NAM/NAAM Day 28: Stop Erasing the Adoptee Lived Experience. We Know Our Stories. You Don’t.

ike Annette, this is what riles me:  the troll that decides to “interpret” and re-write –in public no less!–someone else’s lived experience to fit their own mythology or own lived experience, which one would dare not ever question. Of course, this trollery isn’t limited to chasing down adopted people. This institutionalized trollery extends to every possible group and experience of everybody who isn’t them. Not a day goes by when I don’t read on Twitter the I-know-better-than-you-do-about-yourself crowd lectures to people of color, Jews, Muslims, atheists, Catholics, Protestants (SBCs love to correct other Protestants they deem doctrinally errant); the poor, alcoholics, drug addicts, the mentally ill, immigrants, queers, feminists, women who have had abortions, the childfree by choice, rape survivors, abuse survivors, Europeans, Democrats, academics, the under- and unemployed. and women in general. Not surprisingly, most of these trolls come from the dominant class who don’t want to share their American apple pie with us. Continue Reading →

NAM/NAAM 2004 Day 5: Adoption Agitprop, Annette Kicks It! and I Comment

November 3rd’s video on the subject of adoption propaganda really struck home with her discussion of among others, the adoptprop myth: “Your mother loved you so much she gave you away.”  While most adoption mythology and adoptprop bounce off my insensitive self, (that is, I don’t take it personally), this one always sets me off. It makes no sense. The height of cognitive adoption dissonance. The height of adoptee commodification. A weird binary of generosity and greed. How is this trope supposed to make someone, especially children, feel secure or good or ultimately safe and loved? Continue Reading →

Welcome to National Adoption Month/National Adoption Awareness Month 2023. Poke the Bear!

Greg Luce founder of the Adoptee Rights Law Center, reminded me tonight that I wrote this  NAM/NAAM blog way back in 2015, which explains the differences theoretically. Even though the intent appears to differ between each “celebration” the conclusion is always the same: praise, promotion, and support for a greatly flawed and failed social and child welfare experiment that abrogates and ignores the civil rights, and social, emotional, and mental welfare of those the experiment and the institutions it has created claim to nurture and protect. In socio-structural terms, the institution is more important than those it serves. Adoption, of course, finds itself in good company:  Continue Reading →