D E A T H TO SOCIAL WORKERS!!!
Patty B...
despite the rotted garbage being spewed by certain social workers on this
newsgroup.
Tell me, Mr. Jones - do all you nifty social workers have a union or a
registry somewhere? I'd sure as hell like to find a Miss Louise Newman.
If you know her, kick her in the ass for me. There's a Good Boy.
Now...go turn off your friggin' HTML. That, dear sir, is for web sites
and other oddities...NOT for use on USENET newsgroups!
As for your inhuman laws...shove 'em right up your ass. Civil disobedience
has a place in this world, most especially in the USA. GO BASTARDS!!!!
--
Patty B... one of the over 500 birth mothers who publicly supported M58...
[and there would have been hundreds of thousands if we'd
had more time to organize!]
St. Anne's Maternity, Class of 1963/64
"During my eighty-seven years I have witnessed a whole succession of
technological revolutions. But none of them has done away with the
need for character in the individual or the ability to think."
Bernard M. Baruch
----------- == Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network == ----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Joe Cooksey
> Strange Post indeed, the next time you're in a hospital and begging for some
> help finding resources, don't ask the Social Worker, find them yourself.
> ---O |||| O---
> ------------
True, very true.
Joe R.N.
Albert Wei
> Tell me, Mr. Jones - do all you nifty social workers have a union or a
> registry somewhere? I'd sure as hell like to find a Miss Louise Newman.
> If you know her, kick her in the ass for me. There's a Good Boy.
> As for your inhuman laws...shove 'em right up your ass. Civil disobedience
> has a place in this world, most especially in the USA. GO BASTARDS!!!!
I daresay it would be perhaps just a little more productive to save your
ire for the policymakers and judicial activists who write and keep in
place inhuman laws and policies and the lobbyists and agencies which pay
for such efforts, rather than to call for the extermination
of hard-working and under-paid public servants charged with the
execution of inhuman laws and policies...
But then again, what do I know...
- asw
REAL JEEP
Markg91359
should begin with the comment that every profession has its good and bad.
Certainly social work is no exception. I also hesitate to start after social
workers because I'm very sensitive about the way that lawyers have been
"tarbrushed". Certainly some lawyers deserve it....Various escapades like the
OJ Simpson trial, adoption abuses, and the delays in executing that sick
nutcase Ted Bundy and other murderers account for much of that.
However, my basic problem with social work is that it strikes me as too
subjective of a process. Social workers, in my observation, do very little in
the way of objective quantification. Everything essentially seems to boil down
to "their opinion". What I have observed is how radically things can change
when one social worker quits, or is replaced in their job. And this is a real
problem around here. The turnover rate among social workers who work for the
state here, is just phenomenal. I never plan on seeing the same person twice.
When turnover occurs, we are dealing with a whole new set of subjective
prejudices and opinions.
Still, its not a job I could ever see doing and, yet, someone has to do it.
Working with people who are in many of the situations that social workers find
them in could not be easy. Ideally, the focus of social work would be on
helping bring people out of poverty, helping them manage or cure mental
illness, and dealing with the overwhelming difficulties many elderly people
face.
Society seems to need demons or scapegoats to vent against. Sometimes these
demons are lawyers. Sometimes they are school teachers. Sometimes they are
social workers. I also see the number of people venting against physicians
increasing. All this venting maybe healthy for some individuals. I'm not
sure it solves any problems, though.
"Though all the winds of evil and truth were loosed to do do battle with one
another, what of if? Whoever, knew truth the worst in a fair and open fight?"
....John Stuart Mills ( a paraphrase)
MarkG
Likes2lurk
>Date: 1/24/99 12:34 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <36AB59...@onramp.net>
>
>Patty B... wrote:
>>
>> Nevermind...maybe that's a little too stiff in the punishment department,
>> despite the rotted garbage being spewed by certain social workers on this
>> newsgroup.
>
>
>did unto us, and let them live out their natural life span bearing the
>consequences. It's biblical, and they are sure to like that. An eye for
>an eye, you know. We should show them the mercy they showed us. Here's
>what I suggest;
>
>1. Incarcerate them against their wills in our "homes". Take away their
>names, their money, their credit cards, their personal articles of
>clothing, their access to the telephone or other modern means of
>communication. COMPLETELY isolate them from their network of social
>support, and the life they have known.
>2. Create a closed system of authority inside the home which can not be
>questioned. If they point out inconsistencies in our thinking or
>philosophy, we should tell them their hostility and aggression are
>misplaced and prescribe tranquilizers for them. We should assign other
>social worker who are more properly conditioned to be their constant
>companions, to correct their wrong thinking.
>3. Expose the social workers to daily mandatory meeting in which they
>are told they are dysfunctional, fallen, sinful, unworthy, neurotic,
>rebellious, ungrateful, beings. Reenforce this message at mealtimes, at
>Dr.'s appointments, and at every other opportunity. Continue this
>behaviour until their brains begin to resemble mush. Use physically
>painful and traumatic situations like labor when they are completely
>dependent and helpless and their brains are in a state of
>hypervunerability to abuse them with this message. REALLY get it across.
>REALLY make it stick.
>4. Once their brains are softened to the proper consistency, tell them
>the only way they can save themselves is to sign a TPR, releasing their
>children tothe state. Put a pen in their hand and stand over them until
>they sign. Should they be particularly hard headed or perhaps stupid
>and refuse to sign, use the court system as a means to legally steal
>their children. Label them psychotic, and back up this judgement with
>the authority of the legal system. Threaten them with shock treatments
>and the unearned stigma of mental illnes if they dig in their heels.
>Remind them that once they are committed to a mental institution, their
>rights can and most definitely will be involuntarily terminated. Show
>them the naked truth; there is no exit from their situation.
>5. Once they sign, throw their asses out on the street. Make sure the
>door slams loudly as they leave, and that they hear the deadbolt being
>locked. A few gratutitous insults about their sexual nature as they are
>thrown out the door would be nice.
>6. As soon as they are gone, auction off their child/children to the
>highest bidding stranger. Or sell them to pirates. Make off with the
>huge profit.
>7. If the social workers ever return to our home, claiming to be in
>pain, looking to reconstruct their experience, demanding an apology or
>explanation, seeking justice or accountability, seeking information to
>search with, or god forbid, seeking their records, claim that God made
>you do it to them in the first place. Remind them that they are
>powerless regarding the law. Misinterpert the law, misapply it, and hand
>out any falsified or incorrect information necessary to permanently
>discourage then from seeking out their relatives.
>8. Force them to live out their natural lives with the agony of not
>knowing the fate of their firstborn child. Let them wake up each
>morning not knowing, and with that inexpressible dread we feel. Let
>them cry through their child's birthday, and Christmas every year. Let
>them deal with the aftermath of broken trust and broken hearts after
>experiencing such manipulation and betrayal, and let it continue for
>the rest of their natural lives. Let them pay huge sums of money to
>therapists and psychiatrists in an attempt to straighten out the damage
>we did to them. Let them experience a permanent rift inside their own
>families over the loss of the child. Let them struggle and fight every
>day to establish a normal life and family after such a profoundly
>traumatic loss. Let them watch people not so afflicted live happy
>lives, and let them feel the jealousy, envy and pain in their hearts as
>they watch. Let them wonder what they did to deserve such pain and
>sustain such damage, and come to the conclusion that they must have
>been very bad people indeed to meet with such a fate.
>9. If through some illegal, unethical and probably criminal means they
>manage to locate their flesh and blood, watch with unabashed joy as
>they realize that the losses are life long and debilitating. After all,
>they went outside the boundaries we prescribed for them; they will have
>to deal with the consequences.
>10. If they dare to express pain or outrage at the treatment they
>received, be sure to label them as bitter, or a hundred other nasty
>words. Do your best to shut down any unfettered public discussion of
>their experiences. Don't *ever* let them testify to their experiences
>under oath. Berate them, marginalize them, label them as a protracted
>and disenfranchised grief reaction if you must, but SHUT THEM UP!!!!!!!!
>10. Repeat this procedure at least hundreds of thousands of times over a
>couple of decades.
>
>
>THAT, Patty, would be the proper way to manage our ever increasing
>societal problem of out-of- control social workers. We need to act
>now, BEFORE they destroy our American way of life.
>
>
>
>In sisterhood and solidarity,
>Barbara
>
>
Barb, that is the most vicious, sick, spew of hate I have read on the
internet. I hope you are getting therapy. You are one sick woman.
likes2lurk
Lesli
>
> >From: Morra <mo...@onramp.net>
> >Date: 1/24/99 12:34 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <36AB59...@onramp.net>
> >
> internet. I hope you are getting therapy. You are one sick woman.
>
> likes2lurk
Lurk, the point is that what Barb wrote was the experience of many, many
women in past decades. Yes, it was sick.
