Kingston Support Group - PANGS
Samara
PANGS is a new self-help support group for adult adoptees and mothers
and fathers of children surrendered to adoption.
Set up with the assistance of Adoption Crossroads:
www.adoptioncrossroads.org
Breaking the silence, opening the door to our feelings, and giving
healing a chance
About me:
born in 1968 as Samara M. Snow,
surrendered to adoption at birth,
8 years into reunion with my natural mother
I am happy to announce that our first meeting is getting under way
this weekend! We will be meeting weekly in Kingston. If you would
like to join us, or if you have any questions, please contact me
(reply to author).
Contact:
Samara
for adoptees and natural parents
Johnny
"Samara" <pa...@live.ca> wrote in message
news:5f41944b-1890-4f22...@j28g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
Michelle la Belle
>
> - Show quoted text -
Working with Joe for the past few weeks has been very helpful to me.
If you're not interested in my support group, feel free to ignore my
posts.
Johnny
"Michelle la Belle" <amino...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:815cdf3a-657f-47a1...@64g2000hsw.googlegroups.com...
Hahahahahaha... a Joe Soll sock puppet!
deja.blues
"Michelle la Belle" <amino...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:815cdf3a-657f-47a1...@64g2000hsw.googlegroups.com...
If you're not interested in my support group, feel free to ignore my
posts."
So you're the OP?
Samara
> "Michelle la Belle" <aminotem...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:815cdf3a-657f-47a1...@64g2000hsw.googlegroups.com...
> "Working with Joe for the past few weeks has been very helpful to me.
> If you're not interested in my support group, feel free to ignore my
> posts."
>
> So you're the OP?
Sorry I don't know what "OP" means.
There is overwhelming evidence to support my belief that adoption is
detrimental to the emotional health of both adoptees and birth
mothers..............
http://www.uoregon.edu/~adoption/studies/SchechterOAC.htm
Marshall D. Schechter, "Observations on Adopted Children," 1960
Marshall Schechter, a psychiatrist in private practice in Beverly
Hills, California, reported in 1960 that adoptees were 100 times more
likely than non-adoptees to present a range of serious emotional
problems. Like a number of other contributions to the psychopathology
literature, Schechter's report was based on a tiny number of cases. He
presented information about 120 children seen in his practice between
1948 and 1953, of whom exactly sixteen (or 13.3 percent) were adopted.
Since adoptees numbered less than one-tenth of one percent in the
general population, adopted children were greatly over-represented in
his practice. Schechter's friend, Povl Toussieng, a child psychiatrist
at the famous Menninger Clinic, had also told him that up to one-third
of all children seen as outpatients at the clinic were adopted.
Schechter's own observations, confirmed by a trusted colleague, were
the basis for his conclusion. Adoption had an emotionally damaging
impact on child development.
What exactly was it about adoption that caused problems? According to
Schechter, the answer could be found in the psychoanalytic theory that
"object relations" (the first and closest ties formed between infants
and the adults who care for them) were crucial determinants of
personhood. Children could not cope with the knowledge that they had
been rejected by birth parents and no amount of reassurance that their
adoptive parents loved and wanted them could make up for the "severe
narcissistic injury" that adoption inflicted. Each and every one of
his sixteen cases illustrated "how the idea of adoption had woven
itself into the framework of the child's personality configuration."
Telling children they were adopted was mandatory, Schechter agreed,
but it also precipitated psychological difficulties. Carefully timing
and managing the details of telling could help mitigate the resulting
problems. (Later studies challenged this view. See, for example, the
excerpt from Benson Jaffee and David Fanshel, How They Fared in
Adoption.)
Schechter was not the first person to suggest that adoption posed
intrinsic psychological risks. As early as 1937, psychiatrist David
Levy presented case histories showing that adoptees suffered from
"primary affect hunger," a term he used to describe what is now called
attachment disorder. A number of other clinicians in the U.S. and
Britain published reports in the 1940s and 1950s about the deleterious
consequences of growing up "without genealogy." It was the boldness of
Schechter's claim that adopted children were much more likely to
become neurotic and psychotic that galvanized helping professionals
and therapeutic approaches to adoption. It also generated a great deal
of controversy. H. David Kirk, author of Shared Fate, called
Schechter's study "spurious." Many other researchers were equally
skeptical that adoption was the sort of risk factor Schechter
maintained it was.
