in the most incrediblely cruel manner. You think rape is bad ? Visualize again.
“Sadly there are a majority of mothers who are unable to find the words to deal with the critical experience of having their babies removed from them and subsequently can’t deal with the experience.”
Correction : Sadly there are many mothers who are unable to find the words which would enable them to deal with the experience.
Jackie… Some women do not consider the child taken..
Some women do not consider their children lost..
if you can acknowledge that why can’t you acknow;edge that some women DO consider the child taken..
and DOt consider their children lost?
Why are you so afraid of women whose babies WERE taken and who did WANT them??? What triggers you to come out disputing the experieces of others mothers who do not feel as you do, Jackie?
Have you ever wondered why we upset you so?
Di
Marley,
‘don’t like guns?”
I like guns, and trucks, too. And I don’t really get all that excited about other people’s baybees, unless they are related to me..it is a genetic thing I guess.
It is hard for me to understand how someone can adopt another persons baby…it wouldn’t interest me.
My child was part of me and nothing ever felt as wrong as adoption did…and I have never felt any different about it. I can’t believe mothers when they say they “‘know they did the right thing when they gave their kid away.”‘
Maybe they are being truthful but I cannot believe them…not when I know what it feels like to be pregnant and give birth and then have my child taken from me.
Kitta : “What kind of creature is a “birthgrandbaby?”
“Birthmother ” is a mother who gives birth to her baby twice. So I guess a “birthgrandbaby” creature is a grandchild who is born twice over .
Kitta:I can’t believe mothers when they say they “‘know they did the right thing when they gave their kid away.”‘
Maybe they are being truthful but I cannot believe them
How would they know they did the right thing until they’ve met their all grown up child and he or she tells them they did? Only the child knows if it was the right decision because they’re the ones affected by their mother’s decision.
Maybe they’re referring to it being the right thing for themselves when they make that claim?
Or maybe they’re trying to convince themselves in order to make their sense of loss more bearable to live with?
Di
‘ I can’t believe mothers when they say they “‘know they did the right thing when they gave their kid away.”‘
Maybe they bellyfeel it was the right thing to do, kitta.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellyfeel
“The word “bellyfeel” means a blind, enthusiastic acceptance of an idea.
The word likely comes from the idea that any good Oceanian should be able to internalize Party doctrine to the extent that it becomes a gut instinct – a feeling in the belly.”
Di asked Jackie: Have you ever wondered why we upset you so?
I have often thought that one reason why the people like Jackie and a few unpleasant others are so quick to dismiss other mothers is because they didn’t share the same loss, for whatever reason. Perhaps their child was in foster care, and they could have kept, but chose not to. Perhaps they truly were part of the 2% who simply didn’t want to parent. But, their guilt now is overwhelming, and they try like the devil to dismiss the pain and the trauma of others who shared their experience, if not their feelings, and try to position themselves as the norm. The more we insist on the truth of our experience the more frantically they must justify their own, by denying the truth of ours. How sadly pathetic they are, and how counterproductive their efforts.
One reads their posts, and their relentless insistence, and cannot help but think…The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Kitta:I can’t believe mothers when they say they “‘know they did the right thing when they gave their kid away.”‘
Everyone and their mother told them they did the right thing. It is what’s said. It’s also hard to face the fact that the surrender was all for… what?
And like Di said,
“How would they know they did the right thing until they’ve met their all grown up child and he or she tells them they did? Only the child knows if it was the right decision because they’re the ones affected.”
Carrie
“the child is the one affected”
There are lots of adopted people who say that adoption is the right thing to do…just like some of the mothers…and they are working at agencies, and going on tv and promoting the industry, and on the internet. And some of them have become pregnant and they have given away their own kids.They will usually admit to some pain, but they say it is all worth it, because it is in the childs ‘best interest”…..but how would the adoptee actually know for sure..what do they have to compare it to? They didn’t grow up in their natural family so they don’t know what their life would have been like..
I still do not agree with adoption…unless a person really does not want to raise their child or is terribly abusive…I don’t believe in adoption.
Kitta – “still do not agree with adoption…unless a person really does not want to raise their child or is terribly abusive…I don’t believe in adoption”.
Kitta, Ditto…
only in very rare circumstances should children be separated from their family of origin.
C’mon, guys! Only a couple more posts.
Let’s hit the big 200.
You can do it, I know you can. Rah-rah-rah.
Di asked Jackie: Have you ever wondered why we upset you so?
…maybe she’s was NEVER pregnant.
…..maybe it’s all a bunch of bull shit.
….maybe she’s just a nasty mean spirited person with too much time on her hands.
….maybe she’s been told she’s really really ugly just one to many times.
….maybe she thinks someone actually cares what she thinks.
For Kippa
200
Yay!
Di wrote..
“if you can acknowledge that why can’t you acknow;edge that some women DO consider the child taken..
and DOt consider their children lost?”
I acknowledge this Di.. What I do not accept and or acknowledge is that some people stay in this terrible place..And they stay in this place because someone else has a political agenda..
IMO Some women are encouraged to say.. “I will never ever stop being sad about having my baby taken.”
Its like if you believe something you make it so..
I ask you..what kind of message is this to send to a woman that has recently relinquished? To tell her that she is going to be in that terrible place for the rest of her life.. to send this kind of message is unconscionable to me.
Why is there no book out there that tells the story of the women that ends learning how to overcome this very difficult life situation..
A book about how to put the child first.. A book about actually dealing with the grief in order to be sure that one can see what is going down with the relinquished son or daughter.. when reunion comes along..
And do not tell me that getting your son back is what makes it all better.. Maybe your son was okay with dealing with and having a relationship with you.. but that is not so for everyone.. Some relinquished sons and daughters want nothing to do with the birthmother.. Do not want to make it all better for the woman that had her baby ‘stolen’.. Whatever that is.. Are these individuals expected to stop their lives and help this poor hard done by woman? This woman that may be being used in her grief to help someone’s political agenda?
Di wrote..
“Why are you so afraid of women whose babies WERE taken and who did WANT them??? What triggers you to come out disputing the experieces of others mothers who do not feel as you do, Jackie?”
A person deals with what life hands them.. IMO a person needs to work very hard to heal from the difficult things that happen..
You do that so others in your life do not have to deal with all your pain.. or whoever’s pain..
And on terms of adoption relinquishment..you get yourself straight so that when the reunion comes you see what is really going down.. not what you want to go down..
Di wrote..
“Have you ever wondered why we upset you so?”
I know what upsets me about you and your friends Di.. I know..
I see the pain some people go through because they have to dance to the tune of a woman that has no intention of helping herself and grieving her loss and coming to terms with the adoption relinquishment of her son or daughter..
That has decided that life has handed her the biggest bummer of all and there is no way out..
As I said.. what I am seeing on the net really upsets me Di.. And I take a lot of it right back to you..
Jackie
jackie says – As I said.. what I am seeing on the net really upsets me Di.. And I take a lot of it right back to you..
You are so clueless Jackie. You just don’t get it and I think the mothers here have caught on to the fact that you have no idea what/why we say what we do. It is so sad that you think this is part of a political agenda. You, whose only political agenda is to whimper and sniff around at the Bastard Nation coattails!
I get the sense that your entire sense of self worth is invested in coming across the way you think Marley would. Sadly, you’re not as articulate or smart and your arguements sound like those of a person totally devoid of authentic feelings and thought.
You are one hard, tough bitter cookie. But hey, if you’re happy like that, good for you. Personally, I pity you.
Jackie: “As I said.. what I am seeing on the net really upsets me Di.. And I take a lot of it right back to you.”
Jackie blames Di.
“Why is there no book out there that tells the story of the women that ends learning how to overcome this very difficult life situation.”
Why don’t you write one,Jackie, since you have such insight and answers?
Jackiejdajda said…What I do not accept and or acknowledge is that some people stay in this terrible place..And they stay in this place because someone else has a political agenda..
What an astonishing cheek you have to even presume you have a right to dictate to others how long they are allowed to grieve or how they must deal with the loss of their child. You, madam, are out of line.
Jackie: IMO Some women are encouraged to say.. “I will never ever stop being sad about having my baby taken.”
That’s right. It is only your opinion.
Jackie: I ask you..what kind of message is this to send to a woman that has recently relinquished? To tell her that she is going to be in that terrible place for the rest of her life.. to send this kind of message is unconscionable to me.
You’d rather let them find out AFTER you’ve encouraged them to relinquish? Your son is over 40 years of age now Jackie. When are you going to recover and get on with your life and get off these forums?
Jackie: Why is there no book out there that tells the story of the women that ends learning how to overcome this very difficult life situation..
Ask an adopter or adoption agent. They know all the answers.
Jackie: A book about how to put the child first..
There ar emillions of them. hey’re the one that promote adoption.
Jackie: A book about actually dealing with the grief in order to be sure that one can see what is going down with the relinquished son or daughter.. when reunion comes along..
What, you mean to say adoption creates grief, and problems for the child? Surely not!! I thought you believed adoption as in everyone’s best interests.
Maybe you should write it then. You tell us how we can all overcome the loss of our children like you did. You have all the answers so put your money where your mouth and cough up a cure.