--
**********
Lesli
Adoptee Rights: http://www.bastards.org/
Russian Language and Culture: http://LexiconBridge.com/
L. Anne Babb
<snipped Barb's note>
>Barb, that is the most vicious, sick, spew of hate I have read on the
>internet. I hope you are getting therapy. You are one sick woman.
You know, I didn't read every word Barb wrote, but I read most of what
she wrote--enough to realize that what she meant was that she hoped
that social workers and others who work in adoption reap what they
sow. I, too, hope (and believe) that people will reap what they sow.
What's hateful about that? It's justice in biblical proportions.
Anne
--
L. Anne Babb
anne...@homes4kids.org
http://www.homes4kids.org
Carol Hooton
why don't you use your REAL name?
Because it is a social worker lurking on this group to find some babies to
sell!
Steve White
> OMG...THE Social Worker.....
> everyone's bestest friend.
There are good ones and bad ones. Real Jeep pointed out that if you were
in a hospital bed and desparately needed to be transferred to a rehab
facility (as but one example), you'd really want a good social worker.
I deal with social workers on a daily basis. Like good nurses, good social
workers are worth their weight in diamonds.
> why don't you use your REAL name?
What, and become your spear-catcher?
steve
Reply to: stevewhite at ce dot mediaone dot net
Steve White
markg...@aol.com (Markg91359) wrote:
> However, my basic problem with social work is that it strikes
> me as too subjective of a process. Social workers, in my
> observation, do very little in the way of objective quantification.
The U of Chicago has a School of Social Work. They do cutting edge
research in all sorts of issues, all VERY objective.
Like docs, lawyers and manicurists, the good ones are great, and the bad
ones are a pain in the ass.
> Still, its not a job I could ever see doing and, yet, someone has to do it.
Yep. I say a frequent prayer of thanks that I got into medical school.
Steve White
> Patty, death is WAY too good for them. Better to do unto them what they
> did unto us, and let them live out their natural life span bearing the
> consequences.
Hmmmm, the really good ones listen to young women and help them out of a
difficult, heart-wrenching jam. Sure, there were bad ones who preyed upon
the innocent and vulnerable.
But would you allow someone to write what you wrote about nurses and not
comment? Didn't think so.
What the rest of your letter demonstrates clearly is not that social
workers are contemptible. It demonstrates how hard and bitter you are.
That's too bad.
Patty B...
>
> In article <36ABF5...@onramp.net>, mo...@onramp.net wrote:
>
> > OMG...THE Social Worker.....
> > everyone's bestest friend.
>
> diamonds.
And JUST as rare, as well. IMO.
> steve
>
> Reply to: stevewhite at ce dot mediaone dot net
If I were knocking at Death's door I doubt I could even get INTO
a hospital...California HMOs being what they are...so that Prince/
Princess of a S/W wouldn't even have the chance to prove his/her
weight in anything. The last Hospital S/W I had dealings with could
hardly wait to get to the newborn nursery to check on the newest
addition to the bank of isolettes (which by Hospital POLICY *must
face the wall*) ALL bearing the "name" PODA ...yes, doesn't need
the requisite rocket scientist to figure that one out...labeled b4
they even leave the damned birthplace...and in 1999!!!! not 1940 on.
--
Patty B...
Patty B...
[Quoting L Anne Babb]:
> >
> >Right. It's always OK to do what you're told to do, and what society
> >tells you to do, because, after all, if you're doing it because
> >someone more powerful than you told you to do it, it must be right,
> >right?
SCOM2:
> Hey, if bmoms can claim this, so can social workers. Didn't bmoms do exactly
> what society expected of them? Didn't they do it because someone more powerful
> than they, said to? Didn't they do it because they were told it was right?
> Why are we so willing to accept this behavior from bmoms, but when social
> workers claim it, it doesn't work? A bit of a double standard.
>
> Connie
Connie, this may be just a trivial point but the question begs to be
asked:
These social workers *were* working for a paycheck? They
did *choose* their job? They were free, at any time, to
say, "I QUIT!" ...were they not? They were free to look
around them and say, perhaps, "My, this seems not to be
the best I could do to truly help this person. There may
be better ways to accomplish my job. After all, I'm no
lemming who follows the crowd and jumps off the cliff
without question or pause...am I?"
Just a thought.
--
Patty B...
Patty B...
You truly have NO clue.
SCOM2 wrote, and YET AGAIN failed to attribute the quotes below:
> PattyB said:
> >Connie, this may be just a trivial point but the question begs to be
> >asked:
> > These social workers *were* working for a paycheck? They
> > did *choose* their job? They were free, at any time, to
> > say, "I QUIT!" ...were they not?
> Bmoms could've told their social worker where to go. They could've walked out
> the door at any time. They were not chained to the walls.
>
> >They were free to look
> > around them and say, perhaps, "My, this seems not to be
> > the best I could do to truly help this person. There may
> > be better ways to accomplish my job.
>
> And bmoms couldn't have said this?
>
> > After all, I'm no
> > lemming who follows the crowd and jumps off the cliff
> > without question or pause...am I?"
> >
> >
>
> And bmoms could've done the same.
>
> Like it, or not, everything that has been said about social workers can also be
> applied to bmoms.
>
> Anne made a comment about the differences in age between a sw and bmom. I
> don't even see that as an issue because the average age of bmoms was not the
> young, impressionable teen. The average age was 19, which makes them pretty
> much an adult. By age 19, many females were looking at getting married. Some
> were away at colleges and living on their own and making their own decisions.
> Look at the number of bmoms who relinquished while in their 20's, or 30's.
> They don't fit the *impressionable teen* idea, any more than a 19 year old
> would.
>
> Connie
> Why is there braille on drive-up ATM machines.......hmmmm
--
Patty B...
St. Anne's Maternity, Class of 1963/64
"During my eighty-seven years I have witnessed a whole succession of
Sue Tretter
>
> I wanted to try and write something balanced about social workers. I think we > should begin with the comment that every profession has its good and bad. > Certainly social work is no exception.
If anyone is truly interested in a balanced (but perhaps slightly
jaundiced) look at social work, in an adoption context, H. David Kirk,
PhD, has much to say on the subject. As an adoptive father and one of
the faculty, now emeritus, of the McGill University School of Social
Work, his insights are instructive, imo. A couple of comments from
ADOPTIVE KINSHIP, chapter 7, "Professional License, Mandate, and
Myopia":
page 85: "In the older professions, the professionals gather `guilty
knowledge' through entry into the private domains of the body (by
physicians and surgeons), of social and economic actions (by lawyers),
and those of conduct and feelings (by psychiatry and the clergy). Thus
the possession of `guilty knowledge' can be regarded as an index of
relatively high professional status, prestige, and power. In contrast
with the older professions; school teaching and social work with the
poor have much lower status; perhaps in part because these actions carry
with them little of the burdens of such `guilty knowledge'. Once social
work entered on the service to unmarried mothers, once it investigated
the motives of sterile people who sought parenthood, it dealt with
issues that are fraught with the very stuff of guilty knowledge.
Moreover, in shifting human beings by social and legal contrivances from
one set of forebears to a new kinship system, social workers were in
fact manipulating one of the last strongholds of ascribed and thus
sacred relations left in an otherwise achievement-oriented and
secularized society. The fact that adopters as well as social workers
have referred to the role of social work in adoption as `playing God',
suggests a tacit recognition of this particular `guilty knowledge' ..."
page 94: "... I have tried to show that certain esoteric claims of
competence staked by social work in adoption tended to be spurious. ..."
"... there are circumstances which insultate the professionals from
awareness of their mistakes. One of these ... is demographic, the other
organizational. ... the wall of prestigious professionals which the
adoption lobbies ... built around the agencies. With this kind of
defense perimiter ... the agencies were less prone than they might
otherwise have been to see and hear the evidence of their mistakes at
work."
page 95: "... the ideas and actions of the adoption agencies and lobbies
of a generation ago have left their mark upon the institution of
adoption. ... The intent was clearly to protect children from being
stigmatized and families from being disturbed by outsiders. But it was
to be made a closed issue for all time, not just for the child-rearing
years. Thus alongside the myth of spcial professional competence, there
came into being the myth of adoptive kinship as a firm, well-constructed
institution."
And more ...
Best wishes. Sue T.
Sue Tretter
<snip>
> Patty, death is WAY too good for them. Better to do unto them what they
> did unto us, and let them live out their natural life span bearing the
I wonder Barb if you feel that your suggestions are appropriate for
everyone who ever wronged you? I wonder if you believe it's your
appointed task to exact retaliation? I wonder if "an eye for an eye" is
the philosophy you think best to live by.
I know a woman who held a grudge for decades against the E.R. nurse who
applied restraints so that the woman, in a highly intoxicated state,
could be treated without violence to the medical staff. The woman held
no grudge against the doctor who ordered the restraints or the others
who helped apply them, but had it been within my friend's power, she
would have done the "eye for an eye" thing to that nurse indefinitely.
