Yesterday (October 17) we learned that New Jersey’s S 1087 “open records” bill cleared the Senate Health, Human Services, and Senior Citizens Committee but still needs to pass the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee, the full Senate, and the Assembly. Governor Jon Corzine appears favorable to passage.
S 1067 is not an unconditional access bill, but contains a disclosure veto AND weirdly a contact preference form, provisions for counseling referrals and intermediary services and a whopping $90,000 media fund to advertise the new law. I have great respect for the NJ people who have spent literally 25 years getting this far–particularly Pam Hasagawa–but why is this garbage attached to what should be a simple identity/records restoration bill? Talk about big government!
BN, of course, continues to oppose the S 1087 as a reunionist sop that characterizes adoptee identity not as a right, but a favor. Supporters like to claim that disclosure vetoes will affect only a few so what’s the big deal. Well, the big deal is that under S 1087 some adoptees are more equal than others. Losers, whose birthparent(s) file a veto, remain state chattel expected to remain content sucking their thumbs, grateful they weren’t dumpsterized. Even worse, New Jersey deformers in their zeal to take whatever the state offers, are letting the state dictate the parameters of information access by accepting a contractual agreement in which the state promises to keep birthparents’ dirty little secrets secret, something that even the Draconian 1940 law that sealed records in the state never did. The “reasonable compromise” of S 1087 is unacceptable and unreasonable. If it screws just one…
Of course, the usual suspects are in high dudgeon. National Council for Adoption’s Lee Allen lamented the loss of birthmother “control” over confidential information. (Evidently, Lee hasn’t had a run-in yet with the rad moms of Origins-USA). NJ Catholic Charities’ Marlene Lao-Collins, opined that the bill is “fundamentally unfair” and objected that now “birth parents wouldn’t be allowed to remain anonymous to their children” (Somebody send her Judge Nixon’s ruling in Doe v Sundquist. Please!). Adoptee-hating, baby-dumping, queer-bashing, shame-pimping Crazy Marie Tasy, legislative director of New Jersey Right to Life moaned, in a thinly veiled abortion threat, that “Public policy should encourage adoptions, not place more obstacles in the way to discourage them.” Earlier the NJ ACLU argued it’s the state’s duty to protect birthparents, afraid to speak for themselves, from the rotten fruit of their misspent youth and the dreaded Christmas morning knock on the closet door. As usual, adopted adults, unless kept in check, will kill the fatted adoption goose with our unreasonable demands of identity rights, genealogy, and self-ownership.
So what!
What is bad about low adoption rates? What is bad about children born to empowered mothers and fathers who want them and are able to care for them? What is bad about families remaining intact, not separated and anonymized by the state and its adoption agency hit squad? If family togetherness is bad, then it is clear that adoption is anti-family. And that’s not where the NCFAnoids want to go. Is it? Or is it?
NCFA’s favorite policy geek, Patrick Fagan from the Heritage Foundation, posits that everyone is better off adopted. Writing in NCFA’s last gasp Adoption Factbook III, Fagan says (p. 3):
Compared with the general child population, children placed with adopive couples are better off economically. Their parents are better educated and older than the parents of other children. Adoptive parents are less likely to divorce.” Fagan’s source: “Unmarried Parents Today” published in 1985 by (you guessed it!) NCFA! Can we say circle jerk?
If we are all better off adopted, let’s just pass out baybees at the backdoor of the hospital to anybody hanging around. Has Pat Fagan dispersed any of his children to the general population? Would NCFA be willing to give ’til it hurts?
What doe sit take to get these biddyfied social engineers out of our lives?
How many of these defenders of closed records are adopters? Have you ever checked into that?
IS ADOPTION ANTI-FAMILY????
Is the Pope a Catholic?
Does a ton of flour make a big biscuit?
YES, YES, and YES.
Is adoption anti-family? That depends on one’s definition of family.
The old nursury rhyme, “mommy, daddy, and baby makes three” certainly implies that it takes a baby to make a family. Due to social dynamics after WWII (millions of horney soldiers returning home with a need to make up for lost time) which created the “baby boomers” America became a culture of baby producers. The national mos required a baby plus a married couple to make a family. In no small part this is the engine that created the belief in the entitlement of children and the adoption industry.
In this construct there was no room for a single teenager or young woman getting pregnant and keeping her baby. This was not the cultural understanding of family in the post war years.
Thus, adoption served two purposes. It both relieved the teenager or young woman from the burden and stigma of an “illegitimate” pregnancy and ever present bastard child while at the same time provided infertal couples with the missing element required for them to become a “family.”
Consequently in the eys of mid 20th century American culture adoption was not anit-family because it created family.
Yet I am reminded of the words of the 19th century German philosopher Fredrich Nietzsche who told us that when we pull back the veneer from the presumed goods of society’s institutions what we will find is rot. The rot of adotion is that for every family created through adoption a teenager or young woman who gave birth to the most essential element of what constitutes family is condemned for doing so with the commensurate punishment that she has her baby stripped from her. Therefore from this perspective the opposite of adoption, relinquishment, is anti-famiy both by definition and practice.
However this is only possible if society accepts there is only one definition of family. History is replant with other constructs of family from matriarchal ones to those of the Mudgawammer of the South Sea Islands that has a very complex “rope society” of intertwined extended family where children are not exclusively “raised” by the woman who gave birth to them.
As an aside the Mudgawammer are the only South Sea Island group that does not have an overpopulation problem. Perhaps his is becasue when a Mudgawammer woman goes into labor her husband is literally strung up by his thumbs while the women of the village pelt him with rotten fruit until the baby is born.
The bottom line is that the definiton of family is what we choose to make it. Thus, adoption is anti-family when it is the effect of coerced relinquishment that denies a teenager or young woman the ability to create a family with her baby that may or may not include another person or extended family as coparents.
Fr. Jack
“family is what we choose to make it.”
Frjack 10/18/06
Absolutely.
What doe sit take to get these biddyfied social engineers out of our lives?
Torches and pitchforks.
Kitta3,
What I meant by “family is what we choose to make it” is that each of us, now, today, can choose to create whatever kind of family we wish to have.
Of course I cannot speak to everone’s individual reality and do not try to. However, in general those who constitute family are able to define themselves as family: hetrosexual couples with/without children, gay and lesbian couples with/without children, grandparents raising grandchildren without bioparents in the picture, single men and women with a child or children, etc. The fact is that any two or more peopel regardless of their legal relationship may define themselves as family.
This does not discount the fact that you and your son’s father are his family. I don’t want to get into the politics and semantics in what follows other than to say for me I have two families of origin. The first is my genetic family composed of my biological mother and father as well as my half siblings by them. The second is my adoptive family composed of my adoptive mother and father. I am the last of the line in that family and have no siblilngs, aunts, uncles, or cousins.
Are these two families equal in my life? Yes, I have been given much but different things by both. “Yes” is not to be confused wtih “same.”
Did I benefit from having both families? Absolutely. I would not be the person I am today if I had not been adopted and I like who I am. Aside from the adversarial relationship with my adoptive mother I was one of the lucky ones in that I got everything the system says an adopted child will get. As for my relationship with my adoptive mother who is to say that I would not have had the same relationship with my biological mother?
With my biological family both on my mother’s side and my father’s side I have been enriched by knowing them. As I mentoned earlier my biological father is dead but you couldn’t pay me enough money to take back the three years we knew each other. My biological mother is in a nursing home suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease. She does not know who I am. I feel the same about her as I do about my biological father. I have ten siblings betweeen them: 8 girls and 2 boys. The boys do not acknoweldge my existance. Likewise 4 of the girls. However, I am very close to two of my sisters one on each side.
One of them was forced by our mother to relinquish her son concieved as a consequence of being gang raped. How she got pregnant didn’t matter. All that mattered was that she was still in high school and unmarried. She was ashamed to tell me what had happened to her and that she had a son for the first three years after our reunion. Then she called, told me the whole story, and asked if I would find him for her. It took me a year but I found him and when she got remarried two years later he walked her down the aisle.
I have been working on a book titled, “The Myth of the Natural Mother: Adoption, Relinquishment, and Closed Records as Punishment for Expression of Female Sexuality and Control of Womens Bodies” for the past two years. Mothers from Canada, Ireland, Great Britain, Australia, and American have contributed by writing chapters and essays.
I am writing this book becasue it is absolutely imparitive that women who were coerced into relinquishing their children to the closed system of adoptin be heard. This must be done now before it is too late. It is no secret that the radical religious right has not only abortion and the MAP in their sights they are also gearing up to make all forms of birth control illegal as well.
Superimposed over this agenda is their sin-punishment world-view in which thier goal is to put unmarried pregnant women back into maternity homes where they will be coerced into relinqusing their children.
We, all of us, cannot let this happen again!
Marley, perhaps you could write a bolg on the rrr’s agenda re: pregnant women and adoption.
Fr. Jack
No, adoption isn’t anti-family, neither is it particularly pro-family. It’s a way to provide family for a child whose birthparents are unable or unwilling to care for him/her. That’s all.
But I do envision a time in which women will be used as involuntary wombs. Not because abortion will be illegal (although it likely will be), not because most forms of contraception will be banned (though they likely will be, at least in some states), but because the pwecious embryos will need healthy wombs to gestate them. When a fetus has a right to “life” at the expense of the bodily integrity of a woman, all usable uteri will be called into action.