Jackie: And do not tell me that getting your son back is what makes it all better..
I never said it did. Dealing with the theft of my chld, and my reunion, are two entirely different matters.
Jackie: Maybe your son was okay with dealing with and having a relationship with you.. but that is not so for everyone.. Some relinquished sons and daughters want nothing to do with the birthmother..
So how do they heal in accordance with your schedule? How much time as you allowing them?
Jackie: Do not want to make it all better for the woman that had her baby ‘stolen’.. Whatever that is..
FYI, Stolen means to be taken without the mother’s ‘voluntary’ permission.
Jackie: Are these individuals expected to stop their lives and help this poor hard done by woman?
If you’re referring to adoptees being expected to help these “poor women”, no, Jackie, our children are not expected to help their mothers. But they are entitled to know the TRUTH about how they ended up being adopted.
Jackie: This woman that may be being used in her grief to help someone’s political agenda?
You really do insult the intelligence of every mother who wont lie doawn and play dead like you have. Do you honestly believe that I am the only mother whose child was taken involuntarily.
Do you realise that every word you utter is double speak? In one breath you claim women can heal from the loss of their child and now you’re saying even happy reunions don’t resolve the loss. make up your mind.
Jackie: A person deals with what life hands them..
And we all deal with in our own way. In case you hadn’t noticed.
Jackie: You do that so others in your life do not have to deal with all your pain.. or whoever’s pain..
What’s the matter, is hubbie fed up with listening to you going on about adoption at home?
Jackie: And on terms of adoption relinquishment..you get yourself straight so that when the reunion comes you see what is really going down.. not what you want to go down..
So now you’re the expert on reunion? How is your own reunion going Jackie? When was the last time you spent time with your burfgrandbabies?
Jackie: I know what upsets me about you and your friends Di.. I know..
I see the pain some people go through because they have to dance to the tune of a woman that has no intention of helping herself and grieving her loss and coming to terms with the adoption relinquishment of her son or daughter..
That has decided that life has handed her the biggest bummer of all and there is no way out..
As I said.. what I am seeing on the net really upsets me Di.. And I take a lot of it right back to you..
You’re an imbecile, Jackie. If it wasn’t for women like me and my colleagues, many mothers would still be cowering in the dark, like you were, blaming themselves for signing a consent and too afraid to speak about their loss and too afraid to face a reunion. We free those broken mothers from their self imposed purgetry. Not only that, Jackie Dearest, but we also help adoptees understand that they weren’t quite as “willingly given away” as you’d like them to believe they were. AND that, Jackie Dearest, helps them establish healthier relationships with their mothers and helps toward easing their abandonment issues. Now you, you selfish selfcentred women, run along and educate yourself before you embarrass yourself even further.
Di
slyoung said… I have often thought that one reason why the people like Jackie and a few unpleasant others are so quick to dismiss other mothers is because they didn’t share the same loss, for whatever reason.
Sh edoes feel the same loss, but I’d say its because a.a did a right number on her for years. Accusing her of giving away her baby etc and telling her she could have kept because she was 23 or so. She was trying to analyse her own experience on line unfortunately. Jackie wasn’t even allowed to see her own baby and a.a thought that was perfectly fine. nothing illegal about hidng a mothers baby from her after birth…according to them. Jackie was as vulnerable and unsupported as the rest of us. But she’s bought into the jackals on a.a brainwashing and abuse and has a desparate need to be approved of by them.
So she now toes their party line instead of dealing with the reality of her own situation. Which is why she can’t cope with women like us talking about what she was trying to say on a.a some years ago and got squashed instead.
………is overwhelming, and they try like the devil to dismiss the pain and the trauma of others who shared their experience, if not their feelings, and try to position themselves as the norm.
It’s avoidance. We trigger her pain and she doesn’t want to face it. Better to be tough.
…….. The more we insist on the truth of our experience the more frantically they must justify their own, by denying the truth of ours.
Indeed. Wonder why she bothered to wander over here when this blog had nothing to do with her, except as a means of demanding attention?
kitta3
I don’t either.
Di
JACKIE : “IMO Some women are encouraged to say.. “I will never ever stop being sad about having my baby taken.”
Its like if you believe something you make it so..”
Mothers do not willingly make themselves “sad” about this most unnatural loss. BTW they suffer alot more than mere “sadness” .You are spewing out the same ideology as the adoption “professionals ” who say “move on with your life” after a mother has been gutted .
Jackie spews: “I ask you..what kind of message is this to send to a woman that has recently relinquished? To tell her that she is going to be in that terrible place for the rest of her life.. to send this kind of message is unconscionable to me.”
No ,the unconscionable is done by failing to protect mothers and their babies from exploitation in the first place .
I don’t know, but from my pov Jackie hates adoptees. So therefore why not?
Why not withold info? Why not minimize?
just my pov to be sure, but we are the ungrateful. Fuck us. She has made her feelings clear, weird because when I first questioned her on why she wouldn’t get her son’s info for him, her reasoning was I know Marley and some other people, well cool but what good does that do her son?
But we( the adoptees) are just the by product so what do we matter, I suppose I would have more sympathy if she hadn’t accussed me of causing a freak to post porn, remember how you said, ” I dare not interact with you Joy” as if I am the great Oz?
Joy said…
I don’t know, but from my pov Jackie hates adoptees. So therefore why not?
Why not withold info? Why not minimize?
It certainly seems that way by the way she insists that mothers should get over the loss of their child, as if the child was not really that important. And by leading them, no needing them, to believe they were willing given away without a second thought.
i know there are some mothers who think that same way and I’ve noticed that its their found children who are still the angry ones. I doubt any adoptee would feel too good about meeting a mother who was indifferent to the loss of them. I imagine it must hurt like hell.
Di
Joy said…
I don’t know, but from my pov Jackie hates adoptees. So therefore why not?
Why not withold info? Why not minimize?
Good point Joy! This makes sense. Jackie is irrationally angered and threatened by mothers who discuss their reasonable and appropriate maternal feelings of loss. It’s as if she doesn’t want adoptees to be aware just because she refuses or in incapable of feeling this way.
If she respected adoptees, she would insist on them being able to have access to ALL information about the truth of their lives.
Kidnap brought up a good point too. If Jackie is so right on about how most mothers who lost their babies to adoption are so well adjusted- where are the books they’ve written on how to heal so quickly?
Here are some working titles Jackie. Why not go busy yourself writing one of these books since this is such a niche market? You might even sell a copy or two.
“How to Get Over It and Get on With Your Life”
“You Did the Right Thing by Giving Your Baby Away”
“How to Keep your Baby from being Called a Bastard ….J
ust Give him Away and Don’t Look Back”
“Adoptees Do Not Deserve to Know the Truth of their Beginnings”
“Birth Mothers Do NOT Have Feelings”
“Throw the Baby Out With the Bathwater”
Doesn’t it make sense to DO something about all this Jackie, rather than coming here running your mouth about what other people should say and feel?
Sh edoes feel the same loss, but I’d say its because a.a did a right number on her for years. Accusing her of giving away her baby etc and telling her she could have kept because she was 23 or so. She was trying to analyse her own experience on line unfortunately. Jackie wasn’t even allowed to see her own baby and a.a thought that was perfectly fine. nothing illegal about hidng a mothers baby from her after birth…according to them. Jackie was as vulnerable and unsupported as the rest of us. But she’s bought into the jackals on a.a brainwashing and abuse and has a desparate need to be approved of by them.
So she now toes their party line instead of dealing with the reality of her own situation. Which is why she can’t cope with women like us talking about what she was trying to say on a.a some years ago and got squashed instead.
Whoever wrote this, it makes perfect sense.
I was also wondering…maybe Jackie grew up in a dysfunctional or abusive home, and that kind of environment is all she knows, and she eventually believes what they tell her.
Joy says,”But we( the adoptees) are just the by product so what do we matter,..”
I don’t mean to decontextualize your comment in your response to Jackies profound lack of empathy . However, most mothers do think their babies matter because they are devastated by the loss.
Adoption is never in the baby’s best interests unless the baby is orphaned and no relatives can be found.
Guardianship is the only type of sensible and humane substitute care because at least the baby grows up knowing his/her identity.There is no need to falsify birth certificates for guardianship purposes, and no need to permanently separate the mother and baby. Guardianship should only be used when the mother cannot care for her baby and that may be only for an interim period.
Having qualified the issue of substitute care ,nonetheless, separation of the baby from his/her mother is extremely harmful to the mother and baby because they are one unit as nature intended.
carrie quoted…
Sh edoes feel the same loss, but I’d say its because a.a did a right number on her for years. Accusing her of giving away her baby etc and telling her she could have kept because she was 23 or so. She was trying to analyse her own experience on line unfortunately. Jackie wasn’t even allowed to see her own baby and a.a thought that was perfectly fine. nothing illegal about hidng a mothers baby from her after birth…according to them. Jackie was as vulnerable and unsupported as the rest of us. But she’s bought into the jackals on a.a brainwashing and abuse and has a desparate need to be approved of by them.