I didn't agree that it was such a good idea ... and she's since outgrown
her ire, at least somewhat.
Here's > what I suggest;
>
> 1. Incarcerate them against their wills in our "homes". Take away their
> names, their money, their credit cards, their personal articles of
> clothing, their access to the telephone or other modern means of
> communication. COMPLETELY isolate them from their network of social
> support, and the life they have known.
Barb, you and nearly every prospective first mother in America had
choices about entering the homes. I see nothing here about allowing
them the same choices. In fact, you clearly state "... against their
wills ..."
Bad beginning, imo.
And where is your anger for the parents who ushered their daughters into
these "homes", who considered their own reputations more important than
the comfort of their children AND GRANDCHILDREN still within the womb?
Where is your contempt for the inseminators with whom you had sex, many
of whom disappeared shortly thereafter? Where is the accounting of your
culpability for engaging in premarital sex in a society which held unwed
pregnancy in such low regard?
> 2. Create a closed system of authority inside the home which can not be > questioned. If they point out inconsistencies in our thinking or
> philosophy, we should tell them their hostility and aggression are
> misplaced and prescribe tranquilizers for them. We should assign other
> social worker who are more properly conditioned to be their constant
> companions, to correct their wrong thinking.
I actually think such a *temporary* reversal as a teaching/learning
experience might be a good idea IF the people you're talking about were
still engaged in the style of behavior you abhor. But are they? Are
you limiting yourself to only the really rotten social workers of old,
or are you generalizing to ALL social workers, now and then?
<snip>
> 6. As soon as they are gone, auction off their child/children to the
> highest bidding stranger. Or sell them to pirates. Make off with the
> huge profit.
Barb, it seems to me that you are focusing solely on social workers as
the cause of all your pain. I know of almost no societal problem in
which that's the case. Will you acknowledge that there's a whole lot of
blame to be spread among many contributors? Will you acknowledge that
your terminology is meant to inflame and is inaccurate, ie "auction",
"highest bidder" and "pirates"?
> 7. If the social workers ever return to our home, claiming to be in
> pain, looking to reconstruct their experience, demanding an apology or
> explanation, seeking justice or accountability, seeking information to > search with, or god forbid, seeking their records, claim that God made > you do it to them in the first place. Remind them that they are
> powerless regarding the law. Misinterpert the law, misapply it, and hand > out any falsified or incorrect information necessary to permanently > discourage then from seeking out their relatives.
We're way past the "two wrongs make a right" mentality here. I think
we're up to about "ten wrongs make a ..." surely not a "right"? So what
is your goal here?
> 8. Force them to live out their natural lives with the agony of not
> knowing the fate of their firstborn child.
I suspect living out one's life with the view that one was totally
passive perhaps even inert!, totally without blame when there is
significant evidence to the contrary, is a very harsh self-inflicted
punishment.
<snip>
> Let them experience a permanent rift inside their own
> families over the loss of the child.
Now, social workers bear the blame for effects on those they never met,
never even talked with? I don't think so.
> 10. If they dare to express pain or outrage at the treatment they
> received, be sure to label them as bitter, or a hundred other nasty
> words. Do your best to shut down any unfettered public discussion of
> their experiences. Don't *ever* let them testify to their experiences
> under oath. Berate them, marginalize them, label them as a protracted
> and disenfranchised grief reaction if you must, but SHUT THEM UP!!!!!!!!
Barbara, you have a forum to present your ideas right here. Many of us
listen/read and still love you. Many of us disagree with your pov on
some issues but aren't at all interested in or involved in shutting you
up. In fact, we would aggressively challenge anyone who tried to shut
you up. Many of us are engaged in the effort to make adoption a more
humane experience for all concerned ... but that doesn't seem to be your
goal here. Yes, some social workers have much to answer for and I
expect that there will be an accounting, but not on your terms, nor on
your timetable. I sincerely doubt that social workers will be alone in
their accounting for the past and present wrongs of adoption though.
<snip>
> THAT, Patty, would be the proper way to manage our ever increasing
> societal problem of out-of- control social workers. We need to act
> now, BEFORE they destroy our American way of life.
I think Patty wrote that her title was NOT appropriate. (Sorry, if I'm
mistaken but I do believe Patty's first line was more conciliatory.)
As a bit of hyperbole, I think your suggestions are meritorious if they
help one social worker, one policy maker, one prospective first mother
stop and take notice. As actual policy, I think they are inexcusably
inhumane.
Best wishes, Barb. Sue T.
Jrobnett1
In article <Pine.BSF.4.05.990124...@fpage1.ba.best.com>,
Albert Wei <weia...@fpage1.ba.best.com> writes:
>I daresay it would be perhaps just a little more productive to save your
>ire for the policymakers and judicial activists who write and keep in
>place inhuman laws and policies and the lobbyists and agencies which pay
>for such efforts, rather than to call for the extermination
>of hard-working and under-paid public servants charged with the
>execution of inhuman laws and policies...
>
>But then again, what do I know...
I agree Albert (and I actually understood what you were saying, lol). The
Social Workers, the Doctors, the Nurses, Nuns and others were doing what they
were told to do- what *society* told them to do. There were not necessarily
"written laws" but these were accepted practices. Accepted *by* society. They
don't deserve the ire, imo.
Jeannette, bmom
Growth is the only evidence of life. -Cardinal Newman
***************************************************************
Compassion is daring to acknowledge our own destiny so that
we might move forward together. - Henri Nouwen
L. Anne Babb
>L. Anne Babb wrote:
>> What's hateful about that? It's justice in biblical proportions.
>> Anne
>thank you, anne.
>congrats on the new kid on the block!
Thanks, Barbara. I appreciate that you made the effort to be kind (and
that others just made the effort to be quiet) about our adopting
again.
L. Anne Babb
>I agree Albert (and I actually understood what you were saying, lol). The
>Social Workers, the Doctors, the Nurses, Nuns and others were doing what they
>were told to do- what *society* told them to do. There were not necessarily
>"written laws" but these were accepted practices.
Right. It's always OK to do what you're told to do, and what society
tells you to do, because, after all, if you're doing it because
someone more powerful than you told you to do it, it must be right,
right?
Like, for example, what would have happened if people like, just
decided not to cooperate with the separate but equal doctrine? Can you
*imagine* the mayhem that might have resulted? My God! Hangings,
lynchings, riots. And think about what would have happened if people
actually protested wars they thought were unjust, genocide,
holocaust, or things like that. My oh my, what a problem *that* would
be for a calm, tranquil, cooperative society just Going About Its
Business.
Yes, social workers and other professionals should just do what they
are told to do. After all, that's what they're *paid* for--not for
thinking, just for doing what they're sposed to do.
Which is what I *always* do, too,
A Good Upstanding Citizen
Jrobnett1
In article <36AC5E...@onramp.net>, Morra <mo...@onramp.net> writes:
>true enough about the laws, al. but then again, what type of human
>actually *engages* in executing said inhumane laws? hard working and
>underpaid 'executionists', if you will, must have *some* terifically
>strong motive for choosing work that doesn't pay well, and is so very
>demanding. perhaps the opportunity for legalized inhumanity itself is
>the payoff.
I think they thought they were helping you. They were doing what was
recognized by society at the time as the right thing to do. Do you know how
many of them lie awake at night thinking about the terrible things they did?
This reminds me of Judgement at Nuremburg when the Burt Lancaster (?) character
gets up and makes his speech at the end.
Jrobnett1
In article <36ACED2D...@lightlink.com>, Lesli <le...@lightlink.com>
writes:
>Lurk, the point is that what Barb wrote was the experience of many, many
>women in past decades. Yes, it was sick.
Even sicker is blaming people that were doing what they were told to do. The
blame lies with society, not with the individuals that meted out society's
"punishment".
Jrobnett1
In article <78iqvd$qg_...@annebabb.tdsnet.com>, anne...@homes4kids.org (L.
Anne Babb) writes:
>What's hateful about that? It's justice in biblical proportions.
To people that were not necessarily guilty.
L. Anne Babb
>Even sicker is blaming people that were doing what they were told to do. The
>blame lies with society, not with the individuals that meted out society's
>"punishment".
Jeanette, let's think this one through for a minute, OK? Your kid
decides to try snuffing something, and you, his mom, explode, in your
fear, shock, and anger, "What on earth were you THINKING?!" Junior
defends himself, "But, mom, ALL the kids at the party were doing it!"
And you say, "If all the kids start jumping off bridges, you aren't
going to do that, too, are you?!"
What about the Mai Lai massacre? The excuse was that the order was
given, and a person was responsible to obey orders--but that didn't
keep Calley from a court martial. Nixon tried this defense in
Watergate. It's the typical, cowardly response of people who lack the
character, maturity, and intelligence to think through what they're
doing and to question their authorities and themselves.
L. Anne Babb
>In article <78iqvd$qg_...@annebabb.tdsnet.com>, anne...@homes4kids.org (L.