Fr jack,
To start ..I will simply say I profoundly disagree with your premise that “today”,any two people can decide to call themselves family.
If that is to be true, then it also must be true that “anyone can decide” not to be family as well, whether they are related or not.Fathers could decide not be related to their children so they wouldn’t have to pay child support(there are already some groups of men who are trying to change laws to reflect this viewpoint).Baby-sitters could decide they are the ‘real parents”and base it on a relationship to the children.Neighbors could claim children based on proximity and a relationship with the children. Teachers could do the same thing..natural parents could decide to ‘unrelate themselves to their siblings or children” in order to be able to marry them.There are already states(or at least their were…15 years ago) that allow adopted people to marry their siblings, because they do not recognize the blood connection between the adopted people.
Now the redefinition of family is a problem already..with the birth records issue..since the government , the NCFA, and others have “decided” that adopted people are “as if born to” their adopters and that their natural family connections no longer exist…at least, most of the time.
If anyone can call themselves family, then family doesn’t have a specific meaning and becomes a free-for-all.
And I am interested in the semantics and the political aspects of this situation.Adoption is a political issue and has been for a long time. and language does matter….the word ‘illegitimate” has mattered quite a lot for some people in history.
So, who decides who is family..in your view? anyone?minor children?any group of consenting adults? the government?social workers? The churches..if so which churches?the army?(not being sarcastic here..the army does have a family policy)
Grandparents raising grandchildren are already family, they don’t have to ‘decide’.Mothers and fathers who have conceived children(whether gay or straight) are already family…biology determined that. Lesbians and gay men have biological children….they are parents.A gay or lesbian parent’s partner should be able to be a stepparent but not a parent.This is consistent with a divorce/remarriage situation where there are children, except that the adults relationship does not have legal status in most states.Legal guardianships have existed for a long time and grant authority and rights to children, without claiming the same family status that a biological parent has.
How do you know that you wouldn’t be the person you are today if you weren’t adopted??have you ever read the adopted identical twins studies from Tom Bouchard at the U of Minnesota? He used to be a believer in the influence of environment on children until he did his studies on twins..and anyone can say they wouldn’t be the person they are today if they grew up in another town, went to a different school, or experienced any of thousands of different experiences…but they would always be the ‘same person by birth” …that never changes..at least not yet.
From what I understand of your situation, you did not get to know your mother when you were reunited, due to her Alzheimers.There is no reason to assume your relationship with her, if she had raised you, wouldn’t have been good….or very different from your relationship with the woman who raised you, your adoptive mother.
If any two or more people can be family, then is there a cut-off point for that…what are the guidelines..?How is it to be done?
Adoption defined my family out of “legal existence” but not natural biological existence.
Of course, what was done to me was illegal…in a number of ways..so my son is a “member” of his adoptive ‘family” only in an illegal sense….. with false papers to ‘prove it’.
It was a legalized kidnapping and I do not respect that.And he did not ‘originate’ with his adoptive family..he originated with his conception which his father and I did. His heritage is with us, from us, and so it will continue with our grandchildren.
This is a natural biological planet..we didn’t create life and the family is not something that we can just recreate by redefining it.
Lainie Petersen said…
“No, adoption isn’t anti-family, neither is it particularly pro-family. It’s a way to provide family for a child whose birthparents are unable or unwilling to care for him/her. That’s all.”
Adoption used be about adopting a child who’s parents died and their was no other family to care for him/her. Now adoptions warfed into some birthparent who’s unable or unwilling to care for him/her.
Face it, if birthparent’s are unable to care for a child, and someone steps in only to take the child for adoption instead of helping the family that is an act against the family making adoption anti-family.
Family used to be moms, dads, aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins, etc… If one member died or was missing it still would have been considered family.
Today, family is mom and dad and all others are “extended family”.
“But I do envision a time in which women will be used as involuntary wombs.”
I envision that too, Lainie. It was called the Baby Scoop Era, and it occurred between 1945 – 1972.
Back To The Future.
“Face it, if birth parents are unable to care for a child and someone steps in only to take the child for adoption, instead of helping the family, then that is an act against the family making adoption anti-family.”
To anonymous: I totally agree with your statement above.
Now adoptions warfed into some birthparent who’s unable or unwilling to care for him/her.
I’m afraid that for Lainie, “unable or unwilling” covers a great, great, great many women.
With Lainie and her good bud Steve White (an adoptor) sitting in judgement of who is “unable,” of course.
Someone died and made Lainie God I guess.
Adoption is anti natural family.
Anonymous said…
I’m afraid that for Lainie, “unable or unwilling” covers a great, great, great many women.
With Lainie and her good bud Steve White (an adoptor) sitting in judgement of who is “unable,” of course.
Someone died and made Lainie God I guess.
_____
You don’t like the competition?
You don’t like the competition?
I don’t see you denying it, J.
With Lainie and her good bud Steve White (an adoptor) sitting in judgement of who is “unable,” of course. Someone died and made Lainie God I guess.
Well that explains why she HOPES, ooopps I mean “envisions a time in which women will be used as involuntary wombs. …all usable uteri will be called into action.”
Someone died and made Lainie God I guess.
You don’t like the competition?
???? Ummm.
This is getting nowhere, fast.
Adoption most certainly is anti natural family
or anti family of origin. I think that’s a pretty sad state of affairs.
Well that explains why she HOPES, ooopps I mean “envisions a time in which women will be used as involuntary wombs. …all usable uteri will be called into action.”
You should know that Lainie was adopted as a baby.
That Lainie has given up a child for adoption.
That Lainie has done volunteer work at an adoption agency.
That Lainie has said in the past that she hopes to adopt some day.
Poor Lainie, adoption is the only thing she knows.
Some of you adoptees are like Jews wearing Nazi clothes. The garments, made to fit and now broken-in makes parroting Nazi propaganda, walking and acting like a Nazi loyal to the regime. To hell with right or wrong, the traitor is way too comfortable in Nazi garb to ever stand up for the injustice of his own people.
Some of you adoptees are like Jews wearing Nazi clothes…..
Cut….another psychotic is posting now. I’ve got news for you. Very few of us adoptees see any resemblance between what the Naziis did and adoption as practiced in America. Did adoption go too far in America in the past? Of course it did. The fact we have to fight so hard for open records is proof of that.
But all this shit about how adoption is “anti-family”, “legalized kidnapping”, and comparable to what the Naziis did? Its a damn good thing none of you are old enough to have been victims of the Naziis.
I hate to break it to some of you misfits, but my adoptive family is my real family. You can carry on with the natural bullshit all you want too. There isn’t very much natural about putting your child up for adoption is there?
Next time leave the lock on the looney bin.
Anonymous cowardly comments: You can carry on with the natural bullshit all you want too. There isn’t very much natural about putting your child up for adoption is there?
Why the hostility and mean spirited comment about mothers “putting their child up for adoption”? All the research shows that at least 80% of the BSE mothers were coerced, duped, tricked and/or forced into surrendering their babies. It is clear to anyone reading here that many of those mothers are here and we as adoptees need their support for open records.
Even the most recent poll over on Adoption.com indicates that.
Did you find out that your mommy made a different kind of plan for you and therefore you have to hide behind these anonymous postings making mean-spirited, sarcastic comments to mothers of adoption loss?
Just curious as to why you can’t you express your opinion in a civilized way like others on this blog? Anytime someone disagrees, out comes that
salacious tongue of yours.
Nah! You don’t have any adoption anger issues, do you?
Anonymous opines – Cut….another psychotic is posting now. I’ve got news for you. Very few of us adoptees see any resemblance between what the Naziis did and adoption as practiced in America
Hey You! I’m adopted and I certainly see the resemblenances. Not all adoptees live in denial the way you do. Who’s calling who psychotic?
“You can carry on with the natural bullshit all you want too. There isn’t very much natural about putting your child up for adoption is there?
Tell it to Lainie.
Marley said: What does it take to get these biddyfied social engineers out of our lives?
I’d say the first step is to give that goose Fagan a reality check on his notion that adoptive parents are better of financially. I recall in the not too distant past on Alt.a quite a number of adopters admitting to having to scrounge up the money to buy a kid. Even going to the lengths of putting their purchase on their credit cards. No doubt many are still paying the kid off years later.
Then of course there’s the adopters who get paid by the State to ‘love and care’ for their akids and who live in squalor and cage and duct tape their beloved achildren to death….in their best interests of course.
Di
Anonymous said…
You don’t like the competition?
I don’t see you denying it, J.
9:28 PM
I’m not sure what it is that you’d like me to deny. That Lainie’s god? Not a problem. I don’t believe in any gods, you and me included.
That Lainie and Steve sit in judgment of who is able or unable to parent a child? Haven’t seen any evidence of it, unless you’re referring to Steve’s skepticism about the ability of a 14 year old girl to raise a child on her own. Not optimistic about that outcome myself. Lainie’s perfectly capable of speaking for herself, as she continues to demonstrate.
That adoption is anti-family? Adoption is an act which, like most others, has the capacity to help or harm one or more of the participants. I can fire my 30.06 and bring home meat or kill a child. It’s up to me and how I go about it. The outcome of any act, adoption included, depends upon whether it is engaged in wisely, while fully informed, and by ethical people.