So she now toes their party line instead of dealing with the reality of her own situation. Which is why she can’t cope with women like us talking about what she was trying to say on a.a some years ago and got squashed instead.
carrie responded…
Whoever wrote this, it makes perfect sense.
Sorry carrie, but this is just making excuses her. She didn’t want her kid, yesterday or today.
Period.
Joy said…
I don’t know, but from my pov Jackie hates adoptees. So therefore why not?
Why not withold info? Why not minimize?
Can you really expect anything different from someone who didn’t even want her own kid?
Anon said:
“Can you really expect anything different from someone who didn’t even want her own kid?”
I can’t go there with you, I don’t know this to be true, I don’t think a mother who doesn’t want her child searches for him, I just think she was disappointed and hurt in the reunion and therefore resents us as a class of people.
It’s quite sad really.
I need to alter what I said:”Adoption is never in the baby’s best interests unless the baby is orphaned and no relatives can be found.”
Even for orphaned babies , adoption is NOT necessary . Adoption is after all defined as taking SOMEONE ELSE’S child as one’s own.
The baby in all circumstances must keep his/her name and heritage and know the facts of his/her birth .
I just think she was disappointed and hurt in the reunion and therefore resents us as a class of people.
Ditto, but she also resents any mother who’s baby was taken against their will.
Joy says ,I just think she was disappointed and hurt in the reunion and therefore resents us as a class of people.
Whatever her cognitive state , she has no business in being resentful to those who had no choice.
Those who were taken from their mothers at birth for adoption were conditioned by their adopters to believe whatever the adopters wanted them to believe.In other words , our sons and daughters internalised the deluded belief systems of the adopters. Adopters are a class of people with no conscience because they knowingly exploit the mother-baby bond . If anyone is to be singled out for criticism , it is that desperate class of deviants who demanded someone else’s baby and got what they wanted.
My baby was forced to grow up in a sub culture of maladapted infertiles who had no respect for the rights of mothers.
Never would I think of my offspring as belonging to the adopters’ ‘category’.My now adult son is not theirs. Never was and never will be.
Flesh of OUR flesh
Blood of OUR blood
And OUR own
Do not forget
Even for one minute
You grew under MY heart
And FOREVER in it.
And then some people wonder why everyone does not work together..
Jackie
Jackiejdajda said…
And then some people wonder why everyone does not work together
Who wonders Jackie? You??? I sure don’t…I refuse to work with any group of so called *reformers* who insist on marginalizing my experience.
Therefore, in addition to the search help I give, now I focus most of my energy on behalf of single mothers rights. And I don’t do that in a vacuum….
We’re not the ones who drew the line in the sand.
What do you stand for Jackie? What do you do to effect change? Are you only posting on these groups attempting to belittle the experience of mothers who speak out about the theft of our children? Is that it? You wish to silence us you say, so that more young women will blindly surrender their children to adoption because they weren’t forewarned about how devastating of a loss it will be to them and probably their child?
You keep insisting that someone told you you cannot refer to yourself as a “birthmother”. That isn’t even true, yet you drone on and on with that flimsy excuse as to why you are constantly haranguing us. Are you totally dense? No one here gives a hoot what YOU call YOURSELF! Just don’t tell other mothers what we can call ourselves.
I don’t think you stand for anything, Jackie, therefore I doubt very seriously that you can work well with anyone.
Carol.. what can I say other then..
Badges? We ain’t got no badges. We don’t need no badges! I don’t have to show you any stinking badges.
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948):
Jackie
Jackie,
Adoption? We ain’t got no Adoption. We don’t need no Adoption. I don’t have to show you any stinking Adoption!
We gotta go where there’s no trails at all…
Carol
2006
Jackie,
“We gotta go where there’s no trails at all….
“If you don’t take a risk, you can’t make a gain.”
The Treasure Of The Sierra Madre (1948)
Carol C. said…
“Adoption? We ain’t got no Adoption. We don’t need no Adoption. I don’t have to show you any stinking Adoption!”
Do you live in the US?
Do you actually think you and your friends are going to make changes in the US agenda?
Did you watch the Oprah Winfrey show on that girl that killed her baby?
Did you not see the pro adoption agenda that came across on that show?
Oprah is into adoption.. It was obvious.. to me..
You can not stop it.. It cannot be stopped..
And because you guys want to put out all these false belief’s that if a woman or girl gives her baby up for adoption she is going to regret it for the rest of her life.. You are doing harm..
You are putting an idea or belief into a woman’s mind that is not so..
I can not challenge that belief tho.. Can I. Not allowed..
When I do I am disrespected.. Verbally abused..
Jackie
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jackiejdajda said…
Do you live in the US?
Do you actually think you and your friends are going to make changes in the US agenda?
Did you watch the Oprah Winfrey show on that girl that killed her baby?
Did you not see the pro adoption agenda that came across on that show?
Oprah is into adoption.. It was obvious.. to me..
You can not stop it.. It cannot be stopped..
Jackie,
If you are such a strong believer in the Gospel According To St. Oprah, then maybe you should go back home and shut your doors and not interfere with the work of the women who are able to think for themselves, form their own opinions, seek out others who are like-minded to try to affect change.
One thing is certain in the Adoption Reform/Family Preservation Area. That is that if everyone felt like you do, and did absolutely nothing, it is a certainty that nothing would change, the industry would continue to see our silence as complicity with their agenda, and adoption would continue to grow.
Adoption CAN be stopped. The world is not as Oprah-centered as you, and Oprah is not, like the Pope, infallible. She is wrong, and so are you, and it is up to us, the Mothers, to make sure that she learns the truth of that. When someone trots out a mother who kills her own children, it is up to us to remind the world about the adopters who kill, maim and torture their purchased children. Who but us can do this? I am reminded of the saying, “If not me, who? If not now, when?”
Jackie said…And because you guys want to put out all these false belief’s that if a woman or girl gives her baby up for adoption she is going to regret it for the rest of her life.. You are doing harm..
You are putting an idea or belief into a woman’s mind that is not so..
I can not challenge that belief tho.. Can I. Not allowed..
When I do I am disrespected.. Verbally abused..
Sorry, Jackie, but here you are full of shit! Who the hell made you the supervisor of all regret? YOU are doing harm if you suggest to the contrary. If young women surrender a child to adoption, they stand a better than average chance of suffering from lifelong, unresolved grief. And, if that fact bothers you, tough! Many of us have chosen to turn our grief into action, to try to affect change with the righteous anger that we feel as a result of our own losses. Obviously you do not feel the same way. And, now you are whining about being overlooked, dismissed, and disrespected. Does it surprise? You are getting back what you are putting out, Jackie. You shouldn’t be surprised since you have put out little but overlooking what is said to you, dismissing the anger and grief that the majority of mothers feel at the loss of their babies, and disrespecting the experiential evidence offered by every single other mother who has posted on this thread.
My mother used to tell me that when you have a bad experience everywhere you go, maybe YOU are the problem and not everyone else. You are the common denominator in this equation, Jackie. Maybe instead of whining that everyone is being mean to you, you should take a look in the mirror at the one who is responsible.
Sly
Defeatest Jackie asks “Do you live in the US?
Do you actually think you and your friends are going to make changes in the US agenda?”
Yes dear I do. I live in the US and I think that things are changing, albeit slow. There is nothing as sure as change – even in the US agenda. All I know is that to continue pretending that the current system is working and not make every effort to educate mothers and legislators and the general public as to how corrupt adoption has become, would be unconscionable. Only cowards use the excuse that things won’t change anyway, so why try? What kind of a doltish, dimwit attitude is that?
And to repeat Sandy’s excellent advice to you “That is that if everyone felt like you do, and did absolutely nothing, it is a certainty that nothing would change, the industry would continue to see our silence as complicity with their agenda, and adoption would continue to grow.”
Sweetie, as far as people treating you with disrespect – we get what we give in life. And by the way, in your naivete’, you continuously paint everything said and everyone posting with the same broad brush! You are not only talking to Origins mothers – many of us are in lots of different groups including CUB, Crossroads, the AAC and local state groups. You make one assanine assumption after the other on here. In fact, I’m trying to maintain some semblence of graciousness as one human to another but I have to tell you, you sound like a stupid ass…
(ooops, excuse me for stooping to your level) It’s just that I I have become intolerant of stupid asses in my later years.
You must have so little self-respect. Even *Dad* told you on AA that it was poor form to go there and bad mouth Origins and Di. This is a personal vendetta for you, isn’t it? Intellectually you make no sense at all and you’re wasting everyone’s time here and there with your pettiness.
jackie said I can not challenge that belief tho.. Can I. Not allowed..
When I do I am disrespected.. Verbally abused
you’re not making sense. challenge what belief?? you are one mother ranting that you were able to get over the loss of your child insisting to others that they couldn’t, so they are wrong!
what belief is this that you’re challenging? where are other mothers like you posting that they are just fine about having lost their babies to adoption? all i see are lots and lots of blogs of natural mothers in closed and open adoptions talking about their pain, grief and the ways they were lied to. and you’re encouraging even more lies?
why should mothers pretend it didn’t and doesn’t hurt? you say so that other mothers who give up their babies won’t be discouraged? what adoption agency do you work for?
is this a sick joke?
hate to say it but i’m a guy and an adoptee and you sound like the coldest most shut-down and selfish mother i’ve ever heard. i can see why you didn’t want to raise your kid and i can see why your kid is damn lucky that you didn’t.
thought everyone would enjoy this exchange our little miss jackie had over on AA…
..she seems real invested in burning all her bridges if you ask me.