>Anne Babb) writes:
>
>>What's hateful about that? It's justice in biblical proportions.
>
>To people that were not necessarily guilty.
Everybody reaps what s/he sows--it's not about guilt, it's about
farming.
SCOM2
>Patty, death is WAY too good for them.
Because they did their jobs? Amazing how you ramble on about how *you* did
what you were told to do. *You* had no choices. You do not offer the same
excuse to social workers, though. What a hypocrite.
>Better to do unto them what they
>did unto us,
What a juvenile statement. Do it to them because *they* did it to you. How
nice to see you accept responsibility for the inability to keep your legs
crossed.
*They* did not get you pregnant, in a time when it wasn't considered
acceptable.
>It's biblical, and they are sure to like that. An eye for
>an eye, you know.
It's ridiculous. Do you ever plan to stop acting like a juvenile?
>We should show them the mercy they showed us. Here's
>what I suggest;
>1. Incarcerate them against their wills in our "homes". Take away their
>names, their money, their credit cards, their personal articles of
>clothing, their access to the telephone or other modern means of
>communication. COMPLETELY isolate them from their network of social
>support, and the life they have known.
So Barb, I suppose you were chained to a wall, right? Were guards posted at
every enterance, with guns, to be sure you never left?
>3. Expose the social workers to daily mandatory meeting in which they
>are told they are dysfunctional, fallen, sinful, unworthy, neurotic,
>rebellious, ungrateful, beings. Reenforce this message at mealtimes, at
>Dr.'s appointments, and at every other opportunity. Continue this
>behaviour until their brains begin to resemble mush. Use physically
>painful and traumatic situations like labor when they are completely
>dependent and helpless and their brains are in a state of
>hypervunerability to abuse them with this message. REALLY get it across.
>REALLY make it stick.
So Barb, you signed because your brain resembled mush? The social workers
forced labor on you, just to make you sign? You can't even accept that labor
was a direct result of you sleeping with someone. It was/is a biological
function.
>4. Once their brains are softened to the proper consistency, tell them
>the only way they can save themselves is to sign a TPR, releasing their
>children tothe state.>>
Gee Brab, you've always said you relinquished FOR your daughter. Now you admtt
you did it to save your butt. How rich. Somehow, we're not surprised.
<< Put a pen in their hand and stand over them until
>they sign.>>
What?? No Gun to their head? Why not? We all know that's how bmoms were
forced to sign.
Should they be particularly hard headed or perhaps stupid
>and refuse to sign, use the court system as a means to legally steal
>their children. Label them psychotic, and back up this judgement with
>the authority of the legal system. Threaten them with shock treatments
>and the unearned stigma of mental illnes if they dig in their heels.
>Remind them that once they are committed to a mental institution, their
>rights can and most definitely will be involuntarily terminated. Show
>them the naked truth; there is no exit from their situation. >>
Ahh, but social workers would know that keeping their child was an option and
all the rest were merely threats. Shall we remind you of the large numbers of
women who did take their babies home? I'm sure Shea wouldn't mind a repost of
her comments on it.
>5. Once they sign, throw their asses out on the street. Make sure the
>door slams loudly as they leave, and that they hear the deadbolt being
>locked. A few gratutitous insults about their sexual nature as they are
>thrown out the door would be nice.
>6. As soon as they are gone, auction off their child/children to the
>highest bidding stranger. Or sell them to pirates. Make off with the
>huge profit.
Fuck you, Barb. Most adoptees were NOT sold/auctioned off. To impliy it is
disgusting. Adoptive parents were not bidders. They are/were not criminals.
Don't blame aparents for doing a job you didn't do.
>7. If the social workers ever return to our home, claiming to be in
>pain, looking to reconstruct their experience, demanding an apology or
>explanation,
Why the hell should anyone apologize for you being ignorant? They were not the
reason you got pregnant.
>8. Force them to live out their natural lives with the agony of not
>knowing the fate of their firstborn child. Let them wake up each
>morning not knowing, and with that inexpressible dread we feel. Let
>them cry through their child's birthday, and Christmas every year. Let
>them deal with the aftermath of broken trust and broken hearts after
>experiencing such manipulation and betrayal, and let it continue for
>the rest of their natural lives. Let them pay huge sums of money to
>therapists and psychiatrists in an attempt to straighten out the damage
>we did to them.
So social workers *forced* you to live in agony? WRONG!! Barb, you slept with
someone and got pregnant. No one forced you to do it. You had the choice to
take her with you, but you chose to buy into their lines. Don't dump your
stuff on others.
>Let them experience a permanent rift inside their own
>families over the loss of the child. Let them struggle and fight every
>day to establish a normal life and family after such a profoundly
>traumatic loss.
You just refuse to accept any part of this. It's everyone else's doing, but
yours. aHate to tell you Barb, the problems in your family are NOT because of
a social worker. They all could've been avioded by the word "NO".
>Let them watch people not so afflicted live happy
>lives, and let them feel the jealousy, envy and pain in their hearts as
>they watch.
How rich, you blame them for how you still feel today. When will you take
responsibility for yourself and your emotions? Geez, if you were anything like
this, it's no wonder they threatened you with a mental institution.
>10. If they dare to express pain or outrage at the treatment they
>received, be sure to label them as bitter, or a hundred other nasty
>words.
ROFLMAO!! You say your not bitter after posting this melodrama?
>Do your best to shut down any unfettered public discussion of
>their experiences. Don't *ever* let them testify to their experiences
>under oath. Berate them, marginalize them, label them as a protracted
>and disenfranchised grief reaction if you must, but SHUT THEM UP!!!!!!!!
Oh yes Barb, everyone's trying to shut bmoms up. Talk about your paranoia.
>
>THAT, Patty, would be the proper way to manage our ever increasing
>societal problem of out-of- control social workers. We need to act
>now, BEFORE they destroy our American way of life.
Hmmm, not to mention those out of control girls who can't tell their
boyfriends, "No Honey, I DON'T want to have sex.".
SCOM2
>Right. It's always OK to do what you're told to do, and what society
>tells you to do, because, after all, if you're doing it because
>someone more powerful than you told you to do it, it must be right,
>right?
Hey, if bmoms can claim this, so can social workers. Didn't bmoms do exactly
what society expected of them? Didn't they do it because someone more powerful
than they, said to? Didn't they do it because they were told it was right?
Why are we so willing to accept this behavior from bmoms, but when social
workers claim it, it doesn't work? A bit of a double standard.
L. Anne Babb
>>6. As soon as they are gone, auction off their child/children to the
>>highest bidding stranger. Or sell them to pirates. Make off with the
>>huge profit.
>
>Fuck you, Barb. Most adoptees were NOT sold/auctioned off. To impliy it is
>disgusting. Adoptive parents were not bidders. They are/were not criminals.
>Don't blame aparents for doing a job you didn't do.
While melodramatic, Barb's statement here, IMHO, has a lot more truth
to it than not. White, healthy infants aren't being placed in many
middle-class homes, much less in working class ones. Adoption is about
money, no matter how you want to cut it. I know working class parents
who are *great* parents, and single parents who'd be wonderful with an
adopted child, who are passed over for years by adoption agencies and
attorneys who actually do place infants and toddlers (and any other
child they can) with those who can pay the highest fees first. While
these adoptive parents are hardly pirates, sometimes the people who
place these kids act like pirates. I've seen siblings separated
because of money. I've been told of identical twins separated so that
twice the fees could be collected.
The abuses in adoption practice in the past and now are sometimes
disgusting and criminal--I don't blame Barbara for taking some
literary license, here. It's her perception of the process.
L. Anne Babb
Actually, Connie, I agree with you. I think that there are
developmental differences between the teenager making her first big
decision (what to do about being pregnant and unmarried) and the
social worker with a post-grad education that make it more likely that
the latter will be able to question authority. However, I agree with
you that many expectant mothers in bad situations and with people
telling them to get rid of their babies *have* questioned authority
and raised their babies anyway. One of our closest friends did that in
the 1960s--a "good Catholic girl" who bucked the whole system and kept
her bastard child.
We always have a choice, even if the only choice other than submission
is death.
SCOM2
Veronica22
blame lies with society, not with the individuals that meted out society's
"punishment".
>
Right, take it to Nuremburg and see if it washes.
V
Lesli
doctors, and nurses weren't just doing what society wanted, but what
they themselves wanted to do, too. How many people do you know who enjoy
the humiliation of another human being because it (falsely) boosts their
own sense of worth? If you can put some "trollop" in her place, doesn't
that make you feel gooood at the end of the day?
"L. Anne Babb" wrote:
> Jeanette, let's think this one through for a minute, OK? Your kid
> decides to try snuffing something, and you, his mom, explode, in your
> fear, shock, and anger, "What on earth were you THINKING?!" Junior
> defends himself, "But, mom, ALL the kids at the party were doing it!"