People make choices; people change their minds and regret their choices; people are duped; people simply fuck up. All of this applies to both sides of the crib, if you will. If you want to prevent injustice, help people make thoughtful, informed choices and focus on eradicating the unethical.
Whether people like the institution of adoption or not, chances are its here to stay. So if you have grievances, go on about the task of addressing them. Don’t waste your time trying to convince the world that the entire concept is a dragon requiring slaying. You’ll be dismissed as a fringe element with nothing to contribute and anything of value you have to offer will be lost.
Not every adoptive parent is your enemy. Many recognize the way the laws are stacked in their favor, to others’ disadvantage, and don’t like it at all. Some act on it. But many here are prepared to piss on adoptive parents whatever their beliefs or their actions, simply because they adopted. Bigotry by any other name would smell as rank.
Hate’s easy. Perhaps that’s why its so common in some circles.
J.
Speaking ex cathedra.
Anonymous said…
“I hate to break it to some of you misfits, but my adoptive family is my real family.”
Of course they are, of course they are. Now here’s a part of the quote you avoided:
“The garments, made to fit and now broken-in makes parroting Nazi propaganda, walking and acting like a Nazi loyal to the regime.“
J said…”Many recognize the way the laws are stacked in their favor, to others’ disadvantage, and don’t like it at all. Some act on it.”
J.
The claim to recognize it and not like it at all is an all to convenient after the fact stance. The fact that they already ‘got theirs’.
When these adopters ACT to undue their own personal situation because they too participated in using the same laws their so against then they will have credibility to stand on.
Haven’t seen any evidence of it, unless you’re referring to Steve’s skepticism about the ability of a 14 year old girl to raise a child on her own.
“It was especially traumatic the last time when mommy broke his arm. “
“And mom spent all the money on last night’s coke party. “
“Cashing the paychecks at the neighborhood bar also is a problem.”
“And she needs to learn how to get a better job than the counter at the Mickey D’s [1]. “
“Her earnings would be better if she’d manage to show up for work every day. “
“The grandparents are a mess too, and they never once considered either their daughter’s welfare or the welfare of the bastard until they realized — oh my gosh! — that someone could possibly love a child of their blood. “
“The child has trouble eating from the broken jaw and lye ingestion from when mom’s new “boyfriend” got enraged by the child’s crying. “
“Which came after two years of family reunion policy that failed after mommy when back to prison on a parole violation. “
“Mommy was so devoted and loving that she’d leave her with people who didn’t give a rats ass while mommy went to play the quarter slot machine at the riverboat casino. “
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/browse_thread/thread/31f9b3de52174089/56f2c03cc3deaa7e?lnk=st&q=&rnum=45&hl=en#56f2c03cc3deaa7e
” I fail to see why, if people irresponsibly conceive children, that others should be required to help those irresponsible people parent those children.
“Help the children, yes. But why help people irresponsibly conceive and birth children? Why help irresponsible people to be parents? “
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/browse_thread/thread/b7b7bf41b38563da/9b5c64dc453467c9?q=group%3Aalt.adoption&lnk=ol&hl=en&
J. Said: “Not every adoptive parent is your enemy. Many recognize the way the laws are stacked in their favor, to others’ disadvantage, and don’t like it at all. Some act on it. But many here are prepared to piss on adoptive parents whatever their beliefs or their actions, simply because they adopted. Bigotry by any other name would smell as rank.
Hate’s easy. Perhaps that’s why its so common in some circles:
I cannot understand why anyone would think that there is anything for the mothers of loss to gain by linking ourselves with adopters. That sort of alliance is not one that interests me particularly, nor many of my sisters in loss. It is fallacious reasoning to think that we have common goals. In Europe, during WWII, they would shave the heads of women who consorted with the enemy. And, if anyone thinks that adopters are not the enemy of natural mothers, all one has to do is read the post from Bonus Socks to quickly be dissuaded of that notion. That is the contemptuous and shortsighted reasoning of an adopter.
FYI, my Grandmother was 15 when she had my Aunt. My Aunt was 15 when she gave birth to my cousin, the Boulder Attorney. When touting out the absurd quotes, just remember that we have an arsenal of them too.
An old cliché is applicable here…two wrongs don’t make a right. A girl of 14 who has a baby may not be ready right then to raise her own child, but there is strong evidence to support the fact that both she and the child will not benefit from loss to adoption. Just because she is 14 (or whatever age) right now, doesn’t mean she will be 14 forever; she will grow up, she will age. I had an office aid when I worked in the middle school who was 14 years old, an honor student, and given a plum job as office aide as a reward for her sterling behavior. The only rub was that she had a 2 year old at home. The mother is now in Grad School, married to the father of her child, and a lovely young mother. Her mother helped her, and it was tough. Nevertheless, that child knows who her mother is, who her grandmother is, and how they struggled to keep her in the family. She was the adored darling. Moreover, she is a wonderful girl of about 15 now and in the Gifted and Talented program. When a child decides that they are going to make adult decisions, no matter what, it matters not if their parents are ready for that choice. Those children are then adults, no matter what their age, and must live with the consequences of their decisions. Why is it automatically assumed that those will always be bad choices? I would say that the choice to have a baby is an adult decision. I think that there would be far less women in these blogs, and support groups if we mothers of the BSE had been allowed to make our own choices and had less people protecting us from our consequences, and I believe that most of our children would have benefited from that option too. .
JMO,
Sandy Young
And, if anyone thinks that adopters are not the enemy of natural mothers, all one has to do is read the post from Bonus Socks to quickly be dissuaded of that notion. That is the contemptuous and shortsighted reasoning of an adopter.
Ain’t that the truth!
“… all one has to do is read the post from Bonus Socks to quickly be dissuaded of that notion.”
Oh, I don’t know.
Context is everything.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/browse_thread/thread/de6bd22bb22fa722/b1bf98f04ed88975?lnk=st&q=&rnum=493&hl=en#b1bf98f04ed88975
adopta…@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote:
> Di. In the looney bin. With a straightjacket. What do I win?
Two free swings with the ClueBat. Don’t break it.
steve
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/browse_thread/thread/6bd5fe0b9dad8d00/95f2c21bfc4f265f?lnk=st&q=&rnum=484&hl=en#95f2c21bfc4f265f
Melinda, darling, just wanted to point out that there are at least 260
> > million children between the ages of 5 and 18 who work for pitiful wages.
> > Sure makes your little mission about getting a legal adoption overturned
> > look pretty small, doesn’t it?
> The mission is to STOP all fraudulent adoptions.
In your case, it would have meant putting a muzzle on YOU, not to
mention handcuffs.
steve
Someone wrote ,”My adoptive family is my real family”
Isn’t that statement a trite bit psychotic i.e being out of touch with reality ?
Go look in the mirror .
I see that this portion of the discourse has devolved into an alt style free-for-all, complete with Nazi allusions and diagnoses of denial…
Family has been a site of contention at least since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Family is in flux still. I see very little discussion here on how complicated and sometimes ambiguous families really are; it’s all cut-and-dried – family is genetics, or the old fashioned “blood”, or the essentialist claim of “natural”, whatever the fuck that means. Everything we do is natural, as we are never not part of nature, hard as we wriggle to free ourselves from its bounds.
My overly-simple definition of family? Those who are committed to nurture you, those who you have committed to nurture. What makes this complex? Consider this:
In the stationery box in which I found my adoption documents were others; my adoptive parents’ birth certificates, some deeds to properties they no longer owned, and a lengthy report from the welfare office concerning one of my cousins. He was my youngest cousin, I never really knew him since he was born when I was in my late teens and my aunt had divorced my uncle shortly thereafter. At any rate, the county intervened after complaints from the neighbors, my cousin, a toddler, screamed all the time and ran about the neighborhood unsupervised and in days-old shitty diapers. When the cops and the social worker showed up, my aunt was watching televion with her new boyfriend. They were both drunk, eating TV dinners off of trays. My cousin was squalling in the kitchen, by himself, tied to a high chair with an extension cord. My aunt confessed tearfully that he’d been there for two days. This was his natural mother.
Or consider this. I recall reading an article in the early nineties about the civil war then raging in Somalia. An aide worker arranged for a Somali woman who had lost her child to care for an orphaned infant (a true orphan, not the kind who are manufactured). The Somali woman immediately took the baby to her breast. A couple of days later, the aide worker saw the woman, but the baby was gone. When the aide worker inquired about the child, the woman said, Oh I found out it was from a rival clan so I killed it. To her this was perfectly natural, nothing to comment on.
Or consider this:
When I first moved to San Francisco, 32 years ago, I became friends with a group of people who did theatre, the Angels of Light. They were more than a troupe, more than a group of friends; they were lovers, they were drag queens, drag kings, they had babies, they raised each other’s babies. The AIDS plague carried many of them off this mortal coil, but not all. I was part of their family, if I see Lulu, or Beaver, or Esmeralda, I see a sister and a brother. I was performing as an accompanist to Esmeralda doing club dates when I found out I was adopted. I stopped performing shortly after I discovered, I couldn’t face that kind of exposure at that time. Esmeralda was herself an adoptee, the folks here would probably say she was in denial since she loved her adopted parents. One of her songs, that we performed, at that nexus before and after the completion of my identity, was called “Pandora’s Box”. Here are some of the lyrics:
Pandora’s Box
by Esmeralda Kent
Always scolded as small children,
those who ask too many questions
never learn to take direction,
“How’d that rabbit get inside that hat?”