> >Guess I’ve been away too long. When did Jackie finally crawl out of
> >Di’s ass?
> >Dad
> Well Dad she would not let me call myself birthmom.. I mean jeeez..
> Thats not fair..
> I just do not do well with word police..
> And to tell the truth dad what is happening now is scaring the bejesus
> out of me..
> Jackie
It’s a bit sad that you have to rubbish Origins so that you can get
some respect from this lot
Get off your knees woman and stop acting like somthing they scraped off
thir shoes
Jackie says,”And then some people wonder why everyone does not work together..”
Work altogether at what ?There are few adopters who want open records .Its mothers and their lost sons and daughters who need to get together to change the laws .
Damned if I would want to work with pro adoptionists whose favourite sport is to hunt down young and vulnerable pregnant women and enter the sacred birthing place and take babies at their very moment of birth ; whose callousness assumes that nothing else matters but their needs.
We accuse human predators of cruelty when they shoot/capture wild animals and take their young and put them in zoos,and yet pro adoptionists do this to their own species .
Even when adopters want “open records” it is usually only to find out, before adopting, what medical conditions exist so as to avoid a certain child…or, if after adopting, to file a lawsuit.
Adopters wanted our children and we wanted our children and there is no compromise.We can’t work with them. We have different goals.
We accuse human predators of cruelty when they shoot/capture wild animals and take their young and put them in zoos,and yet pro adoptionists do this to their own species .
We have a PETA but we don’t have a People For the Ethical Treatment of Women.
Jackie vomited,
“And because you guys want to put out all these false belief’s that if a woman or girl gives her baby up for adoption she is going to regret it for the rest of her life.. You are doing harm..
You are putting an idea or belief into a woman’s mind that is not so.. “
So let’s not warn a woman or girl what losing her baby could do to her and her baby. Let’s continue
to lie, mislead, and misinform. Let’s convince her how happy it will make her and the baby – and when she is tormented after the loss let’s tell her she’s abnormal or crazy for feeling the loss. Let’s just make jackie the american idiol of rejection for motherhood.
Jsckie – In all seriousness, you are in dire need of professional help.
I am really tired of the women, like Jackie, who decide that because other women who lost children to adoption and are expressing rightful and righteous anger at that loss, are somehow so superficial that we only exist online. That our sorrow and anguish at the losses has rendered us so immobile that we do not have any life outside of activism.
Since I attended the conference in New York, I met many women who are involved in Family Preservation, and are strongly opposed to the willy-nilly transfer of infants. I can say that they are accomplished, bright, articulate and attractive women. They have degrees, families, homes, careers, and lives. They also share a common sorrow. They seek out the groups online, the only place where there is common understanding of the loss they have experienced. Their healing begins when they finally, for many decades later, begin to accept that they had a loss, and for a big percentage that doesn’t occur until reunion. Only after they begin to heal themselves do they realize that they are now pissed as hell and want to do something to affect change in the industry that caused them the unnecessary pain.
The loss of a child is the most significant pain a woman can face. But, for the women who are speaking out, it was not a pain that limits, but a pain that defines. We became, stronger, tougher, and more focused when the veil of secrecy imposed upon us was lifted.
The industry has much to fear from the women who suffered at their hands. Not only are we no longer silent, we are speaking out, LOUD. We will not be spokeswomen for the industry that abused us, like Jackie, pathetically whimpering in the background, “Shut up, shut up, shut up.” When we realized that we had nothing to lose, we grew up and grew voices.
The original Anonymous poster in this said; “What I don’t understand are people who think that bashing adoptive parents, bashing adoptees who don’t tow the party line, and bashing the whole notion of adoption is somehow constructive or going to result in open records.”
I find it interesting that all this adoptee is interested in is Open Records. Do the opening of records that this adoptee speaks of include opening them for the mothers, as well? Do they finally realize that the mothers of the BSE went away without a scrap of paper, and continue to be denied their OWN medical and legal history. The legal documents that they signed are sealed in the records; many have no idea what drugs they were given, what medical procedures were used, what the Social Workers reported to the agencies and courts, and that information, too, is sealed in the records and/or in some agency’s files, unavailable to the mother who experienced it.
I am interested in Open Records, but not only for the adoptee. I am interested in every person affected by the loss to adoption being given fair and equal access to the information about themselves that has been unrightfully denied them for one reason only, to protect the people who committed the crimes.
On AA, Jackie says this to presumably Di ” IMO you and your little friends are getting the attention because of a
> negative agenda.. The media loves a crier… You and your friends IMO are
> doing harm.. Causing harm”
Jackie, in what sand have you had your head buried???
“little friends getting attention because of a negative agenda”???
What in the hell do you think BN is doing? they publicize the negative and unfair aspects of adoptees being denied access to their OBC! They cry, they stomp their feet and write angry letters. Do you think they’re doing harm? This is what needs to be done to change laws and heighten awareness. Have you ever actually done any work toward that end? Or do you merely sit behind a computer screen spewing nastiness?
It’s curious that you as a so-called “birthmother” is so supportive of Marley and BN’s sometimes controversial efforts, yet you accuse other mothers who speak of their own adoption experience as doing harm for telling the truth?
Jackie, you sound like an idiot. You are trying to play both ends against the middle and you’re turning everyone off. Get a damn backbone lady! Even some of your friends over on a a are telling you how ridiculous you sound.
Sandy said…I find it interesting that all this adoptee is interested in is Open Records. Do the opening of records that this adoptee speaks of include opening them for the mothers, as well?
Sandy, the anonymous adopter promotes a grass roots Open Records for Adoptees organization that seems to have no clout. This individual has been invested in critizing uppity mothers or anyone that she accuses of having an anti-adoption stance – esp. anyone she refers to as the “Walking Wounded”. She runs from blog to newsgroup posting using various names or hiding behind “anonymous”, insulting people by name calling instead of logical discussion. Anyone who she disagrees with is an idiot or some other name. She personalizes everything said about adoption as if someone is being critical of her adopters. Sadly her own reunion didn’t go well and many of us think that’s what’s up with her need to denigrate mothers.
Even here, although she insists she’s worked for Open Records for years – when asked she refuses to identify where and how.
This individual says privately and publicly that “birthmothers” should just be patient, mind our p’s and q’s and help all adoptees get their records open and only THEN, will we be able to speak of the injustice done to mothers.
This individual IMO has done more harm to adoptees right to their OBC than good, by her constant need to pit people against each other.
Don’t take her seriously – most people don’t.
Dear ladies and gentleman..
This part of Marley’s blog is going to be gone very soon..
It is at the bottom of the scrol right now..
I would love to take this discussion over to alt.adoption..
The unmoderated aa..
I have read everyones reply and I would love to discuss this further..
Please cut and past your post to over there and I will reply individually..
But I am not going to get into it here.. there is so much to discuss..
Jackie
Jackiejdajda
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!! You seem to be confusing us with people who care what you think. Do yourself a favour and get over yourself.
Oh I needed that laugh.
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!! You seem to be confusing us with people who care what you think. Do yourself a favour and get over yourself.
Oh I needed that laugh.
You took the words right out of my mouth! What an ego this woman has!! There’s none so blind as they that WILL NOT see! Mind if I join you in your belly laugh? LOL
Slyoung…..You took the words right out of my mouth! What an ego this woman has!! There’s none so blind as they that WILL NOT see! Mind if I join you in your belly laugh? LOL
Not at all. We could form a choir 🙂
Even her new very best friends over on a.a can’t be bothered with her irrational thinking and trouble making antics.
Winston nailed her in one in his earlier post here.
Jackie says. I have read everyones reply and I would love to discuss this further..
Oh my Jackie, this is the coup de gras. You are emotionally and intellectually DEAF. You are the one who kept coming here trying to fight and argue with us. Why in the world would we go traipsing after you???
Since this is the end of Marleys blog, I say GOODBYE AND FAREWELL and if I may make a wee bit of a suggestion? Stop acting so pathetically.
“its just that I have become intolerant of stupid asses in my later years”
No, you’ve become intolerant of everyone in the adoption community who doesn’t mouth your party line.
God forbid that Jackie or anyone else dare disagree with the bunch of you.
Those of us who support open records and reforms that might actually become law some day would do well to put distance between ourselves and those who believe as you do. All people like you do is convince others out in society in positions of power that the movement is crock full of raging, bleating nuts.
The next time you feel compelled to speak out on an adoption issue stay home instead. Give the rest of us a chance.
……..All people like you do is convince others out in society in positions of power that the movement is crock full of raging, bleating nuts.
Credit where credit is due now. That award went to that nasty alt.adoption years ago.
…..The next time you feel compelled to speak out on an adoption issue stay home instead. Give the rest of us a chance.