Schechter's methodology drew the most fire. Small numbers of detailed
case histories had long been standard features of medical research and
psychiatrists renowned for their contributions to developmental
theory, including Sigmund Freud and Anna Freud, relied on them
extensively. But psychologists and social workers with training in
scientific research methods insisted that Schechter's sample was far
too small to be representative and disparaged his crude and inaccurate
statistical calculations. His research design was so flawed as to be
hopelessly unreliable.
Schechter responded by sending a questionnaire to members of the
Southern California Psychiatric Society and various regional
institutions. A follow-up report presented empirical data showing that
adoptees showed up in clinical populations everywhere at much higher
than average rates.
Schechter's account of the damage that adoption did to children was
vigorously contested during the 1960s. Today, it is widely accepted by
parents and professionals who agree that attachment and loss are at
the heart of what makes adoption a distinctive and difficult
experience. This consensus was efficiently summarized in a book that
Schechter co-edited with developmental psychologist David Brodzinsky:
The Psychology of Adoption (1990).
Banty
Samara says...
>
>On Feb 24, 7:09 pm, "deja.blues" <deja.bl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>"Michelle la Belle" <aminotem...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>messagenews:815cdf3a-657f-47a1...@64g2000hsw.googlegroups.com...
>> "Working with Joe for the past few weeks has been very helpful to me.
>> If you're not interested in my support group, feel free to ignore my
>> posts."
>>
>> So you're the OP?
>
>Sorry I don't know what "OP" means.
Original poster.
New around here, huh? For one thing, Usenet is worldwide. Very very few of us
live in Kingston. We don't care.
>
>There is overwhelming evidence to support my belief that adoption is
>detrimental to the emotional health of both adoptees and birth
>mothers..............
>
>http://www.uoregon.edu/~adoption/studies/SchechterOAC.htm
>
>
>Marshall D. Schechter, "Observations on Adopted Children," 1960
> Marshall Schechter, a psychiatrist in private practice in Beverly
>Hills, California, reported in 1960 that adoptees were 100 times more
>likely than non-adoptees to present a range of serious emotional
1960??!? When social attitudes and laws regarding adoption were vastly
different!
::snip::
>Schechter's account of the damage that adoption did to children was
>vigorously contested during the 1960s. Today, it is widely accepted by
>parents and professionals who agree that attachment and loss are at
>the heart of what makes adoption a distinctive and difficult
>experience. This consensus was efficiently summarized in a book that
>Schechter co-edited with developmental psychologist David Brodzinsky:
>The Psychology of Adoption (1990).
>
>
Well duh. A group of people who already agree that something is Bad, accept a
source that agree with what they agree on.
That you use this source, instead of something more credible, speaks volumes.
Banty
deja.blues
> On Feb 24, 7:09 pm, "deja.blues" <deja.bl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Michelle la Belle" <aminotem...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:815cdf3a-657f-47a1...@64g2000hsw.googlegroups.com...
>> "Working with Joe for the past few weeks has been very helpful to me.
>> If you're not interested in my support group, feel free to ignore my
>> posts."
>>
>> So you're the OP?
>
> Sorry I don't know what "OP" means.
>
> There is overwhelming evidence to support my belief that adoption is
> detrimental to the emotional health of both adoptees and birth
> mothers..............
There is overwhelming evidence that cats should stay indoors.
rpe...@cogeco.ca
situation the kid was in before being adopted, the REASONS for adoption in
the first place. Parents both dead, kids being sexually/physically abused,
parent(s) are drug addicts, mother/father just too young, physically or
financially unable to look after a kid properly -- without comparing
adoptees with all the other kids living in terrible situations with (or
without) their real parents, these studies are meaningless. Sometimes in
life you just gotta make do, and sometimes adoption is the only way. Life
sucks and then you die, get used to it.
"Samara" <pa...@live.ca> wrote in message
news:c0c31648-2571-4837...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Samara
>
> - Show quoted text -
No; back in the baby scoop era babies were taken from their mothers
simply because their mothers were unwed and unsupported. The mothers
were treated like shite. There was a lot of shame and guilt
associated with pregnancy out of wedlock. Before 1940 adoption was
rare; after that it was seen as preferable to abortion. Then after
1970 society changed and more mothers were allowed to keep their
babies.