All the anger that’s been hidden
Deep in secret hiding places,
throwing masks across our faces,
“Did curiosity really kill the cat?”
Twas a time when passion was the key
Which opened up the pain in me,
Destroying all the locks.
Unleashing demons spawned in fear,
Reflecting shadows in the mirror
of Pandora’s Box.
Open it up, all that is concealed,
Open it up, so the truth can be revealed,
You must break all your locks.
Open it up, take a look inside,
Open it up, have you anything to hide
Inside Pandora’s Box?
Great comment, BB.
Who is to define the word “family” for another?
I love both of my families—the one in which I was raised and have a physical history with, and the one who I descended from and have a genetic history with.
Neither is more important to me than the other. They both made me who I am. In my life, this isn’t a tug of war.
Referencing a couple of comments by anonymous posters, I wonder why this should make me “psychotic” or “out of touch with reality”, or “a traitor comfortable in Nazi garments”?
Your experience isn’t universal. Your experience doesn’t define my experience.
I respect your journey. Why is it impossible for you to respect mine?
My overly-simple definition of family? Those who are committed to nurture you, those who you have committed to nurture.
Nurturing families like the Charles Manson family and the Jimmy Jones family.
Not all adoptees live in denial the way you do. Who is calling who psychotic?
I knew it would just be a matter of time before someone said I was in denial. And, of course, angry.
Sorry, some of us don’t tow the party line.
Oh well, if I am in De Nile will someone please throw me a life jacket?
“My overly-simple definition of family? Those who are committed to nurture you, those who you have committed to nurture.”
“Nurturing families like the Charles Manson family and the Jimmy Jones family.”
Sure. But then not all biological families are holistic and/or healthy either. A lot has been made of the “huge” adoption industry, but god knows how many trillions of dollars have been spent on psychiatry, psychological therapy and other similar nostrums to heal folks from the pernicious after-effects of their biological families.
To Anon who wrote:
“Poor Lainie, adoption is the only thing she knows.”
How profound and true! That pretty much sums up this entire discussion.
Reading these posts, all I could think was that adoptors and adoptees and people who make their money off adoption are pretending to be experts on real families! Bizarre, really bizarre!
Adoptees probably simply do not know any other way, so are doing the best they can to make sense of life and are advocating for what they know.
But others know the difference very well and are shilling for their pocketbooks, or their inability to handle “no,” and/or their arrogant and oppressive ideologies.
BB Church: …family is genetics, or the old fashioned “blood”, or the essentialist claim of “natural”
I don’t think that any of the mothers that I know believe that love is an either/or situation. None of the mothers that I know deny the link of love that is established by the act of adoption. We do not deny the adoptee’s right to love their adoptive parents; we just wish that we were the ones who had shared that experience with our children and that it had not been allotted to strangers. We are saddened by the fact that our children know another as Mother, but that doesn’t change the fact that we are also Mother. And, while we mourn the loss of that shared time with our children, we also resent the fact that our children, now adults, seem to feel continually be torn over conflicting loyalties.
I don’t believe that, for the most part, it is the natural parents who are the ones who are creating the conflict for the adoptee. We maintain no illusions about the part we play in our children’s lives, and are glad to be a part of them, now. It has been my experience that it is not the natural mothers who make their children choose, it is not the natural mothers who remain secrets from the adopters. It is not the natural mothers who demand an end to the relationships that our children have with others, and it is not the natural mothers who are threatened by the fact of the other’s existence in our children’s lives.
Adoption and reunion – We may not like it, we may not have chosen it, but it is our children’s reality. And, for the most part, I think that natural mothers have lived with the reality of adoption long enough that we don’t have a difficult time accepting that.
Sandy Young
Nearly everyone has more than one “Family”..we have step families…if we are married , we have in-laws….who are a family we add when we marry.
The difference between these additional family relationships and adoption is that adoption, as it is practiced in America, legally (or more likely illegally) erases the original blood family. And usually, the surrendered child is hidden from the original family..the natural mother and/or father usually are forced to surrender parental rights(we do not “put” our children “up for adoption”. The government authorizes agencies, lawyers, social workers, etc to do the actual “placements”).
The idea of adoption is not to add family, but to subtract it and erase it….and hide the original identity of the children and parents and their connection to each other.
Nearly everyone has more than one “Family”..we have step families…if we are married , we have in-laws….who are a family we add when we marry
I think we should simply speak of “your mothers and your fathers” when we are talking about families that are adoption affected.
Sandy says: It has been my experience that it is not the natural mothers who make their children choose, it is not the natural mothers who remain secrets from the adopters. It is not the natural mothers who demand an end to the relationships that our children have with others,
Sandy, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. We as mothers of adoption loss have been conditioned to expect very little from our found children. When we get more – we are thrilled. But like you, every natural mom I know shows complete respect for our child’s relationships with their adoptive families. That’s why it’s been so discouraging to read all anonymous hostile comments saying things like it’s not “natural to give your baby up for adoption”.
There still seems to be a faction of threatened adoptees who are determined to keep us in our place and make sure we don’t dare think we are equal in anyway to their adopters. I wonder why that is?
I have been encouraged on this blog recently the fact that more and more adoptees take the time and make the effort to hear us. There’s even evidence that they’re respectful of our role and our love for our children. I don’t see as much quibbling or snide comments such as the anonymous person who continues to call anyone who disagrees with her names and insist she’s not “towing the company line”.
This is so sad. What company line? How is a debate with people sharing different perspectives and opinions so threatening?
Personally, I don’t really care if someone agrees with my opinion – agreeing to disagree is just fine with me. But I will not tolerate someone invalidating my experience or insisting I am in any way *second best* as a mother to my child.
I think we should simply speak of “your mothers and your fathers” when we are talking about families that are adoption affected.
That’s what’s adoption is all about isn’t it? mothers and fathers. Anyone else is
“extended family”. It’s that added touch that makes adoption oh so
“special” from the rest of the world.
That’s what’s adoption is all about isn’t it? mothers and fathers. Anyone else is
“extended family”. It’s that added touch that makes adoption oh so
“special” from the rest of the world.
Maybe I should have been clearer when I wrote that. I think there should be NO prefixes when talking about the parents of adopted persons. No B moms, no A moms. Just two moms and two dads.
Those are the facts; adopted persons have two mothers, and two fathers.
Mothers and fathers.
I don’t see as much quibbling or snide comments such as the anonymous person who continues to call anyone who disagrees with her names and insist she’s not “towing the company line”.
Talk about calling names….
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.adoption/browse_thread/thread/246de0c454c7302f/38d8058f46e82e00?hl=en#38d8058f46e82e00
“The anti-adoptionists remind me of the Revolutionary Communist Party here in the USA. They insert themselves into every viable movement and end up screwing the whole thing up.
L. “
C’mon, Lainie, don’t hold back.
Tell us how you really feel.
Anonymous said…
C’mon, Lainie, don’t hold back.
Tell us how you really feel.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa – poor, poor,
Lainie, the world of adoption is the only thing she knows.
I bet the biggest whiners at that site are the ones who’s mommy’s didn’t want contact or if they did have contact it’s ALL MOMMY’S FAULT it didn’t work out.
“The anti-adoptionists remind me of the Revolutionary Communist Party here in the USA. They insert themselves into every viable movement and end up screwing the whole thing up.”
To my way of thinking, this is the exact kind of thing that is going to hold us back from ever making any real change in the laws in regards to adoption. The changes will only come from adoptees and mothers working together, as the paps only want easier, quicker and (most importantly) cheaper adoptions.
To be honest, the vast majority of “Anti-adoptionists” are mothers who have lost their own babies to adoption. Why would anyone involved want those voices to be stilled? Why isn’t everyone who is interested in Open Records and in Adoption Reform lining up behind them, since they are the voice of experience, instead of, once again, like the people who orchestrated their losses in the first place, attempting to distance themselves from their experience? This mystifies me. Is it that the level of pain and anguish that would sustain itself for decades is too uncomfortable for others to deal with, so they just want them to shut up, shut up, shut up?
Is it that the idea of someone wanting justice for themselves is a right only reserved for the adopted person? Before there was an adopted person demanding their rights, there was a young, unprotected, frightened, lonely, woman whose rights were trampled into the dust so that her baby could grow up to BE an adopted adult.
Sandy says: To be honest, the vast majority of “Anti-adoptionists” are mothers who have lost their own babies to adoption. Why would anyone involved want those voices to be stilled? Why isn’t everyone who is interested in Open Records and in Adoption Reform lining up behind them, since they are the voice of experience,
Good point Sandy.
I’m no shrink but it sure sounds to me like Verrier’s “Primal Wound” theory is playing a part in alot of this disproportionate rage at whomever they deem to be “anti-adoptionists”.
It very well could be part of their need to sabotage everything in their lives because their mommy left abandoned them. Otherwise why continue to throw stones at the same people they need to help convince legislators that they should have access to their own records? I see adopted people who are their own worst enemy in this respect – lashing out at uppity natural moms who speak out about our rights, yet insisting that we help them in their quest.
So what if someone is anti-adoption? I continue to maintain that it is a personal belief not unlike whether someone is pro-choice vs. pro-life. To vilify an individual who has developed an opinion based on their own experience is self-defeating when looking at the big picture of adoption reform.