> And you say, "If all the kids start jumping off bridges, you aren't
> going to do that, too, are you?!"
>
snip
> Anne
>
> --
> L. Anne Babb
> anne...@homes4kids.org
> http://www.homes4kids.org
--
kdkspa...@my-dejanews.com
Jeannette,
In article <19990125222748...@ngol08.aol.com>,
jrob...@aol.comcan.it. (Jrobnett1) wrote:
>
> In article <36ACED2D...@lightlink.com>, Lesli <le...@lightlink.com>
> writes:
>
> >Lurk, the point is that what Barb wrote was the experience of many, many
> >women in past decades. Yes, it was sick.
>
> Even sicker is blaming people that were doing what they were told to do. The
> blame lies with society, not with the individuals that meted out society's
> "punishment".
How come it's OK for birthmothers to blame social workers for "doing what
they were told to do", but it's not OK for ANYONE to hold birthmothers
accountable for their actions when they were "doing what they were told to
do"? Looks like another hypocritical double standard to me!
- Kim.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
kdkspa...@my-dejanews.com
Anne,
In article <78jeoh$2bo...@annebabb.tdsnet.com>,
anne...@homes4kids.org (L. Anne Babb) wrote:
> In article <19990125222748...@ngol08.aol.com>,
> jrob...@aol.comcan.it. (Jrobnett1) wrote:
> >Even sicker is blaming people that were doing what they were told to do.
The
> >blame lies with society, not with the individuals that meted out society's
> >"punishment".
>
snip
It's the typical, cowardly response of people who lack the
> character, maturity, and intelligence to think through what they're
> doing and to question their authorities and themselves.
Those are exactly my feelings about birthmothers who are always yelling
about how they "relinquished" because they were told to do so by a "higher
authority" (i.e. parents, social workers, nuns, society, etc.).
kdkspa...@my-dejanews.com
Anne,
In article <78jhq1$2bo...@annebabb.tdsnet.com>,
anne...@homes4kids.org (L. Anne Babb) wrote:
snip
> We always have a choice, even if the only choice other than submission
> is death.
Hey, isn't this what Lisa Boo, Connie, and I have been saying for, oh, how
long now?
Jackie C
wrote:
>Thanks, Barbara. I appreciate that you made the effort to be kind (and
>that others just made the effort to be quiet) about our adopting
>again.
>
>Anne
I know, you were not in the delivery room.. calling the parent of your
newly adopted child.. "my bmom".
I know, that adoptee has a wonderful chance now, in this life with
you as a parent...
I saw your adopted daughters in SF.. and it gave me heart..
Jackie C
Jackie C
wrote:
>I agree Albert (and I actually understood what you were saying, lol). The
>Social Workers, the Doctors, the Nurses, Nuns and others were doing what they
>were told to do- what *society* told them to do. There were not necessarily
>"written laws" but these were accepted practices. Accepted *by* society. They
>don't deserve the ire, imo.
>
Then why, did not one of them, sit down with me and say.. "How are you
doing?" That would not have been going against the darn rules..
Why did they not have a discussion with me about my alternatives?
How to get welfare.. What would happen.. etc..
Why, (I have heard this since) is the bmom, if she decides to keep her
child, expected pay all the expenses.. of the birth..
She, who is starting out.. trying to keep her child..
Why?
Humane people would have seen the stress I was in..
Wondered why I was not saying a word..
Would have considered my feelings, when they put a woman in the bed
next to me, after the delivery, that was keeping her child..
Would have said to themselves.. hey that is kind of cruel to do that..
Jackie C
John Liesch
[snip]
[sorry, lost the attribution]
> It's the typical, cowardly response of people who lack the
>> character, maturity, and intelligence to think through what they're
>> doing and to question their authorities and themselves.
>
> Those are exactly my feelings about birthmothers who are always yelling
>about how they "relinquished" because they were told to do so by a "higher
>authority" (i.e. parents, social workers, nuns, society, etc.).
Of course, we all know it's more complicated than that. My bmom is a
Status Indian, she was born on the reserve and grew up with a father
than had been forced to attend native residential school. Both the
circumstances of my birth and the subsequent actions of my mother, the
Chilcren's Aid Society of BC, and the government were all influenced
by institutionalised, racism much of which still occurs here. Contrary
to all tradition and custom of my mother's people, I was placed with a
white family far from the reserve and any and all contact with my bmom
and her family and culture was completely severed. It was only as an
adult that I'm able to reclaim that missing part of my ethnic
heritage. We have a word for the process of removing children from
their extended families and culture: genocide.
John Liesch
Vancouver, BC
luff
AGREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I AGREE WITH EVERY STATMENT YOU
MADE HERE!!
THANK U\YOU PATTY YOU ARE VERY INTELLEGENT AND HAVE A MOST WONDERFUL WAY
WITH WORDS. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU
GREAT JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND YES DEATH IS WAY TO GOOD FOR THESE IGNORAMIUSIS.
LUFF
Morra wrote in message <36AB59...@onramp.net>...
>Patty B... wrote:
>>
>> Nevermind...maybe that's a little too stiff in the punishment department,
>> despite the rotted garbage being spewed by certain social workers on this
>> newsgroup.
>
>
>Patty, death is WAY too good for them. Better to do unto them what they
>did unto us, and let them live out their natural life span bearing the
>consequences. It's biblical, and they are sure to like that. An eye for
>an eye, you know. We should show them the mercy they showed us. Here's
>what I suggest;
>
>1. Incarcerate them against their wills in our "homes". Take away their
>names, their money, their credit cards, their personal articles of
>clothing, their access to the telephone or other modern means of
>communication. COMPLETELY isolate them from their network of social
>support, and the life they have known.
>2. Create a closed system of authority inside the home which can not be
>questioned. If they point out inconsistencies in our thinking or
>philosophy, we should tell them their hostility and aggression are
>misplaced and prescribe tranquilizers for them. We should assign other
>social worker who are more properly conditioned to be their constant
>companions, to correct their wrong thinking.
>3. Expose the social workers to daily mandatory meeting in which they
>are told they are dysfunctional, fallen, sinful, unworthy, neurotic,
>rebellious, ungrateful, beings. Reenforce this message at mealtimes, at
>Dr.'s appointments, and at every other opportunity. Continue this
>behaviour until their brains begin to resemble mush. Use physically
>painful and traumatic situations like labor when they are completely
>dependent and helpless and their brains are in a state of
>hypervunerability to abuse them with this message. REALLY get it across.
>REALLY make it stick.
>4. Once their brains are softened to the proper consistency, tell them
>the only way they can save themselves is to sign a TPR, releasing their
>children tothe state. Put a pen in their hand and stand over them until
>they sign. Should they be particularly hard headed or perhaps stupid
>and refuse to sign, use the court system as a means to legally steal
>their children. Label them psychotic, and back up this judgement with
>the authority of the legal system. Threaten them with shock treatments
>and the unearned stigma of mental illnes if they dig in their heels.
>Remind them that once they are committed to a mental institution, their
>rights can and most definitely will be involuntarily terminated. Show
>them the naked truth; there is no exit from their situation.
>5. Once they sign, throw their asses out on the street. Make sure the
>door slams loudly as they leave, and that they hear the deadbolt being
>locked. A few gratutitous insults about their sexual nature as they are
>thrown out the door would be nice.
>6. As soon as they are gone, auction off their child/children to the
>highest bidding stranger. Or sell them to pirates. Make off with the
>huge profit.
>7. If the social workers ever return to our home, claiming to be in
>pain, looking to reconstruct their experience, demanding an apology or
>explanation, seeking justice or accountability, seeking information to
>search with, or god forbid, seeking their records, claim that God made
>you do it to them in the first place. Remind them that they are
>powerless regarding the law. Misinterpert the law, misapply it, and hand
>out any falsified or incorrect information necessary to permanently
>discourage then from seeking out their relatives.
>8. Force them to live out their natural lives with the agony of not
>knowing the fate of their firstborn child. Let them wake up each
>morning not knowing, and with that inexpressible dread we feel. Let
>them cry through their child's birthday, and Christmas every year. Let
>them deal with the aftermath of broken trust and broken hearts after
>experiencing such manipulation and betrayal, and let it continue for
>the rest of their natural lives. Let them pay huge sums of money to
>therapists and psychiatrists in an attempt to straighten out the damage
>we did to them. Let them experience a permanent rift inside their own
>families over the loss of the child. Let them struggle and fight every
>day to establish a normal life and family after such a profoundly
>traumatic loss. Let them watch people not so afflicted live happy
>lives, and let them feel the jealousy, envy and pain in their hearts as
>they watch. Let them wonder what they did to deserve such pain and
>sustain such damage, and come to the conclusion that they must have
>been very bad people indeed to meet with such a fate.