Marley Greiner
Marshall Schecter is hardly Joe Soll. Please learn to discern.
Marley
rpe...@cogeco.ca
is 2008!
kippah...@hotmail.com
> And before that those same mothers may have been executed.
Really? Oh, c'mon.
> Your point?
I guess YOUR point is that they should count themselves lucky that
they still have their heads.
Perhaps I'm wrong.
Elucidate, please.
> This is 2008!
True 'nuf.
However, the past and the present are a consistent membrane.
rpe...@cogeco.ca
<kippah...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9af053a6-b1e7-4947...@71g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 25, 6:45 pm, <rped...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
> And before that those same mothers may have been executed.
Really? Oh, c'mon.
> Your point?
I guess YOUR point is that they should count themselves lucky that
they still have their heads.
Perhaps I'm wrong.
of course you're wrong
Elucidate, please.
the point is that times have changed, and yet all we're hearing about in
this discussion is "evidence" and circumstances from 40-50 years ago, which
are irrelevant.
> This is 2008!
>True 'nuf.
>However, the past and the present are a consistent membrane.
w/etf that means. is that Joe-speak?
kippah...@hotmail.com
> Depending on where they live, they might still be executed today.
>
>
> news:9af053a6-b1e7-4947...@71g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 25, 6:45 pm, <rped...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
> > And before that those same mothers may have been executed.
>
> Really? Oh, c'mon.
>
> > Your point?
>
> I guess YOUR point is that they should count themselves lucky that
> they still have their heads.
> Perhaps I'm wrong.
>
> of course you're wrong
>
> Elucidate, please.
>
> the point is that times have changed, and yet all we're hearing about in
> this discussion is "evidence"
I'm as much of a sceptic as anyone about the "evidence".
> and circumstances from 40-50 years ago, which are irrelevant.
To you, maybe, but not necessarily to everyone affected by those
circumstances.
What's your connection, if any, to adoption?
>
> > This is 2008!
> >True 'nuf.
> >However, the past and the present are a consistent membrane.
>
> w/etf that means. is that Joe-speak?
Joe-speak? Me? If you have to ask, you clearly don't have much of a
clue.
As for yourself, you do seem to be rather given to hyperbole. Like
talking about those head rollin' mothers.
Michelle la Belle
>
> - Show quoted text -
My point is that along with myself, many people were adopted in this
time period. That's why it's called the Baby Scoop Era. The fact
that it still goes on is proof that society doesn't learn from its
past mistakes.
Michelle la Belle
>
>
> news:9af053a6-b1e7-4947...@71g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 25, 6:45 pm, <rped...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
> > And before that those same mothers may have been executed.
>
> Really? Oh, c'mon.
>
> > Your point?
>
> I guess YOUR point is that they should count themselves lucky that
> they still have their heads.
> Perhaps I'm wrong.
>
> of course you're wrong
>
> Elucidate, please.
>
> the point is that times have changed, and yet all we're hearing about in
> this discussion is "evidence" and circumstances from 40-50 years ago, which
> are irrelevant.
It is highly relevant for those of us who were adopted in the 1940 -
1970 time period.
Polly
man who will not admit that his own birthmother was FOUND and rejected him.
He thinks ALL adoptees need his help and treatment and that he was put here
on this earth to charge high fees just to do that. Did he get you in a fetal
position yet and make you "go back into the womb?" LOL
"Michelle la Belle" <amino...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:815cdf3a-657f-47a1...@64g2000hsw.googlegroups.com...
Polly
does Joe still have NYC adoptees pay him for step-by-step directions no how
to get their birthname?
Polly
"Samara" <pa...@live.ca> wrote in message
news:5f41944b-1890-4f22...@j28g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
Kronies.
Crossroads and how much for all the "Healiing Weekends." I suppose Soll
paid his own way? LOL
"Michelle la Belle" <amino...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:815cdf3a-657f-47a1...@64g2000hsw.googlegroups.com...
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Michelle la Belle
> Ummmm...ask a few veterans of alt.adoption on their opinions of Joe Soll, a
> man who will not admit that his own birthmother was FOUND and rejected him.