You’ve had nearly 30 years and what have you achieved? Nothing. A.a members have been around for decades and what has it achieved other than enemies and the need to keep records closed in all but a few states. So move over and give new organizations a chance to achieve what you’ve failed to do.
Still hiding behind Anonymous -The next time you feel compelled to speak out on an adoption issue stay home instead. Give the rest of us a chance.
Oh gag me with a spoon!! Why in the world would any of us want to sneak and slither around the internet going on blogs and newsgroups namecalling and calling people idiots just because we aren’t crazy about adoption?
Absolutely nothing has gotten done with all the chances you’ve had. And the people you think are “in positions of power” that you think can/will help, don’t take YOU seriously.
Why not have the *ovaries* to call Marley an idiot? She’s not crazy about adoption. Nope. You are determined to go after the mommies because your own mommy didn’t want a relationship. Sorry, if you’re going to behave so childishly and sleazy – people need to know the truth about what your agenda is.
Yeh, I disagree with Jackie – most people here and even on her aa group fight with Jacke because Jackie gets her jollies looking for a fight. Just like you do.
Then you say “Those of us who support open records and reforms that might actually become law some day would do well to put distance between ourselves and those who believe as you do”
Well fortunately the real movers and shakers that HAVE gotten laws changed such as Marley and BN, and the AAC DO NOT AGREE with YOU. They WANT our help and are smart enough to respect our courage in speaking the truth. Your well known disdain for “bmothers” and wanting to keep us in our place is provincial and archaic. Talk about counter-productive blathering.
Your idea of affecting change last year was to have your adoptive mommy call the editor of the AARP magazine during the Soll/Buterbaugh incident to commiserate over how tough it is to be an adopter. Let’s tell ’em all that story! And then YOU even pitifully called to ask her to let YOU publish a story in the AARP Mag instead of Joe and Karen She took you and your adoptress real seriously, didn’t she, Miss Kiss Ass? You know nothing about influencers and people in power because if you did you wouldn’t be groveling around.
C’mon. Grow up. Use your real name like a big girl. Stop hiding behind a computer screen spewing nasty names while insisting you’re in the adoption reform movement. If you want to be taken seriously, why not step up to the plate like Marley and tell us about what/who you’ve done all this work you do for the “Open Records Movement” as you call it. Speak up. Get a grip and have some class, lady!
Do you really think you’re fooling anyone?
Those of us who support open records and reforms that might actually become law some day would do well to put distance between ourselves and those who believe as you do.
Hey! I’m an adoptee and support open records and reforms for both adoptees and natural mothers. I think you’re the one that is living in the stone age of adoption reform. Please put distance between yourself and the rest of us who believe as we do. Please. Please. Please.
I for one, am sick of reading your childish rants that make no sense at all. Tell us what you’ve done if you want to earn the right to speak to people on here the way you do. Put up or shut up – you sound like the town idiot.
Some anonymous chickenshit said:
Credit where credit is due now. That award went to that nasty alt.adoption years ago.
LOL you have a real hard-on for alt. a don’t you? Can’t resist taking potshots every chance you get. What’s wrong couldn’t take the heat? Get your little feelings hurt over there? Is that what drove you to hiding behind ‘anonymous’?
Anonymous further blathered:
“Nothing. A.a members have been around for decades “
Really? How many? Two decades? Three decades? Better check you facts sweetheart.
and what has it achieved other than enemies and the need to keep records closed in all but a few states. So move over and give new organizations a chance to achieve what you’ve failed to do.
I wassn’t aware alt. a was an ‘organization’. Exactly what ‘organization’ do you belong to ‘anonymous’?
Kat
“So let’s not warn a woman or girl what losing her baby could do to her and her baby. Let’s continue
to lie, mislead, and misinform. Let’s convince her how happy it will make her and the baby – and when she is tormented after the loss let’s tell her she’s abnormal or crazy for feeling the loss. Let’s just make jackie the american idiol of rejection for motherhood.”
Yes, let’s.
Let’s also not warn people about to undergo surgery of all the risks they run by doing so. Let’s not warn people when drugs and food have become contaminated, or when vehicles have a history of being unsafe. Let’s also stop telling kids that you always need to protect yourself when you have sex.
While we’re at it, let’s let people who claim to be oh-so-much-more knowledgeable about the world and the people in it make all our decisions for us, from now on.
We can cure a whole bunch of ills if we just ignore them.
Right?
Jackie:”But I am not going to get into it here.. there is so much to discuss..”
So true, Jackie. So very, very, very true.
There would be far less discussion of this on alt.adoption because of everyone would be far too busy protecting themselves from the verbal abuse of a few over the top individuals.
They obfuscate, attack, dissemble, distract, and engage in verbal distortions and shenanigans designed to interfere with rational discussion.
So yep, you are correct about that, Jackie.
There’s a lot to talk about, and it can’t happen on alt.adoption.
Too much garbage, not enough real work.
Kat: “Really? How many? Two decades? Three decades? Better check you facts sweetheart.”
First post was November 1992.
Fourteen years, almost a decade and a half.
A useless place for anyone not shrill or vicious enough to engage in constant verbal abuse. Toxic to some, a waste of time for others.
It was the place to be for a couple of years, but of course that’s all changed now.
“This individual has been invested in critizing uppity mothers or anyone that she accuses of having an anti-adoption stance – esp. anyone she refers to as the “Walking Wounded”.
Are we talking about THE Dragon Lady, THE Guardian at the Gate here – Big Mac?
If so, ask her how long her son languished in foster care while people begged her to take her baby home. And ask her why she did not take her baby home.
She does NOT speak for me.
My child was literally pulled out of my body while I was drugged and in leather restraints on a delivery table. She was immediately taken away and secreted in a nursery and I was denied the chance to even see her through the nursery window.
I was threatened with incarceration in a mental hospital when I refused to sign surrender papers.
Big Mac does NOT speak for me. God bless her. I wish her no ill. But she does NOT SPEAK FOR ME.
kidnap said:
“First post was November 1992.
Fourteen years, almost a decade and a half.”
Hardley “decades”
“A useless place for anyone not shrill or vicious enough to engage in constant verbal abuse. Toxic to some, a waste of time for others.”
Funny I was thinking the same thing about this discussion and some of the posters here.
Kat
Kat: “Funny I was thinking the same thing about this discussion and some of the posters here.”
Alt abduction commentators advocate the opening of records in a context of wanting to perpetuate the separation of mothers and babies. Counterproductive , wouldn’t you agree ? And bloody stupid to boot.
Whereas , the commentators on “Blatherings from the Beltway ” are mostly supportive of fair and equitable open records for mothers and adoptees alike.Most people here don’t support the cruel and illegal separation of mother and baby . Go figure .
Kidnap asks – Are we talking about THE Dragon Lady, THE Guardian at the Gate here – Big Mac?
Hey Susie….No, in this case I’m not talking about Big Mac. The person I am referring to organized an almost defunct (or so I’ve been told) Open Records Group and she has publicly and privately been blasting anything and anyone who has any connection to Joe Soll for years. She admits that she’s never met the guy but because she heard from her “birthmother” bud Big Mac that he’s a bad guy – she slithers around from blog to newsgroup or wherever she hears Mothers are posting to tell us if we would just concentrate on getting records open for adoptees and NOTHING ELSE, we might get somewhere. She insists there was no emotional damage done to anyone from their adoption experience. Anyone that she thinks buys into any of the “self help crap” as she calls it that Soll, Verrier or anyone else writes about – is called an idiot and the walking wounded, She is convinced that we cannot speak or think for ourselves, thus her constant comments about “the party line” that she believe Soll and Origins are forcing upon us. This person is an adoptee who like Big Mac, has been kicked off/out of several online groups because of her constant troublemaking, backstabbing and evil triangulating. Oh, I could tell you so much…
But you’re right Big Mac and her ilk do not speak for us and they have probably contributed more than anyone else to the infighting amongst those of us who want change.
hey carol,
email me her name, since i have made it a point to avoid, well….people like her.
suziekidnapAThotmailDotcom
hugs!
dear carol,
i forgot to say please.
hehehe
s
dear carol,
i forgot to say please.
hi susie,
let me know if you got it…
hugs,
carol
let me know if you got it…
;
thanks, carol!
One who cannot bother to be named says:
“Alt abduction commentators advocate the opening of records in a context of wanting to perpetuate the separation of mothers and babies. Counterproductive , wouldn’t you agree ? And bloody stupid to boot.”
Nice spin but it is a diverse group. Do you always speak in generalities and stereotypes?
“Whereas , the commentators on “Blatherings from the Beltway ” are mostly supportive of fair and equitable open records for mothers and adoptees alike.”
Well if you really listened instead of mindlessly spewing your rehetoric you would find that most on alt. a do too.
“Most people here don’t support the cruel and illegal separation of mother and baby . Go figure .”
Neither do the residents of alt. a.
Now if you are talking about an informed, ethical, adoption – that’s a different story. However me thinks you don’t believe such a thing exists. That’s the problem with zealots.
Kat
Kat said…
One who cannot bother to be named says:
And KAT is your real name I suppose?
….Nice spin but it is a diverse group. Do you always speak in generalities and stereotypes?