>9. If through some illegal, unethical and probably criminal means they
>manage to locate their flesh and blood, watch with unabashed joy as
>they realize that the losses are life long and debilitating. After all,
>they went outside the boundaries we prescribed for them; they will have
>to deal with the consequences.
>10. If they dare to express pain or outrage at the treatment they
>received, be sure to label them as bitter, or a hundred other nasty
>words. Do your best to shut down any unfettered public discussion of
>their experiences. Don't *ever* let them testify to their experiences
>under oath. Berate them, marginalize them, label them as a protracted
>and disenfranchised grief reaction if you must, but SHUT THEM UP!!!!!!!!
>10. Repeat this procedure at least hundreds of thousands of times over a
>couple of decades.
>
>
>THAT, Patty, would be the proper way to manage our ever increasing
>societal problem of out-of- control social workers. We need to act
>now, BEFORE they destroy our American way of life.
>
>
>
>In sisterhood and solidarity,
>Barbara
Markg91359
Anne Babb wrote:
>> > We always have a choice, even if the only choice other than
>submission<BR>
>> > is death.<BR>
>> <BR>
>> Hey, isn't this what Lisa Boo, Connie, and I have been saying for,
>oh, how<BR>
>> long now?<BR>
><BR>
>Yeah...and in the real world it's bullshit.<BR>
This "choice" topic irks me for some internal reason. I can't really explain
it.....But I guess my major point is "so what" if in a broad philosophical
sense someone had a choice between two terribly bad alternatives?
I mean what the hell does that prove???
The condemned man had a choice between execution by firing squad or lethal
injection. Sophie, of "Sophie's Choice" had a choice between sending child A
or child B to the gas chamber in the Nazi death camp. In third world
countries, without welfare systems, people have a choice between working and
starving to death.
A certain poster on this NG had a "choice" between placing her child for
adoption or being sent to a mental hospital.
These aren't the kind of choices that reasonable people recognize as such and
define as "choices". Rather, speaking of such things as "choices" calls into
question the most basic ideas that I have about freedom and free will.
Perhaps, the most vicious assault on true freedom is a misplaced belief that
some horrendous courses of action actually involve free will. IMHO, decent
(and freedom-loving) societies try to structure themselves so that their
members are never forced to make such "choices".
"Though all the winds of evil and truth were loosed to do do battle with one
another, what of if? Whoever, knew truth the worst in a fair and open fight?"
....John Stuart Mills ( a paraphrase)
MarkG
Marley Elizabeth Greiner
<19990125222747...@ngol08.aol.com>...
>
> In article <36AC5E...@onramp.net>, Morra <mo...@onramp.net> writes:
>
> >true enough about the laws, al. but then again, what type of human
> >actually *engages* in executing said inhumane laws? hard working and
> >underpaid 'executionists', if you will, must have *some* terifically
> >strong motive for choosing work that doesn't pay well, and is so very
> >demanding. perhaps the opportunity for legalized inhumanity itself is
>
Jeanette:
> I think they thought they were helping you. They were doing what was
> recognized by society at the time as the right thing to do. Do you know
how
> many of them lie awake at night thinking about the terrible things they
did?
> This reminds me of Judgement at Nuremburg when the Burt Lancaster (?)
character
> gets up and makes his speech at the end.
When I was in college in the mid-1960s the social work profession was one
of the most honorable professions one could pursue. I seriously
considered it myself, but quickly realized that my "people skills" were
lacking and there was no way I could ever make them up. Back then, hard as
it may seem, people--especially young people--really believed that poverty
and racism could be eradicated in our time. Virtually every minority
student in my college went into the social work field working in a myriad
of areas: state welfare programs, hospitals, VISTA, community organizing,
family counseling, welfare reform, policy making, school breakfasts,
vocational training, prisons, safe houses for battered women, church
programs, draft counseling--and adoption counseling. The only area that
was generally condemned and avoided was the old bat brigade of welfare
workers who went man hunting in the closets of female recipients. In my
hometown it was social workers who organized civil rights and anti-war
demonstrations. My cousin with a social work degree was an organizer of
the big anti-poverty march in Washington where he got his head beat in by
the cops. I never met a social worker of my generation back then who didn't
fully believe in what he or she was doing. They believed they could make a
positive difference in the lives of individuals and eventually society as a
whole. They were liberals who saw welfare programs as a temporary stop-gap
measure that empowered people to function on their own. It's my rather
vague theory that I really haven't thought out yet, that these very
idealistic people were eventually co-opted by a bureaucracy of middle class
ideologues that put themselves ahead of the people it served. It's a
natural progression that happens in most hierarchical situations. I think
what happened is that social workers, became the complacent bottom feeders
of the social welfare industry. Of course, a lot of factors played into
this.
I'm rambling, and not really saying what I'm thinking, but I'm just
throwing this out right now. I'd like to add though that a wholesale
condemnation of social workers is silly. Some social workers are good,
others bad. They do tremendous work in many areas: hospitals, hospices,
drug rehab programs, battered women's shelters, homecare programs.
Adoption social workers are a tiny fraction of social workers, and unless
you have a connection to adoption they mean jack. And, they must be judged
by the standards of the day in which they worked.
--
The minute you settle for less than you deserve, you get less than you
settled for....Maureen Dowd
*****BASTARD NATION*****
www.bastards.org
By all means necessary,
Marley
Alex Wolfson
: So, evidently, here is an example of a family that chose to be
: together in death rather than separated for life.
Nope, here is an example of two young children returned to their parents by
CPS who were subsequently murdered by them.
--
SlayerBud - The Mighty Shepherd
MGoetzeler
In article <01be4959$81273560$7b604c0c@default>, "Marley Elizabeth Greiner"
<maddog...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> I seriously
>considered it myself, but quickly realized that my "people skills" were
>lacking and there was no way I could ever make them up.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHOOOOOOOOHOOOOOHOOOOOHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Your
people skills! I love you Marley!
Your Pal,
Marlene
Veronica22
<Sorry, Jeanette, but people who assume jobs making policy and decisions
which directly affect the lives of other human beings--- and especially,
so drastically--- also assume the ethical responsibilities of their
actions relevant to those policies and decisions. It's called
accountability.
When I worked as a nurse, I was accountable for anything I did to or for
the patient. PERSONALLY accountable. You better believe I handled my
patients with the utmost care and respect.
That's the appropriate standard for people whose work directly affects
human lives.
Why aren't social workers held to the same standard?
>
****
Well Barb, let me tell you a story. In 1969, after leaving the bdad in the dust
and hopping a plane from New Jersey to West Virginia and settling in with
family ... I was looking for a job to make money to return to school.
I interviewed for a job with the State. The job was "social worker." I didn't
qualify: I had only 59 college credits at the time, and they required 60
credit hours.
That's all they required. 60 credit hours. Subject matter made no difference
whatsoever.
One more credit hour, and I could have been making grand decisions down in the
hollers, taking babies from poor families and giving them to families with big
sparkling Betty Crocker kitchens (I've always loved big sparkling kitchens).
I didn't get the job, because I was short a credit hour. But guess what:
somebody else with 60 credit hours DID get that job. I wonder how they based
their decisions ....
V.
(Thinking of getting all new brushed aluminum appliances for the kitchen, and
incorporating tiny bit of lilac with some gray, on white, as decor -- what do
you think, Barb ....)
Hmmm, maybe black instead of gray, that sounds exciting.
L. Anne Babb
>I know, you were not in the delivery room.. calling the parent of your
>newly adopted child.. "my bmom".
>I know, that adoptee has a wonderful chance now, in this life with
>you as a parent...
Well, thank you Jackie. No, I wasn't in the delivery room, nor would I
have ever wanted to be. My husband and I have felt grieved that other
adoptive parents didn't leap to adopt this baby because of her special
needs (not thinking about all her potential!). We sure consider her a
treasure.
>I saw your adopted daughters in SF.. and it gave me heart..
Actually, you saw my daughter and former AAC treasurer Lois Wight's
daughter. My daughter was the one without the freckles. :-)
L. Anne Babb
> Hey, isn't this what Lisa Boo, Connie, and I have been saying for, oh, how
>
> - Kim.
I dunno, Kim; I haven't been around consistently enough to know. But
if it is what you've been saying, I agree (i.e., we always have a
choice, even if the only alternative is death).
L. Anne Babb
>if it is what you've been saying, I agree (i.e., we always have a
>choice, even if the only alternative is death).
Anne, now you'd better be careful, here. Think about what you just
wrote to Don and get back with me about whether you want to *really*
build a little vacation home on the stance you're taking here, or not.
Let's talk,
pat...@dial1.net
thing?
Anyway there are no double standards here. The bmoms were mostly
vulnerable young "girls" (as we were referred)- still children in the
eyes of the law i.e. under 21) being brainwashed in to believing
adoption was the in their child's' best interest to supposedly hide the
shame of our children's illegitimate status.