> He thinks ALL adoptees need his help and treatment and that he was put here
> on this earth to charge high fees just to do that. Did he get you in a fetal
> position yet and make you "go back into the womb?" LOL
You can laugh all you like, you can believe what you like. Joe
charges me NOTHING for his help. No, he has not made me go back to
the womb, because, as his book clearly states, for us to go back to
that age would be dangerous. As for his birth mother finding him, I
wouldn't know, but as you are wrong on the other two points, ...
>
> "Michelle la Belle" <aminotem...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:815cdf3a-657f-47a1...@64g2000hsw.googlegroups.com...
> posts.- Hide quoted text -
dot mail dot to dot mo@gmail.com Mo
> My point is that along with myself, many people were adopted in this
> time period. That's why it's called the Baby Scoop Era.
It may be where YOU live, but there's a whole world outside your limited
scope where it is NOT.
> The fact
> that it still goes on is proof that society doesn't learn from its
> past mistakes.
YOUR society. This is an international newsgroup, the rest of the world
couldn't care less about your LOCAL issues.
--
Mo
Polly
would fix one and make one all better. I thought healing weekends were
needed along with counseling sessions. I know of one girl who sat in her
birthmother's lap while Soll encouraged her to cry for her Mommy. You push
Soll's book but you haven't met him yet?
"Michelle la Belle" <amino...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fc122cf9-9dd3-4ec1...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Samara
wrote:
With the group being called, "Kingston for sale" I figured it was a
Kingston group.
Kingston, ON, that is.
dot mail dot to dot mo@gmail.com Mo
You're posting in alt.mothers, where exactly is the Kingston in that??
--
Mo
Michelle la Belle
>
> - Show quoted text -
There are birth mothers in that group that may be near Kingston. Not
having a list of members, I have no way of telling whether there are
some local people in the groups or not. But there may be, and I am
offering support to those who are interested.
rpe...@cogeco.ca
"Michelle la Belle" <amino...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:019289b8-ef4c-4531...@13g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Robibnikoff
You might want to keep in mind there's more than one Kingston out there.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
dot mail dot to dot mo@gmail.com Mo
Name them.
> that may be near Kingston.
So you are going to post in all thousands of Usenet groups?
> Not
> having a list of members,
<snort> for a USENET group??
> I have no way of telling whether there are
> some local people in the groups or not.
Yet you have every way of telling you are posting messages of no interest
whatsoever in international newsgroups.
> But there may be, and I am
> offering support to those who are interested.
Ah yes, so if you'd want to sell something locally, you'd advertise on CNN
International?
--
Mo
dot mail dot to dot mo@gmail.com Mo
With the difference local vs. international not even being clear, I doubt
this is going to happen.
--
Mo
Unknown
>There is overwhelming evidence to support my belief that adoption is
>detrimental to the emotional health of both adoptees and birth
>mothers..............
I probably shouldn't respond but....
As an adult, who was adopted at birth, and perhaps more pertinently
was informed of his status when under five years old, I know that I
have suffered emotional health difficulties as a result.
whether it was the adoption, or the curcumstances of the adoption I
could not say for certain. Perhaps if I was never aware of my status I
should not have suffered as I did, I can not say.
I can say I am not associated with "pangs" in any shape or form. Nor
do I wish to be, before you ask.
Matt
--
The Probert Encyclopaedia
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com
Unknown
>>No; back in the baby scoop era babies were taken from their mothers
>>simply because their mothers were unwed and unsupported. The mothers
>>were treated like shite. There was a lot of shame and guilt
>>associated with pregnancy out of wedlock. Before 1940 adoption was
>>rare; after that it was seen as preferable to abortion. Then after
>>1970 society changed and more mothers were allowed to keep their
>>babies.
>
>
>And before that those same mothers may have been executed. Your point? This
>is 2008!
Actually in the UK they were committed as insane. Even worse than
being executed.
My own mother, in 1965 was pressurised by the "Chichester Diocese
Moral Welfare Association" and the rest of society to give up her
child. This may be 2008, but she ist still alive. So am I. Those
involved then are still coming to terms with things now.