Drawing lines in the sand is equally destructive – them and us. The fighting goes on and nothing gets done. Do these people really think we’re going to wake up one day and say “you’re right, adoption is good”? It’s an impossible expectation. Our opinion was formed based on our own expectation. Don’t “tow the company line” if that’s what you think it is, but stop spewing hatred at anyone who views adoption differently and then expect us to help your cause.
There’s a part of me that wants to scream out to these stubborn adoptees sulking around trying to convince themselves that adoption is a such a wonderful institution for all – Grow UP! Get out of your own heads and do something productive instead of constantly trying to create chaos amongst groups.
The changes will only come from adoptees and mothers working together.
Of course I don’t speak for all adoptees. But, the only change I care beans about is opening records. If and when that happens, no one will hear another peep out of me. I’m sorry if that makes some of you natural mothers mad or unsupportive of the cause. I don’t see it as much of a loss.
The more I see some of the crackpots here yammering on about evil adopters, the bloated adoption industry, and blaming everyone other than themselves for what happened, the more I understand why open records has never gotten any further than it has.
I don’t think most of you understand anough about politics to get a city council to pass a leash law. And I don’t need to hear anymore about Australia. This aint OZ, Dorothy. Pass a law here in the states and I’ll take notice.
To anon. adoptee who wrote:
“the only change I care beans about is opening records.”
If all you care about is getting access to some old pieces of paper cobbled up by unregulated powertrippers to cover up their own crimes aganst humanity, then why bother at all? What is it you think you will find in this junk? Adoption = lies. Adoption is intended to = lies. Everyone involved in an adoption has been lied to. And liars are liars are liars.
I was reminded of adoption this morning while reading the paper. There was a thoughtful article about the response of the Catholic Priest who molested Mark Foley. The Priest denied he did anything wrong, just as Social Workers who took millions of babies from their mothers during the BSE deny they did anything wrong. According to the article, this is the standard “distorted thinking” of offenders.
And then there is a quote from an expert on abuse that anyone who does actually get records needs to remember: “The priest (or adoption social worker) is very focused on the legalities here and I think it’s important for the rest of us to see the enormous power differential between these two (a molested child and a priest or a demonized mother and a social worker).”
Opening records across N.A would mean a whole lot more than just enabling people to get hold of a few crappy old pieces of paper.
It would mean adopted people would have access to their own information and history, JUST LIKE THE REST OF THE POPULATION.
And since closed records are symptomatic of the culture of shame that stigmatised and hurt so many by treating adoptees as property and their biological mothers like criminals and continues to do so, their demise would be a mortal blow to the adoption industry as practised in America today.
“I am writing this book becasue it is absolutely imparitive that women who were coerced into relinquishing their children to the closed system of adoptin be heard.”
Jack,
I am a mom who suffered a coerced adoption.
I too feel that it is imperative that we be heard.
It is absolutely imperative that the public understand what actually happened and what motivated people in those days, in order to understand what is possible today in the current political climate. People need this information in order to protect their daughters and granddaughters from those who would exploit them in the future.
To this end I have just completed filming and editing a 50 minute documentary in which four moms who suffered coerced child loss to adoption relate their personal experiences with the system.
This film, called “Love, War, Adoption” contains riveting personal stories and is part of a two volume set. The second part focuses on socio-political commentary from these same four women.
The film trailer has been running as a stand alone segment on BravoCanada as part of an arts series since 2002.
A rough cut of the film was shown at the Shedding Light On Adoption Conference held last month in Manhattan. Right in the middle of the film, the DVD player ran into difficulties and I made the decision to switch to VHS. I got up to switch media players, and asked the 60 people assembled if they wanted to see the rest, or should we just quit right here and go to dinner. I got through “Do you guys want to see the rest….” and the audience screamed “YES!”
Best critique a person could have, and a measure of the level of interest such a work can generate.
I am very interested in getting this film out to the public.
Is there any way you, with your connections, can help me?
Please email me — suziekidnap(at)hotmail(dot)com –and I will arrange for you to see this film.
Anonymous believes – “crackpots here yammering on about evil adopters, the bloated adoption industry, and blaming everyone other what happened, the more I understand why open records has never gotten any further than it has.
I beg to differ with you. It’s folks with attitude like this that have kept “open records” closed in most states. If you knew as much as you profess to know about passing leash laws – you would understand the need for unity.
You’ve gotten nowhere fast with your POV. Is it possible there is a better way? Or will you continue on with your raging and insults directed at any of us who feel differently? Doing and saying the same things over and over and expecting different results is a tad bit naive, my dear adoptee.
It’s folks with attitude like this that have kept “open records” closed in most states.
You mean people who label others as “communists” “riverboat gamblers” and “coke” partyers don’t have credibility with state lawmakers??
Who knew?
Anonomous said: “Did adoption go too far in America in the past? Of course it did. The fact we have to fight so hard for open records is proof of that.”
Then no wonder you still have closed records in the US if that’s the only complaint you have about adoption.
What few of you get is that your human rights were contravened at the point at which you were deleted from your family of origin without being given any say in the matter.
If you don’t care that you were one of those babies wrenched away from those mothers who were denied their rights in the past, then why should anyone else care that your rights were denied too? Afterall, it was your mother being denied her rights at the time of your birth that automatically lost you your own in consequence.
Di
Here’s the deal about the opening of records…you will get your OBC, maybe, and that is about it. The rest of the records contain the mother’s medical history, and that you are not entitled to, by privacy (HIPAA)law. Adoptees didn’t have any history in the records, because they didn’t have any history. They were just born. In order to find your medical history, or any history for that matter, you will have to get in touch with the woman who gave birth to you. And, if you are only interested in your history, via the opening of records, sucks to be you!
kippa wrote regarding opening records:
“adopted people would have access to their own information and history, JUST LIKE THE REST OF THE POPULATION.”
No, Kippa, sorry to disillusion you, but it would be nothing like the rest of the population. I feel qualified to say that because I was raised in my real family and have raised my own real family. And it would be nothing like that.
I’m old and my taken child is middle-aged. I found him a number of years ago, and we have built up quite a pleasant little history of our own. Real family history. Just like the rest of the population.
I’m all for opening the records. But records are biased, fabricated and sterile and cannot take the place of real life which is juicy and good.
The Mother wrote:
I’m all for opening the records. But records are biased, fabricated and sterile and cannot take the place of real life which is juicy and good.
I reply:
Everyone but adoptees in 5 states are allowed to have their own birth certificates. That has nothing to do with relationsihps. BCs are legal documents. Relationships are personal decisions rooted in power.
Boring is the worst crime. The typical US bourgie family is boring. To say that it is juicy and good is, well…. weird.
To Suzie K–
You know I’ll help you get the word out abut the film.
Marley
Carol wrote:So what if someone is anti-adoption? I continue to maintain that it is a personal belief not unlike whether someone is pro-choice vs. pro-life. To vilify an individual who has developed an opinion based on their own experience is self-defeating when looking at the big picture of adoption reform.”
I don’t disagree with you. It makes no difference to me if somebody is anti-adoption. But it’s’ a bad idea to hang that on the legislataive process. If anybody has done that and has been successful legislatively, please report in.
The only way to end adoption is to end procreation, which would be fine by me. I really don’t want to look at your “cute kid” or pay taxes to support its schooling, welfare, and incarceration when it goes to jail. But, that will never fly with the essentialists.
Marley opines – I don’t disagree with you. It makes no difference to me if somebody is anti-adoption. But it’s’ a bad idea to hang that on the legislataive process.
…and I don’t disagree with you that it would be futile to hang someone’s support of current adoption practices or lack thereof, on the legislative process. But with all due respect, who said it did?
This sounds to me like a bit of a mixed message. You have a blog here with topics such as “Is adoption anti-family”? and then when individuals speak up with their opinion – they’re insulted if it’s not in agreement with others on the board.
Those of us who aren’t crazy about adoption are called crackpots and told that we know nothing about legislative issues. Marley, if your blog is only about “legislative issues”, then make it clear that’s all you want addressed here.
Personally, I think that the naive adoptees who insist ad nauseum that all they want is their records open, are pretty damn naive. They want and quite frankly need, natural parents to support them on this issue if they are to change minds and laws in the remaining states. Yet by drawing lines in the sand and insisting they don’t wish to discuss anyone’s feelings – they set any kind of reform attempts back. This fighting about who is anti-adoption and who is not has been going on for the past two years. It should be a non-issue.
You keep insisting that the typical US bourgie family is boring. That very well might be the case but personally I disagree with that being a crime as you state. Nor would I take you to task for such a belief based on apparantly, your own experience. And I guess you can get away with what seems like outrageous comments because this is your blog. It has nothing to do with the legislative process, just an opinion you are sharing with us.
I appreciate your newest blog reminding people that all this in-fighting is not the answer. But I think you need to be a bit harsher with some of your angry followers who hide behind anonymity and spew hatred at mothers or people they call anti-adoptionists under the guise of only wanting “Open Records for Adoptees”. You know very well that attitude is perpetuating the lack of progress adoption reform is making.
Speaking only for me, I don’t really care to help much in an open records campaign for adoptees when my own issues are totally marginalized by these same skulking adoptees who want/need my support.