Whereas social workers were the adults and professionals who put their
own moral imperatives above the law and kept all available resources
from us to make sure their was no option but adoption if parental
assistance wasn't forthcoming. As professionals who went outside the law
they can no longer used the old "I was just following orders" routine as
a defense - as it was outlawed under the Human Rights Act 1949 during
the Nuremberg Trials.
Anyway you're going to find, as we have, that it was often lowly
clerical staff who took on the menial task of taking the mothers
consents. no wonder we never got our legal rights! The social workers
mainly worked on the side of people who paid their wages - the adopting
parents. Gosh! How come every time I open my mouth to raise an issue I
find another piece of legislation has not been complied with?
Di
"Our task as men is to find the few principles that will calm the
infinite anguish of free souls. We must mend what has been torn apart.
Make justice imaginable again in a world so obviously unjust, give
happiness a meaning once more, to peoples poisoned by the misery of the
century."
"Our Task as Men" Albert Camus 1968
SCOM2 wrote:
>
> >
> >Right. It's always OK to do what you're told to do, and what society
> >tells you to do, because, after all, if you're doing it because
> >someone more powerful than you told you to do it, it must be right,
> >right?
>
> Hey, if bmoms can claim this, so can social workers. Didn't bmoms do exactly
> what society expected of them? Didn't they do it because someone more powerful
> than they, said to? Didn't they do it because they were told it was right?
> Why are we so willing to accept this behavior from bmoms, but when social
> workers claim it, it doesn't work? A bit of a double standard.
>
pat...@dial1.net
SCOM2 wrote:
>
> Bmoms could've told their social worker where to go. They could've walked out
> the door at any time. They were not chained to the walls.
Yes they could if their babies hadn't been hidden from them in the
confines of locked and hidden nurseries. And yes they could if they
could prove to authorities that they had somewhere to go with their
child and had the financial resources to support the child. If however
their parents would not let them come home with said "bastard child"
(thank you Anne on behalf of all adoptees) the Child Protection
Department immediately swooped in and confiscated the child as being AT
RISK where it would then be classified as destitute, made a state ward
until 18 or eventually adopted out without the mothers consent.
Connie please either speak of things you know or educate yourself.
If you hate bmothers be honest enough to say so but please do not try to
rewrite history at our expense in order to justify your animosity.
Di
pat...@dial1.net
in NSW is how social work had it's own heirachy and adoption workers, it
was explained, were the lowest on the rung of qualified workers. This
was the explanation given for the huge turnover of staff in the
practice. Most adoption workers during the 1960's -70's were straight
out of Uni and were 'bonded' to that position for a period, as part of
their Contract before qualifying for other social work departments.. Of
those who remained to become principal officers and make adoption their
life's work, the vast majority consisted of adoptive parents. A conflict
of interest if ever there was one.
Di
Markg91359 wrote:
>
> I wanted to try and write something balanced about social workers. I think we
> should begin with the comment that every profession has its good and bad.
> Certainly social work is no exception. I also hesitate to start after social
> workers because I'm very sensitive about the way that lawyers have been
> "tarbrushed". Certainly some lawyers deserve it....Various escapades like the
> OJ Simpson trial, adoption abuses, and the delays in executing that sick
> nutcase Ted Bundy and other murderers account for much of that.
>
> However, my basic problem with social work is that it strikes me as too
> subjective of a process. Social workers, in my observation, do very little in
> the way of objective quantification. Everything essentially seems to boil down
> to "their opinion". What I have observed is how radically things can change
> when one social worker quits, or is replaced in their job. And this is a real
> problem around here. The turnover rate among social workers who work for the
> state here, is just phenomenal. I never plan on seeing the same person twice.
> When turnover occurs, we are dealing with a whole new set of subjective
> prejudices and opinions.
>
> Still, its not a job I could ever see doing and, yet, someone has to do it.
> Working with people who are in many of the situations that social workers find
> them in could not be easy. Ideally, the focus of social work would be on
> helping bring people out of poverty, helping them manage or cure mental
> illness, and dealing with the overwhelming difficulties many elderly people
> face.
>
> Society seems to need demons or scapegoats to vent against. Sometimes these
> demons are lawyers. Sometimes they are school teachers. Sometimes they are
> social workers. I also see the number of people venting against physicians
> increasing. All this venting maybe healthy for some individuals. I'm not
> sure it solves any problems, though.
pat...@dial1.net
Jrobnett1 wrote:
>
> In article <36AC5E...@onramp.net>, Morra <mo...@onramp.net> writes:
>
> >true enough about the laws, al. but then again, what type of human
> >actually *engages* in executing said inhumane laws? hard working and
> >underpaid 'executionists', if you will, must have *some* terifically
> >strong motive for choosing work that doesn't pay well, and is so very
> >demanding. perhaps the opportunity for legalized inhumanity itself is
> >the payoff.
>
> I think they thought they were helping you. They were doing what was
> recognized by society at the time as the right thing to do. Do you know how
> many of them lie awake at night thinking about the terrible things they did?
> This reminds me of Judgement at Nuremburg when the Burt Lancaster (?) character
> gets up and makes his speech at the end.
>
> Jeannette, bmom
Jeanette - they were advertising our babies as unwanted. They were
making society believe we didn't want our babies. Society accepted the
adoption of infants as a good thing because THEY were 'led to believe'
we were giving them away. Society condemned us with the stigma of being
'the sort of mothers who could give away our own babies. We ended up
with a stigma far greater than becoming a single mother could ever be.
They condemned us for acquiescing to the doctrine of the ADOPTION
INDUSTRY who promoted it as being in our children's best interest. It
had nothing whatsoever to do with social mores of the time. It was an
orchestrated social engineering program and nothing less. Sadly, through
our trauma induced silence, it came to be seen as a social norm - a
sanctioned evil as it were.
Di
>
> Growth is the only evidence of life. -Cardinal Newman
> ***************************************************************
> Compassion is daring to acknowledge our own destiny so that
> we might move forward together. - Henri Nouwen
C. Kasupski
wrote:
>
>In article <36ACED2D...@lightlink.com>, Lesli <le...@lightlink.com>
>writes:
>
>>Lurk, the point is that what Barb wrote was the experience of many, many
>>women in past decades. Yes, it was sick.
>
>Even sicker is blaming people that were doing what they were told to do. The
>blame lies with society, not with the individuals that meted out society's
>"punishment".
>
Hmmm.. Interesting that EVERYONE is trying to pin the blame on
someone. <Boy I can see my hatemail coming already> Although I know
there are/were certain circumstances that are "out of our control"
such as rape, widowhood, etc... If there was no "situation" created
that required the use of social workers for the adoption process,
there would have been no need for the treatment that was received by
those persons in that "situation".
Christine
>Jeannette, bmom
C. Kasupski
>In article <78khqq$otv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>kdkspa...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>> Anne,
>>
>> In article <78jhq1$2bo...@annebabb.tdsnet.com>,
>> anne...@homes4kids.org (L. Anne Babb) wrote:
>>
>>
>> snip
>>
>>
>> > We always have a choice, even if the only choice other than submission
>> > is death.
>>
>> Hey, isn't this what Lisa Boo, Connie, and I have been saying for, oh, how
>> long now?
>
>Yeah...and in the real world it's bullshit.
>
>- Don
Only if you let it.
lev...@scu.edu.au
pat...@dial1.net wrote:
>
>
> Jeanette - they were advertising our babies as unwanted. They were
> making society believe we didn't want our babies. Society accepted the
> adoption of infants as a good thing because THEY were 'led to believe'
> we were giving them away. Society condemned us with the stigma of being
> 'the sort of mothers who could give away our own babies. We ended up
> with a stigma far greater than becoming a single mother could ever be.
>
> They condemned us for acquiescing to the doctrine of the ADOPTION
> INDUSTRY who promoted it as being in our children's best interest. It
> had nothing whatsoever to do with social mores of the time. It was an
> orchestrated social engineering program and nothing less. Sadly, through
> our trauma induced silence, it came to be seen as a social norm - a
> sanctioned evil as it were.
> Di
Right on Di!!
I also believe that these women were seeking power in a very male dominated
world and the way they chose to clamber up the ladder was on the backs of
their less fortunate sisters.
These social workers took the law into their own hands in order to make their
judgemental and inhumane decisions....they actually went against the adoption
laws that were in place...for instance, mothers were often not allowed to see
or hold their babies, I know, I was one of those mothers and have since
leanrt that this was unlawful. There was so much cruelty...I couldn't trust
another woman for years after their treatment . Lina
> > Growth is the only evidence of life. -Cardinal Newman
> > ***************************************************************
> > Compassion is daring to acknowledge our own destiny so that
> > we might move forward together. - Henri Nouwen
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
lev...@scu.edu.au
kdkspa...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>
>
> How come it's OK for birthmothers to blame social workers for "doing what
> they were told to do", but it's not OK for ANYONE to hold birthmothers
> accountable for their actions when they were "doing what they were told to
> do"? Looks like another hypocritical double standard to me!