Have things improved? I'm not certain to what extent they have. They
have changed, but I still perceive children are placed into
"supermarkets" where desperate wannabe parents go to get a suitable
model.
And the pain of separation is no less now than it ever has been.
Robibnikoff
<Matt Probert> wrote in message
news:486b4751...@news.freenetname.co.uk...
> Samara <pa...@live.ca> wrote:
>
>>There is overwhelming evidence to support my belief that adoption is
>>detrimental to the emotional health of both adoptees and birth
>>mothers..............
>
> I probably shouldn't respond but....
>
> As an adult, who was adopted at birth, and perhaps more pertinently
> was informed of his status when under five years old, I know that I
> have suffered emotional health difficulties as a result.
Really? Such as?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
If you can't be a good example....
You'll just have to be a horrible warning.
Jackie
>My own mother, in 1965 was pressurised by the "Chichester Diocese
>Moral Welfare Association" and the rest of society to give up her
>child. This may be 2008, but she ist still alive. So am I. Those
>involved then are still coming to terms with things now.
>
>Have things improved? I'm not certain to what extent they have. They
>have changed, but I still perceive children are placed into
>"supermarkets" where desperate wannabe parents go to get a suitable
>model.
I believe things have improved.. I believe choice is very important in
adoption today.. Yes there are terrible agencies/lawyers/adoption
facilitators and yes there is force but IMO most of the time women do
make the decision and adoptive parents do their best to keep the
adoption open..
>And the pain of separation is no less now than it ever has been.
Secrets and lies is what cripples us..
Jackie
Royden
In article <486b4751...@news.freenetname.co.uk>, (Matt Probert)
wrote:
> Samara <pa...@live.ca> wrote:
>
> >There is overwhelming evidence to support my belief that adoption is
> >detrimental to the emotional health of both adoptees and birth
> >mothers..............
>
> I probably shouldn't respond but....
>
> As an adult, who was adopted at birth, and perhaps more pertinently
> was informed of his status when under five years old, I know that I
> have suffered emotional health difficulties as a result.
>
> whether it was the adoption, or the curcumstances of the adoption I
> could not say for certain. Perhaps if I was never aware of my status I
> should not have suffered as I did, I can not say.
>
Is it possible that your emotional health difficulties were a result of
an inherited condition and had nothing to do with your adoption?
I was also adopted at 13 mos. of age, and told about my adoption when I
was under 5 yrs of age but I had loving parents who did not make me feel
unwanted, or to feel that I had been unwanted by my birthmother, or give
me any reason to have emotional problems about it. I never gave it a
thought about why I had been adopted, but only knew that I had a home
and a family.
Robibnikoff
"Royden" <rka...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:rkading-494CB2...@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net...
That pretty much sounds like my experience as well, except that I was
adopted at birth. All my emotional problems came later when I was reuniting
with my birth family, who turned out to be quite a kooky bunch ;)
Johnny
"Robibnikoff" <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:6d3i3u...@mid.individual.net...
So, you come by being a nut case honestly!!
>
Carmen Gauvin-O'Donnell
Ontario Canada right? Not Kingston in England?
That having been said, I lived in Twickenham as a child and I have fond
memories of my mum taking me to Bentalls (sp?) to shop in Kingston right
down the road.
Does the store still exist? Mind you, this was 74-78 so many many moons
ago...
Carmen
"Johnny" <thi...@notreal.org> wrote in message
news:13dbk.192078$qk1....@fe02.news.easynews.com...
Robibnikoff
"Carmen Gauvin-O'Donnell" <see...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:MZebk.13998$Mc.1...@read1.cgocable.net...
> Hi folks! You guys do realize that this is a forsale group for Kingston,
> Ontario Canada right? Not Kingston in England?
No offense, but I honestly couldn't give a crap either way.
Johnny
Liar, you meant offense and you know it!
>
rpe...@cogeco.ca
"Johnny" <thi...@notreal.org> wrote in message
news:1drbk.141328$6q2....@fe03.news.easynews.com...
Robibnikoff
<rpe...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:sksbk.15130$Ec.1...@read2.cgocable.net...
> Did not, neener neener!
>
LOL - well, while I didn't *intentionally* mean to offend, I also didn't
give a crap if I did or not. Does that count?