And all pro adoption. Which is odd because its members are open records proponents, and yet are more than willing to promoite and defend the very system that denied them the very thing they themselves are lobbying for i.e., their civil right to their original identities. How does that work politically? It obviously doesn’t.
………Well if you really listened instead of mindlessly spewing your rehetoric you would find that most on alt. a do too.
You’re kidding, right?
……..Neither do the residents of alt. a.
That’s a laugh.
………Now if you are talking about an informed, ethical, adoption – that’s a different story. However me thinks you don’t believe such a thing exists. That’s the problem with zealots.
Oh stop it! My laughing muscles can’t take anymore of your humor….
Kat says,”Now if you are talking about an informed, ethical, adoption – that’s a different story.”
There are few informed and ethical adoptions if any at all .
i)You forget that for an adoption to occur , there must be a separation of a baby from his/her mother.That separation is unnatural and traumatic for the mother and baby and the effects are permanent.
ii)I doubt that Alt.adoption and other pro adoption groups have made any reference to counselling whereby the mother must be warned about the long term harmful effects of separation for adoption.
If that fact was featured on every adoption billboard and website ,adoptions would be miniscule.
iii)In their zeal ,adopters forget the baby is suffering shock and grief from the separation and fail to educate themselves or at least acknowledge that fact.They fail to attend to the child’s inner feelings of loss,grief, geneological bewilderment ,displacement, through his/her developmental years.
iv) Adoption is defined as ‘taking as one’s own’.Logically the baby suffers the loss of its identity for the purpose of adopters taking the baby as if it were their own. Logically the mother must not exist for this pretence to be maintained.
Lobbying for open records in a context where adoption is being promoted doesn’t make sense .
“Lobbying for open records in a context where adoption is being promoted doesn’t make sense”.
I agree. It’s cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face and certainly a conflict of interest.
It’s still a mystery to me as to why groups like Alt.Adop and others who profess to be adoption reformers, don’t get that.
How can anyone who has suffered at the hands of the adoption system not recognize that when the fish stinks – it starts from the top?
Perhaps at one time the intent to find homes for babies and children who due to extreme circumstances was altruistic, but it needs to be acknowledged that a disproportionate amount of adoption practices are corrupt.
You know, I don’t even buy Jackie’s excuse that some women just don’t wish to parent. That very well may be in a small percentage of babies who are surrendered, but I agree with Marley on this one – to bring a child into this world knowing you are going to give it up is unconscionable. Use birth control or have yourself sterlized if you think it’s ok to do this. To even chance that we as the mother and/or our baby stands to be psychologically damaged by the experience and still go through with it seems cruel, to me.
Real adoption reform needs to focus more on family preservation, as well as open access to records for adoptees and mothers.
Carol C says, “You know, I don’t even buy Jackie’s excuse that some women just don’t wish to parent.
That very well may be in a small percentage of babies who are surrendered, but I agree with Marley on this one – to bring a child into this world knowing you are going to give it up is unconscionable. Use birth control or have yourself sterlized if you think it’s ok to do this. To even chance that we as the mother and/or our baby stands to be psychologically damaged by the experience and still go through with it seems cruel, to me.”
Certainly I agree with you and Marley. I think that Jackie is unlike most of us. She is merely a mouth piece for the pro adoptionists.
However
I digress to mention that we must acknowledge that governments have taken away the choice for women in the past and now as well. We must continually be vigilant for government and church agendas i.e. criminalising abortion , witholding financial and material support for single mothers ,financing the massive advertising for the adoption industry. Social engineering is still very much a reality where you can exploit a vulnerable situation to ensure that some will profit by it . The inhumanity to woman in current times is exstraordinary. No different in fact from breeding programs such as Lebesborn. Didn’t GW Bush add another wing to the Florence Crittendon Home recently? What message is that giving to the community ? That contraception , abortion and welfare assistance are not an option?
“Real adoption reform needs to focus more on family preservation, as well as open access to records for adoptees and mothers.”
Yes ! and mothers and adoptees must work together ,because after all the inhumane secrecy laws are a blatant erosion of their rights as citizens.In contrast ,the secrecy laws do serve a purpose for adopters . This is all about them ..it was never about the mother and her baby because how could the infertiles otherwise acquire a child ? Altruism doesn’t occur to them. They would rather split up a family unit to get what they want . And what they desire comes at horrendous lifelong cost to the mother and her child.They don’t think about that .I have no respect for people who get their demands met at the expense of the suffering of others . Even more inexusable when corrupt governments use taxpayers money to ensure their demands are met by financing baby farms and witholding material assistance to the family in need.
9:33 AM
Lazy anonymous poster 1 or lazy anonymous poster 2 – again who the hell knows – said
Kat says,”Now if you are talking about an informed, ethical, adoption – that’s a different story.”
There are few informed and ethical adoptions if any at all .
i)You forget that for an adoption to occur , there must be a separation of a baby from his/her mother.That separation is unnatural and traumatic for the mother and baby and the effects are permanent.
I don’t think mose adoptees would agree that they have been traumatized for life from that separation.
ii)I doubt that Alt.adoption and other pro adoption groups have made any reference to counselling whereby the mother must be warned about the long term harmful effects of separation for adoption.
If that fact was featured on every adoption billboard and website ,adoptions would be miniscule.
I have no problem with counseling pbmothers about the possible downside of adoption as long as the possible downside of single parenthood is also ‘counseled’ and while we are at it the potential downside of abortion. The pros & cons of all three option should be discussed.
iii)In their zeal ,adopters forget the baby is suffering shock and grief from the separation and fail to educate themselves or at least acknowledge that fact.They fail to attend to the child’s inner feelings of loss,grief, geneological bewilderment ,displacement, through his/her developmental years.
What is it with some of you that you must generalize and sterotype adoptors to such an extent? You are as bad as those aparents who sterotype and generalize about birthparents. Really quite a few adoptees are sick of both of you.
iv) Adoption is defined as ‘taking as one’s own’.Logically the baby suffers the loss of its identity for the purpose of adopters taking the baby as if it were their own. Logically the mother must not exist for this pretence to be maintained.
Oh please. Come into the 21st century.
Lobbying for open records in a context where adoption is being promoted doesn’t make sense .
Maybe not to you but then your view of adoptors is skewed. Adoption and open records can coexist and in fact a lot of adoptors actively promote open records. I know that doesn’t square with your vision of adoption but it is a reality. People who aren’t such zealots can actually recognize that reality.
3:07 AM
Lazy anonymouse poster 1 or lazy anonymouse poster 2 said
And KAT is your real name I suppose?
Yes it is a nick I use – short for Kathy – to differentiate between the Kathys that post. Apparently even that much effort is too much for all you anonymous poster.
….Nice spin but it is a diverse group. Do you always speak in generalities and stereotypes?
And all pro adoption. Which is odd because its members are open records proponents, and yet are more than willing to promoite and defend the very system that denied them the very thing they themselves are lobbying for i.e., their civil right to their original identities. How does that work politically? It obviously doesn’t.
Yes it does work politically. Open records and adoption can coexist.
Carol (yeah!) said
“I agree. It’s cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face and certainly a conflict of interest.
It’s still a mystery to me as to why groups like Alt.Adop and others who profess to be adoption reformers, don’t get that. “
Because it is not a conflict of interest. Why is it so hard to understand that adoption and open records can coexist? Sorry but a lot of people in the 21st. century don’t believe that the bparents have to cease to exist for adoption to be successful, hence it is possible to know their identities via open records and *still* proceed with adoption.
“How can anyone who has suffered at the hands of the adoption system not recognize that when the fish stinks – it starts from the top?”
Well I don’t believe I have ‘suffered’ at the hand of the adoption system but I do believe much about the system does stink and needs to be changed. I just dont believe it needs to be abolished.
Kat said… “Well I don’t believe I have ‘suffered’ at the hand of the adoption system but I do believe much about the system does stink and needs to be changed. I just dont believe it needs to be abolished”
Kat, I respect that you and some other adoptees did NOT “suffer” at the hand of the adoption system, but I DID – I lost my only child to adoption by so called “adoption professionals” using dishonest and deceptive methods. And research now shows that a disproportionate number of adoptees and natural mothers feel varying degrees of loss manifesting in all kinds of psychological issues which often has a lifetime impact. Just because you got away unscathed, don’t assume you’re the norm. You may be. You may not be the norm.
I have dozens of adoptee friends and acquaintances that have acknowleded the impact their adoption experience had personally to me, thus my opinion is based on my experiences. I’m not just reading this stuff is some book… I’m very involved and out there f2f with mothers and adoptees as a searcher and search group facilitator.
Some of you seem to be making the point that many of us are insisting adoption needs to be *abolished* and making that the point where the line in the sand is drawn. If you read carefully, most of the posters are stating that adoption and it’s practices AS WE KNOW IT* needs to be ravamped and/or even abolished. There are other more ethical and less damaging ways to find homes for children who absolutely need and they’ve been listed numerous times.
Legalized guardianship is one way.
If a mother absolutely makes an *informed choice* that she wants her child adopted – strengthen the laws to assure that the legal documents protect her rights down the road, also. If it’s an open adoption – make sure the adopters cannot *cut and run* after the papers are signed as is done frequently today according to many of the mothers I know in open adoptions. And once the baby is gone, in most states they have no rights.