And a suggestion for future blogs might be that if you aren’t really interested in anything but dialog on how to further the legislative process on open records – then don’t pose provocative questions to your guests who come here. No one wishes to respond to a question and then be told we’re off track because our opinion has nothing to do with opening records. JMO
To Suzie K–
Hi Susie, I was in that room when your film was shown at the “Shedding Light on Adoption” Conference. I can attest that it is powerful and that you’ve done an excellent job of conveying the impact on moms who suffered coerced child loss to adoption.
I was really touched at the end of the day by the reaction of the adoptees who saw it, too.
Anything I can do to help get the word out in my state, I will do. It was also great to meet you in person – you are an incredibly talented woman.
Marley, I don’t know how anyone can say they know the legislative process when they overlook the adoption process. How anyone can say they know both processes and still see a positive side of adoption is absolutely unbelievable.
The Mother condescending intones, as if she is the only person authorized by experience to speak on the subject, “No, Kippa, sorry to disillusion you, but it would be nothing like the rest of the population. I feel qualified to say that because I was raised in my real family and have raised my own real family. And it would be nothing like that.”
She continues, “I’m old and my taken child is middle-aged. I found him a number of years ago, and we have built up quite a pleasant little history of our own. Real family history. Just like the rest of the population.”
My own experience in all of these respects mirrors yours exactly. However, in our case, if those biased, fabricated and sterile records hadn’t been opened, we would in all likelhood never have had that opportunity.
Our own very positive reunion notwithstanding, it’s my belief that the opening of records and access to original b.cs is important in and of itself.
And it would be a crucial step towards changing the attitudes and reversing the process that created the adoption business in N.A in the first place.
“I’m no shrink but it sure sounds to me like Verrier’s “Primal Wound” theory is playing a part in alot of this disproportionate rage at whomever they deem to be “anti-adoptionists”.”
If you’re not a shrink then why pretend to be one? If you cringe at the term “birth mother” since you feel it has been coopted by the adoption industry, then why embrace a dubious and untested psychological theory created by an adoptive mother which itself is increasingly promoted by the adoption professionals?
Would you describe Malcolm X has having exhibiting symptoms of Black Primal Wound Syndrome?
bb says,If you’re not a shrink then why pretend to be one? If you cringe at the term “birth mother” since you feel it has been coopted by the adoption industry, then why embrace a dubious and untested psychological theory
Please stop with the quibbling. I am not pretending to be a shrink by expressing an opinion. And where do you get off telling me I cringe at the word “birth mother”. In my case, I just don’t care for it but I don’t freak out if someone innocently refers to me as such.
bb. I am not generalizing. I have found a son who is one fuc**d up individual. You can say the Primal Wound is just a theory, but my son has been to no less than 7 or 8 therapists before and after our reunion. His abandonment issues have played a large part in his inability to function in life according to not just one adoptive mother (Verrier) but other highly respected professionals in the mental health field.
Why constantly look for differences between our positions rather than similarities which could finally help establish a sense of unity.
I am so tired of defending my own adoption experience, my own found son’s issues and my own point of view to someone who is just looking for a fight. If I wish to call his issues part of a primal wound, nothing you can say will stop me. In his case he had lousy adopters too.
I was responding to a blog entitled “Is Adoption Anti-Family” and expressed my own opinion of such. Go fight with someone else – this is pointless.
BB Church wrote:
Would you describe Malcolm X has having exhibiting symptoms of Black Primal Wound Syndrome?
I reply:
There is no dispute: adoption is psychologicallly harmful to many adoptees and parents involved in it.
The problem with feminized deformers is they prefer the self-identified medical model over the policy or political model. I’ve known lots of pissed off African-Americans, Chicanos, women, and queers (not assimilationist gays) who understand their status in term of cultural white, patriarchial hegenomy. They understand the terms of cultural class warfare. They do not take their status as “personal” and they are not psychologically damanged by their “lower status.” Their aim, instead, is to take what is theirs, and to not stew around on the therapist’s couch and read self- help books. They grasp the politics of their lives.
I have often referred to adoption as the commodification of the intimate.
Many adoptees and natural parents, then, and not without good reason, remain in a personal mode of ahistorical, non- and anti-political self-defeat and all-about-me-ism: my mommie didn’t want me or my kid is ungrateful. And that’s what’s got to be put aside–at least in the public fora. Political change doesn’t happen because people are “wounded,” are “psychologically damanged” or their feelings are hurt. Change happens when you can cause pain to power.
The issue or that last 60+ years is the state has willy-nillly has wiped out the identity, realtionships, and geneology of those it views culturally subversive )mainly middle class white folks. It has done this under the guise of “for your own good,”and in happy terms such as “family” and “baybee saving.” It is fueled by an ideology of conversion both Christian or secular. It’s about “responsible citizenship.”
I have alwalys compared the adoptee rights movement with the labor movement and civil rights movement. If Malcolm had embraced a psychologiocal model, he’d have remained a porter. If Rosa Parks ahd gone to thearpy, she’d have ridden in the back of the bus unitl she died.
The dead-end adoption deform movement is a feminized state-sucking movement, and until it puts its boots on and stops the weeping and wounding, it won’t go very far.
Marley
Anon wrote:
Marley, I don’t know how anyone can say they know the legislative process when they overlook the adoption process. How anyone can say they know both processes and still see a positive side of adoption is absolutely unbelievable.
9:56 AM
I reply:
If you think that lawmakers care about the adoption process, how it harms individuals and families then you need to sit in on a few hearings. They don’t care. THEY DON”T CARE. It’s all about, “if it saves just one….”
The personal informs the political, but unless a personal narrative is honed and developed, and used stratetgically, leggies just get embarassed and want you to go away. The hate you. They hate us.
I wish you all could have been at the hearing in Maine to see just how much we are all hated.
Marley
“Why constantly look for differences between our positions rather than similarities which could finally help establish a sense of unity.”
Unity comes from trust, and trust comes from the respect of boundaries. It really pushes my buttons when people denigrate adoptee anger as pathological. First mothers and adoptees have as much a right to their anger based on their existential realities as any groups I know. It doesn’t build unity to pathologize people by group. First mothers were pathologized by group which led to this whole mess. That we are still doing it to each other is sadly predictable, which is why I suggest folks read Pedagogy of the Oppressed instead of the Primal Wound.
“I am so tired of defending my own adoption experience, my own found son’s issues and my own point of view to someone who is just looking for a fight.”
Get off it. Your adoption experience doesn’t give you the right to make flip psychological diagnoses over the internet. Your son’s diagnoses doesn’t give you the right to diagnose someone you don’t know as mentally ill.
“If I wish to call his issues part of a primal wound, nothing you can say will stop me.”
Yeah, yeah. So that gives you the right to opine that adoptees other than your son are acting out of their “primal wound”? I actually know Nancy Verrier, and have spoken with her extensively about the political ramifications of her theory. She regrets that it’s been used to further marginalize adoptees whose anger is trivialized by snap amatuer diagnoses.
“In his case he had lousy adopters too.”
No doubt.
“I was responding to a blog entitled “Is Adoption Anti-Family” and expressed my own opinion of such. Go fight with someone else – this is pointless.”
It’s not pointless, it’s as important as any of the other discourses on language that have sprung up here and in other fora. Unity is not enhanced by opining that folks are mentally ill, if nothing else it acts as an invalidation of the person’s existential reality. We see this going both ways in this discourse; first mothers being called crazy. It’s the same with the “angry adoptee acting out of their primal wound”. Not all adoptees are primaly wounded, Verrier will tell you that. Let’s move on…
Yeah, yeah. So that gives you the right to opine that adoptees other than your son are acting out of their “primal wound”? I actually know Nancy Verrier, and have spoken with her extensively about the political ramifications of her theory. She regrets that it’s been used to further marginalize adoptees whose anger is trivialized by snap amatuer diagnoses.
Look buddy. I actually know Nancy Verrier too, perhaps even longer than you. And in fact my son spent a year in therapy at my insistence with her when he lived in SF. Feel free to mention my name when you next talk.
Never once did I say I agreed with everything Verrier has said. However, based on my own experience hanging out with my own and hundreds of adoptee friends, I will say that I believe I see alot of sabatoging going on here. Don’t like me saying that? Too bad. You’ve behaved despicably. But this is your house of cards, big bad know it all BN.
I have no interest in continuing to quibble with you. My opinion is my opinion. Go get your damn records open yourself. I can assure you that I will not be back – this is crazymaking and self defeating. I’ve got better things to do with my time and talent. I honestly thought there would be a way to compromise but this is like hanging out with a bunch of rude little crying babies. It’s always something that we mommies do wrong, isn’t it?
Bye Bye. Go turn off more mommies sweetie.
That last post was from me. I want to make sure bb knows who was responding to totally out of context, pugnacious responses. For some reason word verification came up as the posters name. I do not feel the need to hide my identity.
so again, here is the flip statement I made based on my own observation and I stand by it.
“sure sounds to me like Verrier’s “Primal Wound” theory is playing a part in alot of this disproportionate rage at whomever they deem to be “anti-adoptionists”.
“Unity comes from trust, and trust comes from the respect of boundaries.”
I’ll give you that much.
Do you grasp the fact that women whose bodies (and hearts, and souls, and minds) were exploited for the financial gain of adoptionists have had their boundaries violated in a most egregious manner?
For instance, my womb was pried open with pitocin, I was shot full of sedatives, I was tied down to a delivery table with leather restraints, and then my child was pulled out of my body with forceps.