And make the focus Family Preservation unless there is no other choice.
I suppose I agree with you that someone can be pro-adoption and still work for Open Records, but I think for an organization with a political focus on changing laws that prevent adopted people access to their OBC such as BN; to try to be all things to all people is dangerous and gives mixed messages.
I understand that the agenda of BN which strictly focuses on adoptees rights (not talking about alt.adoption which I realize is merely a newsgroup) conflicts or at least negates the rights of natural mothers. Perhaps that’s part of the reason there is so much frustration on the part of more and more women who lost not only their child, but any information about that child that any other mother in our country would have. If organizations such as BN do not wish to concern themselves with first mother’s rights, so be it. But Open Records activists who marginalize and belittle mothers who speak up about our issues is self-defeating, IMO. Why should we work only for adoptees right to their OBC? I owe only one adoptee his information and that is my son. I will not go to the mat for every other adoptee in the world fighting for their rights when my rights were thwarted, too. Make sense?
Kat said,”Because it is not a conflict of interest. Why is it so hard to understand that adoption and open records can coexist? Sorry but a lot of people in the 21st. century don’t believe that the bparents have to cease to exist for adoption to be successful, hence it is possible to know their identities via open records and *still* proceed with adoption.”
The rationale of adoption is “to take as one’s own” which means the child is issued with a falsified birth certificate to indicate that he/she is “as if born” to the adopters. This fabrication is not acceptable to a person of average intelligence . The child’s concept of trust is eroded as he /she battles to understand the mystery of how he/she was “as if born” to people who have not given birth .Geneological bewilderment is the result.
If you advocate for adoption alongside advocating for the adoption to be “reversed” then that is a counterproductive exercise. Why not get rid of adoption and put guardianship in its place whereby the child maintains contact with his/her family.
A better alternative is to make every effort to preserve the family ,rather than impliment measures which destroy it for the purpose of creating an artificial unit whose premise is fabricated.The mental health problems caused by separation for adoption ,far outweigh any perceived benefits. Have you thought of the dilemma of young innocent children who realize that the adopters are not their real parents and want to be with their mothers and cannot because of uncaring adopters and bureaucracies who do everything in their power to maintain the lie.The children’s distress is palpable. So what do you say to them ? Do you ignore their pleas ? The adopters ignore them for the sake of the lie ,and mental health damage ensues and is evident.
Kat :”I have no problem with counseling pbmothers about the possible downside of adoption as long as the possible downside of single parenthood is also ‘counseled’ and while we are at it the potential downside of abortion. The pros & cons of all three option should be discussed.”
“Counselling” the expectant mother about the negative effects of raising her own child is putting the mother under duress ,is negligent practice and can be contested in a court of law should an adoption occur. A professional counsellor should allow the expectant mother to focus on her unborn child ,not on the needs of infertile strangers .No mother- to- be in a democratic society should have to consider adoption for socio economic reasons because she would have been advised by an ethical counsellor that assistance is available to enable her to keep her child.She must be warned that separation is unnatural and furthermore damaging to herself and her child.Failure to warn is unethical and possibly illegal.
Death by adoption isn’t an option so you can cull that from your “list” of so called options.
Abortion is a woman’s choice . She should be counselled that adoption is more harmful than abortion …and thats it !
Carol C. said…
Kat said… “Well I don’t believe I have ‘suffered’ at the hand of the adoption system but I do believe much about the system does stink and needs to be changed. I just dont believe it needs to be abolished”
Kat, I respect that you and some other adoptees did NOT “suffer” at the hand of the adoption system, but I DID – I lost my only child to adoption by so called “adoption professionals” using dishonest and deceptive methods.”
I realize others have suffered at the hands of the adoption system. I was only speaking for myself
“I have dozens of adoptee friends and acquaintances that have acknowleded the impact their adoption experience had personally to me, “
I wasn’t suggesting that adoption doesn’t have an impact. Of course it does, just like any other life experience. What I object to is those who speak in absolutes about the suffering, lifelong trauma, etc. that it always causes.
“Some of you seem to be making the point that many of us are insisting adoption needs to be *abolished* and making that the point where the line in the sand is drawn. If you read carefully, most of the posters are stating that adoption and it’s practices AS WE KNOW IT* needs to be ravamped and/or even abolished.”
Well I guess we could debate ‘many’ and ‘most’ and even ‘some’ but there are definitely those here that are advocating just that.
” There are other more ethical and less damaging ways to find homes for children who absolutely need and they’ve been listed numerous times.
Legalized guardianship is one way. “
It is hard enough to find decent foster parents let alone people to sign up for legal guardianship. That is ust not a workable solution, imo.
“If a mother absolutely makes an *informed choice* that she wants her child adopted – strengthen the laws to assure that the legal documents protect her rights down the road, also. If it’s an open adoption – make sure the adopters cannot *cut and run* after the papers are signed as is done frequently today according to many of the mothers I know in open adoptions. And once the baby is gone, in most states they have no rights. “
I would even go further than that. Have all relinquishments signed in court in front of a judge, guaranteed revocation periods, and as much federalized standards among states as possible.
“And make the focus Family Preservation unless there is no other choice.”
I disagree. The focus should be on facilitating what the mother/father want. Anything else is just the flip side of the coin from the old days. It is arrogant in the extreme for a socety to push an agenda – any agenda, be it adoption, family preservation, pro or anti abortion when it comes to an unplanned preganancy, imo.
“I suppose I agree with you that someone can be pro-adoption and still work for Open Records, but I think for an organization with a political focus on changing laws that prevent adopted people access to their OBC such as BN; to try to be all things to all people is dangerous and gives mixed messages. “
I don’t think BN is trying to be ‘all things to all people’ as you state below their main focus is adoptee rights. Whether indiviudals are pro or anti adoptee is irrelevant.
“I understand that the agenda of BN which strictly focuses on adoptees rights (not talking about alt.adoption which I realize is merely a newsgroup) conflicts or at least negates the rights of natural mothers. Perhaps that’s part of the reason there is so much frustration on the part of more and more women who lost not only their child, but any information about that child that any other mother in our country would have. If organizations such as BN do not wish to concern themselves with first mother’s rights, so be it.”
Right. I don’t see CUB being overly concerned with adoptee rights in the political arena. I think it is right for each organization to have their own agenda. Then if the situation warrants they can form an alliance if they choose to.
“But Open Records activists who marginalize and belittle mothers who speak up about our issues is self-defeating, IMO. Why should we work only for adoptees right to their OBC?”
I don’t expect you to. The help would be nice but I think we can do it on our own. I see Open Records as being advantageous to both sides so it is a common goal. I also don’t have a problem with records being open to both sides though I know many people do.
Carol C. said…
Kat said… “Well I don’t believe I have ‘suffered’ at the hand of the adoption system but I do believe much about the system does stink and needs to be changed. I just dont believe it needs to be abolished”
Kat, I respect that you and some other adoptees did NOT “suffer” at the hand of the adoption system, but I DID – I lost my only child to adoption by so called “adoption professionals” using dishonest and deceptive methods.”
I realize others have suffered at the hands of the adoption system. I was only speaking for myself
“I have dozens of adoptee friends and acquaintances that have acknowleded the impact their adoption experience had personally to me, “
I wasn’t suggesting that adoption doesn’t have an impact. Of course it does, just like any other life experience. What I object to is those who speak in absolutes about the suffering, lifelong trauma, etc. that it always causes.
“Some of you seem to be making the point that many of us are insisting adoption needs to be *abolished* and making that the point where the line in the sand is drawn. If you read carefully, most of the posters are stating that adoption and it’s practices AS WE KNOW IT* needs to be ravamped and/or even abolished.”
Well I guess we could debate ‘many’ and ‘most’ and even ‘some’ but there are definitely those here that are advocating just that.
” There are other more ethical and less damaging ways to find homes for children who absolutely need and they’ve been listed numerous times.
Legalized guardianship is one way. “
It is hard enough to find decent foster parents let alone people to sign up for legal guardianship. That is ust not a workable solution, imo.
“If a mother absolutely makes an *informed choice* that she wants her child adopted – strengthen the laws to assure that the legal documents protect her rights down the road, also. If it’s an open adoption – make sure the adopters cannot *cut and run* after the papers are signed as is done frequently today according to many of the mothers I know in open adoptions. And once the baby is gone, in most states they have no rights. “
I would even go further than that. Have all relinquishments signed in court in front of a judge, guaranteed revocation periods, and as much federalized standards among states as possible.
“And make the focus Family Preservation unless there is no other choice.”
I disagree. The focus should be on facilitating what the mother/father want. Anything else is just the flip side of the coin from the old days. It is arrogant in the extreme for a socety to push an agenda – any agenda, be it adoption, family preservation, pro or anti abortion when it comes to an unplanned preganancy, imo.
“I suppose I agree with you that someone can be pro-adoption and still work for Open Records, but I think for an organization with a political focus on changing laws that prevent adopted people access to their OBC such as BN; to try to be all things to all people is dangerous and gives mixed messages. “
I don’t think BN is trying to be ‘all things to all people’ as you state below their main focus is adoptee rights. Whether indiviudals are pro or anti adoptee is irrelevant.