These were more than boundary violations, although they were certainly that. These were crimes, as` far as I am concerned.
That these things happened in 1968 and not 2006 make them no less a crime against me. That I was 18, naive, and seriously intimidated — and not 56 and furious — makes it no less a crime against me.
That these crimes have never been acknowledged by the adoption industry makes it hard to want to trust anyone involved with the adoption industry – or the adoption community.
To see posts on the internet from people associated with the adoption industry and/or community suggesting that women like me are deviants or substance abusers or any other number of horrid lies only adds insult to injury.
I don’t see you, bb church, out telling members of he adoption community to keep their filthy thoughts to themselves.
I don’t see you asking your compatriots to please show some respect for us who literally are their mothers.
And, I don’t see any apology coming from within the ranks of the adoption community for the crimes commited long ago.
I don’t even see a glimmer of understanding that our boundaries were violated, much less in a criminal fashion!
When I see an understanding of our histories demonstrated by respect shown for OUR boundaries, I may be ready to speak peaceably with the adoption community.
But let’s get it straight.
The adoption community declared war on me first.
People within the adoption community continue to make war on me and others like me by their ill advised, counterproductive, personal attacks on women who have lost children to adoption.
If you want people to respect your boundaries, you can make a start by respecting other peoples’ boundaries.
When you guys “get” that on a level other than lip service and marginalizing, and begin to demonstrate respect and understanding, you will have begun to get it.
That’s my opinion.
ps Marley, Carol, thanks for the good words. I’m working on it and will be in touch.
kidnap,
thank you..you have done an excellent job of explaining why adoption is anti-family. A system which violates mothers(and their babies) in such a criminal manner is anti-family.
Your story is my story, too.
I wanted my child, but he was taken from me..against my will.
bbchurch: I do agree with you that the parents who have lost children to the foster/adopt system(CPS) have a connection to the mothers of the BSE.Some of us from the BSE weere threatened with court terminations if we didn’t sign the surrender..and some of us placed our children in foster care “temporarily” and then were unable to get them back.We were proclaimed “unfit” because we were unmarried and had no support…even if our families were well-off, and well-educated.
The child welfare/”placement” system is a huge government/religious/secular business that needs a constant supply of babies and children to keep operating…and they keep inventing new reasons to take children.
I have worked in politics/legislation for many years on these issues and the people who are beginning to get some attention are the “minority” parents…they are getting somewhere in the legislatures and the media is paying them some attention too.
Kidnap: “But let’s get it straight.
The adoption community declared war on me first.”
Truer words have never been spoken.
You have hit upon the heart of the matter.
Di
“Do you grasp the fact that women whose bodies (and hearts, and souls, and minds) were exploited for the financial gain of adoptionists have had their boundaries violated in a most egregious manner?”
Yes.
“I don’t see you asking your compatriots to please show some respect for us who literally are their mothers.”
You aren’t their mothers, unless by some slim chance you happen to be their actual mother. I respect your experiences and your history as a human being, not as my “mother”, or as a “mother”. I respect you as an adult possesing personal autonomy.
“If you want people to respect your boundaries, you can make a start by respecting other peoples’ boundaries.”
I do, generally, and if and when I don’t, let me know.
“But this is your house of cards, big bad know it all BN.”
I do not represent Bastard Nation, I don’t hold a position of leadership in BN, haven’t since 2001, and would probably not have reupped my membership but I am on lifetime membership. I speak for myself.
“Bye Bye. Go turn off more mommies sweetie.”
“so again, here is the flip statement I made based on my own observation and I stand by it.
“sure sounds to me like Verrier’s “Primal Wound” theory is playing a part in alot of this disproportionate rage at whomever they deem to be “anti-adoptionists”.
Look, you can say what you want, but my response is going to be the same – it is a very dangerous game to pathologize people, especially based on their group status (in this case, adoptees), it may “feel” right to you, it may even be a correct diagnoses individually. But for us, who have as mothers and adoptees, been the objects of various pernicious theories of pathologies used to systematically disempower us, it is simply wrong.
Marley said,
If you think that lawmakers care about the adoption process, how it harms individuals and families then you need to sit in on a few hearings. They don’t care. THEY DON”T CARE. It’s all about, “if it saves just one….”
The personal informs the political, but unless a personal narrative is honed and developed, and used stratetgically, leggies just get embarassed and want you to go away. The hate you. They hate us.
I wish you all could have been at the hearing in Maine to see just how much we are all hated.
Marley, I agree with you, the personal informs the political. When talking about the adoption process I don’t mean how it harms individuals and families. I’m talking about the methods and means. I think what frustrates many mothers is that some of our children aren’t willing to see what your seeing first hand. We know they don’t care, we know the hatred for us (mothers and adoptees). We experienced it. We saw the faces and heard the words back when our children we’re taken. It’s not to imagine a young, trusting, vulnerable pregnant girl facing the “help” of these professionals. What chance could she and her baby have had.
clarification: the part in italics is referring to the lawmakers not our children.
I said:
“I think what frustrates many mothers is that some of our children aren’t willing to see what your seeing first hand. We know they don’t care, we know the hatred for us (mothers and adoptees).”
Truer words have never been spoken.
You have hit upon the heart of the matter.
War On Women, Di.
That’s what adoption is.
‘”War on women”..
True..and what makes it even worse is that these adoption crimes were perpetrated on women by women..and still are happening.
Kidnap: War On Women, Di.
That’s what adoption is.
It certainly is, Kidnap. I’ve just never seen it described so succinctly before.
Di
It certainly is, Kidnap. I’ve just never seen it described so succinctly before.
That W in our pResident’s middle name stands for War, Di.
Just ask the American right wing.
Some of them are simply nationalists who are concerned with Empire and imperialism. The rest of them are far more ambitious and want to conquer half the human race – women.
True..and what makes it even worse is that these adoption crimes were perpetrated on women by women..and still are happening.
This is what concerns me more than everything else, kitta. Now and the future.
From my viewpoint, the best way to fight the industry to the death is to educate the public about the sequelae of adoption.
IMO, showing people the human toll it takes is the best deterrent there is.
Kidnap, Kitta-
Very well said…both of you. You are spot on, I believe, about the fact that women are victimizing other women. That is the problem with adoption and abortion being spoken in the same breath. If adoption is viewed as a solution to the “problem” of abortion, then it will continue to be hailed in the name of religion. When it is instead shown to be what it truly is, the exploitation of the weak and resourceless by the powerful, then it will perhaps fall under some criticism.
As long as the industry is allowed to define the playing field, we who are in opposition are forced to play by the rules they establish, and we spend time trying to “educate” an unwilling audience. Instead of that, let’s try to set up our own playing field. Instead of explaining, apologizing, and being the “nice” girls we were trained to be, let’s get a little leaner and meaner! Let’s spend some time going on the attack! Let’s just occasionally lay out the ground rules and establish our own playing field.
We have spent years discussing the “b” word, what to call the people who adopt or who want to adopt, and a myriad of minute details that, while important, are not center to the fact that women have been exploited for decades for the fruit of their wombs to be relocated with more powerful people than they. The players have changed, but the playing field is the same now as it was years ago. Now it is more foreign-born babies, and CPS, but it is essentially the same. Weak and unempowered women are losing their babies for someone else’s profit.
In my opinion, we should be really, really mad! We should be on the attack each time we view someone exploiting another such as the family of the babies that Angelina Jolie and Madonna adopted. Has anyone forgotten the grandmother of the Jolie adoption? Has anyone seen the father and grandmother of the Madonna baby? These people were clueless! They do not have the level of sophistication and legal background to understand that they are surrendering their babies forever to these self-righteous and entitled women. If we, raised in the US, the land of the free, were not sophisticated enough to stop it when we lost our own babies, how can anyone expect these poor people to not succumb to the pressure?
However, on the bright side, the Madonna adoption debacle has certainly brought the issue of adoption abuse to the forefront! The more exploitative the celebrity, the better and more credible we look! But, it cannot be allowed to be overlooked, I don’t think. Maybe we should do some exploiting of our own! Let’s go on the offense for once!
I watched Hannity and Colmes (Fox)a week or so ago.
Hannity was screaming over Madonna’s adoption fiasco and how she is exploiting the father, baby and grandmother. Down right stealing a baby.
Maybe, we could start there? Writing to or emailing Hannity and letting him know this type of exploitation happens HERE in the good old USA.
He being a Republican, might balk at that, but it might be the chance to get some educating done to him. Maybe he might present all sides, thats if he isn’t a “religious” Republican.
Heck, I don’t care if he’s Democrat, if he wants to talk about adoption and the exploitation,,lets go for it.
Anon said: Heck, I don’t care if he’s Democrat, if he wants to talk about adoption and the exploitation,,lets go for it.
Here’s the link. Let’s do it. Every single comment counts.
For FOXNews.com comments write to [email protected];
For FOX News Channel comments write to [email protected]
Kidnap: with reference to the war on women, back in the 70s, a few years after I lost my child to the adoption machine, I called the National Organization for Women. They were a new group then, and I didn’t know much about them. I did know they claimed to stand for ‘reproductive rights for women”…and I considered them to be a liberal “left wing” group….and I considered that my reproductive rights had been violated during and after my pregnancy. The state where I lived had already legalized abortion, before Roe v Wade.
So, I called NOW and I talked to a young woman on the phone. I told her I had lost my child to adoption, against my will, and I asked her what NOW was doing for mothers like me…whose children were taken.
She thought for a minute and said,”Well, that is why we have to make sure that abortion stays safe and legal.”
She had not “heard” me at all and totally discounted my position as a mother and a woman.
I hung up in disgust and realized then that adoption was not a partisan issue.
Twenty-some years later, when I was working on an adoption records access bill, I was only mildly surprised to receive a phone call from the abortion rights group, NARAL, who stated their position as “opposing adoptee access to original birth certificates.” The NARAL woman told me that adoption was a “private reproductive medical choice just like abortion” and so therefore the records should be sealed like any other medical records would be. I told her we are not opening them to the public, just to the people whose records they were. She said that she had a woman working for her at NARAL who “would have had an abortion but she was promised confidentiality and so she decided to give the child up for adoption instead”.
It was a bizarre conversation…she sounded just like Bill Pierce…but this was NARAL… and they have proven to be a problem with other mother/baby legislation as well…to the point of overreaching their “concern’ with “privacy for women” so that it becomes destructive .
Kitta–
I don’t have time until after the elction is over, but I’d really like to talk to you (phone or email) about your NARAL experience. This is just the kind of stuff I’m looking for.
Marley
“”Hannity “” and “FOX News”..
You have got to be kidding!!!
Kidnap said…
Some of them are simply nationalists who are concerned with Empire and imperialism.
maybe someone should give them a lesson in social history. We know the historical fate of all other great empire builders. They all eventually ended up becoming tourist resorts after sending themselves broke conquoring other countries instead of looking after their own backyards. See Rome, Portugal, Spain, England, Germany, Russia. The war debt Mr dubbya is heading the US in the same direction.
…. The rest of them are far more ambitious and want to conquer half the human race – women.
Which will serve us all right if we don’t take a stand.
Di
Which will serve us all right if we don’t take a stand.
A lesson that many younger women are just now learning, to all our griefs.
The lesson of history is that people don’t learn from history ;
Kidnap said…A lesson that many younger women are just now learning, to all our griefs.
Sadly so Kidnap. What those ever so clever adoption professionals whopromote open adoption don’t get is that its not the way in which a mother and child are separated from each other that creates the damage, it’s THAT they are separated from each other in the first place.
K: The lessen of history is that people don’t learn from history ;
Unless it is addressed and those
offenders made accountable.
Di
“…is that its not the way in which a mother and child are separated from each other that creates the damage, it’s THAT they are separated from each other in the first place.”
The only diference I see with open adoption is that there is another person who can be owned by the adoptors, and that is the child’s mother.
Women who enter into an open adoption are volunteering to be yanked around by the short hairs for at least 18 years.
How gratifying for people who need someone to push around.
Open adoption is a two-fer.
Kidnap: The only diference I see with open adoption is that there is another person who can be owned by the adoptors, and that is the child’s mother.
Women who enter into an open adoption are volunteering to be yanked around by the short hairs for at least 18 years.”
They unfortunately are but how does one warn them of their fate? We’re dealing with a young mum here who lost her baby to open adoption 8 years ago. What she is going through is a tragedy beyond words. She has to either play at being the dancing bear for her child’s abductors or risk never seeing her daughter again. The one saving grace she hangs onto is that she has the Court reports showing how her abductors fought her in Court for her baby. The day will come when she will be able to tell her daughter how she was stolen from her. The adopters know this is what’s in store for them in a few years and, until recently, couldn’t care less. Now they’re getting worried that she hasn’t come to terms wth the abduction of her child like they thought she would by now. The female adopter beleives she was meant to have this baby. She’s a nurse, and a real psycho. The male feels guilty but his wife, Nurse Ratshit, is the one wearing the trousers in the family.
Here the agencies advertise to the pregnant mothers that they can have as much contact, open or closed, as they want.The adopters are coached to convince the mother that they will respect what the mother wants. It is false advertising, misleading, in my opinion, because it gives the mothers the idea they will have some control after the adoption is done, when they actually have none.
I don’t know why this kind of business parctice can be considered legal. We all know adoption is corrupt, but as a business, it ought to have some rules to abide by.
kitta3
I know. It’s tragic. Agencies are not allowed to advertise here in Aus in any way shape or form. Advertising the location of the agency is all that is allowed. Promotion of adoption is forbidden as its seen as enticement/coercion, which of course is in breach of the Adoption Statutes. the State covers al the mother medical costs so havign ababy is free, unles syou want your own private doctor in which case you have to be privately insured.
………I don’t know why this kind of business parctice can be considered legal.
It wouldn’t be in any other part of the world. I suspect it isn’t in the US either but until someone challeneges it in a court of law the Govt will continue to turn a blind eye to the corruption and pretend its what the mothers wanted.
Unfortunately the mother I mentioned lost her baby in NZ not Australia. The adopters now live here in Aus too. NZ has antiquated adoption laws that still allow private transactions and there is no revocation period. her church got to her, the cousellor was an adopter, the attorney was an adopter. The adopters who got her baby were two unemployed psych nurses when the pro adoption appeals judge gave them her child after the first judge had handed her back her baby.
Di
Di,
I know a mother here in my state in a similar situation. She allowed her baby to go with fosterers temporarily right after birth and then decided to revoke the consent….two days later. The judge in her state handed custody of the baby back to her. She, the baby and the babys father were all residents of another state, but the fosterers live here in my state and the supreme court here is granting custody to the fosterers. The mother has moved here to be near her child..she has some legal visitation with him. But she also has to pay the fosterers child support!It is an outrage and totally evil.
Holy Mother of God Kitta! is it permanent custody? and if the judge ordered it why should she have to pay as well?
She is still the legal parent. She still has parental rights.She does not have custody, because the Supreme Court ruled that it was in her childs best interest to remain with the fosterers based on the fact that he had spent several months with them(because they refused to return him to her)….all junk science crap…fake ‘bonding’ garbage..nothing but legalized kidnapping.And she is paying the kidnappers.
I have not spoken to her in half a year, so I don’t know what is happening now…I did refer her to a good parents rights attorney..her last one wasn’t too good. Last I knew, it wasn’t yet permanent, but the fosterers were hoping it would be. . There is nothing they won’t do to wear a mother or father down here.
Parents whose children are in foster care often have to pay.And the taxpayers also are paying. The system in the USA is an outrage.And what is amazing is the level of ignorance in this country..the average person doesn’t know how bad it is. People think that foster care and adoption are charities. They don’t even know who is paying.
The government contracts with private agencies like Catholic Charities and LDS Family Services to do foster care. The government social workers grab kids and then the agencies place them in foster care families who are paid, of course. The taxpayers pay and so do the parents of the children, sometimes.The states get bonus money if the children are adopted so there is no incentive to return children to their families.
kitta3 said…
Tragic, for both mother and child. This ignorant concept that babies bond with any old person at birth is an abomination that that legal profession uses to justify the theft of babies. By implication, any sick newborn should remain forever in the hospital as it would have bonded with the intensive care nurses during its first few days/weeks of life. Would that happen if the baby’s parents were married? And if not, why not?
…….She is still the legal parent. She still has parental rights.
How does that work? if she is still the legal parent then they would have to obtain her permission before they even cut the child’s hair.
I hope she has managed to save her child from those monsters. There is something decidedly cruel and audacious about people who believe they have a right to another woman’s child. Only a ‘certain kind’ of human (and I use the term loosely) could be so audacious. I imagine there’s a special place in hell for them.
……..The system in the USA is an outrage.
Yes it is. The rest of the world sees it for what it is. Including our legal systems who use it as a bad example when reviewing our child protection laws. Cold comfort I know.
Di
Di or Kitta or somebodoy wrote:
Tragic, for both mother and child. This ignorant concept that babies bond with any old person at birth is an abomination that that legal profession uses to justify the theft of babies.
Marley:
I have to disagree with you–and pro-adoptioners on this. You all sentimentalize sprog. “Bonding” is a touchy-feely leisure class activity developed by tit nazis and liberals to justify staying home and doing nothing all day but baybee sit. Babies are stupid. They “bond” with any idiot who has nothing better to do than pay attention to them. They’d bond with a lamppost if it fed them.
Marley
Marley, all I can say is that if you had one, you’d know differently. motherhood is a transforming experience, when it wasn’t abrupted.
Marley said:
I have to disagree with you–and pro-adoptioners on this. You all sentimentalize sprog. “Bonding” is a touchy-feely leisure class activity developed by tit nazis and liberals to justify staying home and doing nothing all day but baybee sit. Babies are stupid. They “bond” with any idiot who has nothing better to do than pay attention to them. They’d bond with a lamppost if it fed them.
Marley, it was my son who told me he felt a “bond’ with me..I didn’t believe in that kind of thing from the childs point of view, considering the long separation.
But I did remember that when the nurses finally brought him, as a newborn, in to see me(after my doctor ordered them to), he would stop crying as soon as they placed him in my arms. The nurses were the ones who had been feeding him..so he should have “known them and bonded to them” ..but he didn’t.
I think newborns do know their mothers, after spending 9 months growing inside of the mothers body.
kitta3
Baby’s know the difference.
ie. My sister recently had her third child who had to be place in the neo-unit after birth.
When the baby’s big brother returned from a hospital visit he said the nurse told him that his baby’s heart rate improved the minute he heard his mother’s voice as she walked into the room.