“I understand that the agenda of BN which strictly focuses on adoptees rights (not talking about alt.adoption which I realize is merely a newsgroup) conflicts or at least negates the rights of natural mothers. Perhaps that’s part of the reason there is so much frustration on the part of more and more women who lost not only their child, but any information about that child that any other mother in our country would have. If organizations such as BN do not wish to concern themselves with first mother’s rights, so be it.”
Right. I don’t see CUB being overly concerned with adoptee rights in the political arena. I think it is right for each organization to have their own agenda. Then if the situation warrants they can form an alliance if they choose to.
“But Open Records activists who marginalize and belittle mothers who speak up about our issues is self-defeating, IMO. Why should we work only for adoptees right to their OBC?”
I don’t expect you to. The help would be nice but I think we can do it on our own. I see Open Records as being advantageous to both sides so it is a common goal. I also don’t have a problem with records being open to both sides though I know many people do
sorry for the double post. I lost my connection midway through and I didn’t think the first one went through
Anonymous said…
I think you are different from the other anonymous but who knows . . .
Kat said,”Because it is not a conflict of interest. Why is it so hard to understand that adoption and open records can coexist? Sorry but a lot of people in the 21st. century don’t believe that the bparents have to cease to exist for adoption to be successful, hence it is possible to know their identities via open records and *still* proceed with adoption.”
The rationale of adoption is “to take as one’s own” which means the child is issued with a falsified birth certificate to indicate that he/she is “as if born” to the adopters. This fabrication is not acceptable to a person of average intelligence . The child’s concept of trust is eroded as he /she battles to understand the mystery of how he/she was “as if born” to people who have not given birth .
Oh please. Most adoptees are told they are adopted and aren’t confused by that. What a strawman.
“Geneological bewilderment is the result.”
LOL
“If you advocate for adoption alongside advocating for the adoption to be “reversed” then that is a counterproductive exercise.”
That kind of doublespeak might work with some of your cronies but most intelligent people recognize it for the bullshit it is.
“Why not get rid of adoption and put guardianship in its place whereby the child maintains contact with his/her family.”
Newsflash, many adoptees do just that nowadays. Legal guardianship is an unworkable situation. You can’t even get enough decent foster parents these days – where are the line of people that are going to be signing up for legal guardianship?
“A better alternative is to make every effort to preserve the family ,rather than impliment measures which destroy it for the purpose of creating an artificial unit whose premise is fabricated.The mental health problems caused by separation for adoption ,far outweigh any perceived benefits. “
Perhaps you have severe mental health problems but please don’t pass that off as a given because it just is not.
“Have you thought of the dilemma of young innocent children who realize that the adopters are not their real parents and want to be with their mothers and cannot because of uncaring adopters and bureaucracies who do everything in their power to maintain the lie.”
Oh please are all you anonymous posters zealots? Is that why you hide behind the anonymous moniker? Stop using adoptees as asmokescreen for *your* issues with adoption.
“The children’s distress is palpable. So what do you say to them ? Do you ignore their pleas
uh huh. And they send you these messages how? Oh yeah you are in contact with tons of young adoptees in this situation due to your extensive work in the adoption field.
“The adopters ignore them for the sake of the lie ,and mental health damage ensues and is evident”
I’m done responding with zealots who can’t even form an intelligent argument.
Anonymous said…
“Abortion is a woman’s choice . She should be counselled that adoption is more harmful than abortion …and thats it ! “
Statements like that is what causes people to dismiss you and your so-called ‘arguments’ . You are a really effective spokesman for your cause – not. Individuals are just that individuals and therefore have individual experiences. I know that is a difficult concept to wrap your brain around but please do give it a try.
I know that it going to be a tremendous amount of effort and I have my doubts about your ability to do that considering it is too much effort to even assign yourself a nick. Here’s a clue it *doesn’t have to be* your real name. I can think of a few I would assign you but I’ll resist the urge.
As I said in another post, I’m done responding to zealots – especially ones that can’t be bothered to use a nick. I can’t be bothered to respond.
kat-What is it with some of you that you must generalize and sterotype adoptors to such an extent?
But this is exactly what so many of you who are posting here are doing to anyone who has a differet POV? Generalizing. We’re all anti-adoptionist therefore we are BAD BAD BAD.
Any comments we make about damage done to us by the adoption system incites several of the anonymous wisecrackers to crawl out of the woodwork to say we are all a bunch of anti-adoptionists and are idiots and ruining things for the rest of you!
Right from the beginning several of us who came here in response to the BJ Lifton debacle asked if we couldn’t agree to disagree? We politely tried to explain our *various* opinions and experiences, yet if we defended Soll or mentioned how how lives had been ravaged by adoption – we were lumped into one big fat package – we had to be either part of Origins or some other extremist group. There have been people posting from various groups but intelligent debate became impossible with the likes of Jackie …
It’s a shame that it’s you vs. us.
You’re right – you can go get those records open without us. I would have just hoped that different opinions would have been better tolerated here with these discussions.
No one expects adoption to end today and tomorrow begins an era of legalized guardianship. by inisting that it is impossible to even consider concepts like legalized guardianship or other more humane ways of finding homes for children who need them is a defeatest attitude, IMO.
Carol C. said…
kat-What is it with some of you that you must generalize and sterotype adoptors to such an extent?
“But this is exactly what so many of you who are posting here are doing to anyone who has a different POV? “
Again we can discuss ‘many’, ‘most’ and ‘some’if you want.
“Generalizing. We’re all anti-adoptionist therefore we are BAD BAD BAD. “
I can’t speak for others but when I said I was going to stop responding to zealots I meant the two anonymous posters not eveyone who is ‘anti-adoption’ I don’t think just because someone has a negative bias against adoption they are bad, bad, bad. I do think people that make blanket, ridiculous statements about adoption and adoptors are zealots and there is no common ground to be found so why bother.
“Any comments we make about damage done to us by the adoption system incites several of the anonymous wisecrackers to crawl out of the woodwork to say we are all a bunch of anti-adoptionists and are idiots and ruining things for the rest of you!
Please try to respond to me as an individual. I respond to each poster as an individual. As for the ‘anonymous wisecrackers’ I see them on *both* sides of the fence.
“Right from the beginning several of us who came here in response to the BJ Lifton debacle asked if we couldn’t agree to disagree? “
I don’t have a problem with that.
“We politely tried to explain our *various* opinions
Some not as ‘politely’ as others.
and experiences, yet if we defended Soll or mentioned how how lives had been ravaged by adoption – we were lumped into one big fat package – we had to be either part of Origins or some other extremist group.”
Okay I’m going to assume that you are directing that at other people and using your response to me to do it as I never said such a thing.
“There have been people posting from various groups but intelligent debate became impossible with the likes of Jackie … “
Goodness knows Jackie and I have gone a few rounds but I have never once doubted she didn’t love her son as *some* posters have suggested. Comments like that can hardly be called ‘politely voicing your different opinions’
It’s a shame that it’s you vs. us.
Please define who you are including in the ‘you’ and who you are including in the ‘us’. Talk about generalizing.
“You’re right – you can go get those records open without us.”
I meant bmothers who don’t feel that they should work for open records if adoptees don’t work for their issues. There are plenty of bparents who feel the two are separate issues.
” I would have just hoped that different opinions would have been better tolerated here with these discussions. “
That works both ways you know. I dont see a whole lot of tolerance on *either* side.
“No one expects adoption to end today and tomorrow begins an era of legalized guardianship. by inisting that it is impossible to even consider concepts like legalized guardianship or other more humane ways of finding homes for children who need them is a defeatest attitude, IMO.
I said it was an unworkable solution, imo. I have no desire to work toward that goal so if that is a ‘defeatist’ attitude – so be it. I think you will find very little support for that in the population as a whole but if that’s what you want to work toward – go for it. I prefer using my energy for other reforms I think have a better chance for success.
Oops that should have been:
Goodness knows Jackie and I have gone a few rounds but I have never once doubted she loved her son. *Some* posters have suggested otherwise just because she relinquished. Comments like that can hardly be called ‘politely voicing your different opinions’
I would have just hoped that different opinions would have been better tolerated here with these discussions. “
Kat said “That works both ways you know. I dont see a whole lot of tolerance on *either* side.”
I agree with you here Kat. I think this is one of the major issues holding us back as *reformers* – other POV’s aren’t tolerated.
You make some excellent points. I got caught up in being highly critical of Jackie too, because she chose to focus on the negative side of our differences by implying many of the mothers here were being spoon fed some kind of rhetoric or position. In her case she seemed to be using this forum to vent her personal vendetta against Di! I admire Diane W. enormously but I, like most of the anti *current adoption system* posters here, are intelligent and thoughtful enough to come to our own conclusions based on our own experience.
Clearly this is a highly charged issue for all of us, but intellectual debate has to include respect for differing POVs. perhaps the next time we have such a *hot* topic, we could make more progress if there was more tolerance. Alienating each other just keeps us perenially stuck in a victim role whether we like it or not.