Kim, you need to get your facts straight.A lot of social workers did the very
opposite of what they were supposed to do..and did many things they were NOT
supposed to do. For instance, in Australina adoption law, they were supposed
to give the mother ALL the information about her options, they were NOT
supposed to "by force or fraud" keep her from her baby, they were not to take
a signature of relinquishment if the mother had any doubts at all.....to name
just a few. They often took it upon themselves to act the way they did. This
is why there is now an inquiry into past adoption practices going on here in
OZ, because many adoption laws were broken. Lina
>
> - Kim.
Veronica22
<what did i tell you, veronica?
and it's not even five o'clock yet!
way, way beyond outrage,
barbara
>
***
yes Barb, it's the 3:19 News and Justification Spot.
V.
Jrobnett1
In article <78jeoh$2bo...@annebabb.tdsnet.com>, anne...@homes4kids.org (L.
Anne Babb) writes:
>Jeanette, let's think this one through for a minute, OK? Your kid
>decides to try snuffing something, and you, his mom, explode, in your
>fear, shock, and anger, "What on earth were you THINKING?!" Junior
>defends himself, "But, mom, ALL the kids at the party were doing it!"
>And you say, "If all the kids start jumping off bridges, you aren't
>going to do that, too, are you?!"
>
>What about the Mai Lai massacre? The excuse was that the order was
>given, and a person was responsible to obey orders--but that didn't
>keep Calley from a court martial. Nixon tried this defense in
>Watergate. It's the typical, cowardly response of people who lack the
>character, maturity, and intelligence to think through what they're
>doing and to question their authorities and themselves.
>
>
Oh Bullcrap Anne. You can't prosecute someone that broke the law before the
law went into effect, can you? Society in general thought they were doing
women a favor- getting rid of the shame. My mother-in-law used to get her hair
washed with lye- good thing she's not blind. What would happen if someone did
that to their kid today? Or if someone took their kid behind the barn with a
leather razor strap and beat them bloody? How about corporal punishment in
schools? These things used to be accepted practices in the US. Should all the
people that perpetrated these "crimes" toward children be tracked down and
shot? Enlightenment brings change. I've worked with bad social workers, and
good ones. For the most part they *all* believed they were doing right by me.
Some did, some didn't. Should we punish *all* of them? I think not.
Jeannette, bmom
Jrobnett1
In article <36AD4C14...@my-dejanews.com>, "Patty B..."
<pat...@my-dejanews.com> writes:
> These social workers *were* working for a paycheck? They
> did *choose* their job? They were free, at any time, to
> say, "I QUIT!" ...were they not? They were free to look
> around them and say, perhaps, "My, this seems not to be
> the best I could do to truly help this person. There may
> be better ways to accomplish my job. After all, I'm no
> lemming who follows the crowd and jumps off the cliff
> without question or pause...am I?"
Well obviously, it happened- just a little too late to suit you. Things are
changing, slowly, but change *is* happening in the adoption community.
Would you quit *your* job because you were doing something you didn't like, or
something you didn't quite believe in? That would be foolish. It's not like
SW make a million bucks a year or anything- they were/are working stiffs like
most of the rest of us.
Jrobnett1
>Jeanette - they were advertising our babies as unwanted. They were
>making society believe we didn't want our babies. Society accepted the
>adoption of infants as a good thing because THEY were 'led to believe'
>we were giving them away. Society condemned us with the stigma of being
>'the sort of mothers who could give away our own babies. We ended up
>with a stigma far greater than becoming a single mother could ever be.
Society *wanted* to believe these children were unwanted. They were unwanted
by the upright christian citizens of this "moral" country we live in. The
stigma of a "bastard child" (in the middle class community) was far worse than
being a birthmother. If you were a birthmother, "You did the right thing,
dear". If you were a single mother, with a child out of wedlock, you were a
bad girl- a girl with a reputation. Sheesh. Even women that were divorced
were snubbed in the 50's and early 60's! What makes you think a young woman
with an out-of-wedlock child would be??? Anyone here read Bastard Out of
Carolina?
SCOM2
>confines of locked and hidden nurseries.
A little difficult to do when you're still pregnant.
> If however
>their parents would not let them come home with said "bastard child"
>(thank you Anne on behalf of all adoptees) the Child Protection
>Department immediately swooped in and confiscated the child as being AT
>RISK where it would then be classified as destitute, made a state ward
Gee, all the women who lied about being widows had this happen? You make it
sound like there were Unwed Mother Police. Sure, there may have been a few
women who did have CPS take the baby. BUT how can your parents, social worker,
etc., take the baby if they don't even know where you are?
>Connie please either speak of things you know or educate yourself.
ROFLMAO!!
You assume to have a clue of what I know.
>If you hate bmothers be honest enough to say so
Now you assume I hate bmoms. Why do bmoms claim this anytime someone says the
truth?
>but please do not try to
>rewrite history at our expense in order to justify your animosity.
>Di
Hmmm, reality is really hard for you. Isn't it?
SCOM2
>Why aren't social workers held to the same standard?
>
>
>
Why aren't bmoms?
SCOM2
>doing?" That would not have been going against the darn rules..
How many times did you go to one and ask them how *they* were doing? It goes
both ways.
>Why did they not have a discussion with me about my alternatives?
>How to get welfare.. What would happen.. etc..
Maybe because that wasn't their job? Why didn't you look into all of the
options, before letting your parents know you were pregnant? Being uninformed
isn't their fault.
>Why, (I have heard this since) is the bmom, if she decides to keep her
>child, expected pay all the expenses.. of the birth..
Hello? Why is ANY mother expected to pay the costs of prenatal care, delivery
and care after the birth? Who do you expect to pay it?
>Humane people would have seen the stress I was in..
>Wondered why I was not saying a word..
So you think they should've opened their mouth and lost their job?
>Would have considered my feelings, when they put a woman in the bed
>next to me, after the delivery, that was keeping her child..
>Would have said to themselves.. hey that is kind of cruel to do that..
>
>
Sorry Jackie, but it's the same treatment they gave to moms who had their baby
die during delivery.
BBetzen
>disgusting and criminal--I don't blame Barbara for taking some
>literary license, here. It's her perception of the process.
>
>Anne
Anne,
Tragically Anne I must agree with you fully. I have seen too much "bad social
work practice" (to put it mildly) in child placement relative to adoption, and
most of it in the interest of financial profit. People MUST be willing to file
complaints, especially against any person who is a certified social worker in
the state in which they are working. Every state with such certification has a
complaint process. In Texas I know that they followed and did censure people
and take away their certification to practice when there were valid complaints.
We must use those proceedures when possible to stop the unprofessional work
that continues to be done every day.
Bill Betzen, ACSW
(The ACSW means I am an member of the NASW Academy of Certified Social Workers
and any complaints against my practice can be made to NASW. Other such similar
initials after a name usually mean there is a place you can file a complaint
against them so they can loose the right to use those initials after their
name. Use it!! It may just help improve adoption practice.)
Bill Betzen
http://www.openadoption.org/bbetzen
kdkspa...@my-dejanews.com
Barb,
In article <36AE0B...@onramp.net>,
mo...@onramp.net wrote:
> ...or DEATH TO FAMILIES UNFORTUNATE ENOUGH TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH SOCIAL
> WORKERS.
>
> WFAA, the ABC affiliate in Dallas is reporting this noon on the
> apparent murder-suicide of a family of four- mother, father, and two
> sons aged 5 and 7, and the family German shepard, found dead by the
> Fort Worth police in their car this morning. Apparent cause of death was
> carbon monoxide poisoning. A hose from their dryer had been attached
> to the exhaust pipe of the car and threaded through the driver's side
> window. The car had been covered with a heavy tarpaulin. The couple's
> children had been removed by Child Protective Services and returned
> recently. The family was still under ongoing investigation by CPS
> because of financial problems, according to their neighbor and close
> friend, who said the couple was distraught over the continuing CPS
> investigation. The neighbor was a close friend who helped drive the
> children to day care and school while the couple worked.
>
> So, evidently, here is an example of a family that chose to be
> together in death rather than separated for life.
Are you sure about that? Are you REALLY sure that was the "reasoning" going
on in the parents' heads when they decided to kill themselves and take their
kids with them? Are you sure they weren't just a couple of nuts?
Anyway, for the sake of argument, let's say that your theory is correct, and
that the parents really did think it would better for everyone to be dead than
separated for life. Let's even say that chosing death over losing their
children makes them some kind of martyrs. Following this reasoning to its
logical conclusion, birthmothers STILL aren't martyrs, because they didn't
chose death over losing their children. In fact, many of them chose signing
the papers over something bad happening to them (i.e. being incarcerated in a
mental hospital).
> >
>
> Anne wrote, most ironically:
>
> > > We always have a choice, even if the only choice other than submission
> > > is death.
> >
>
> and Kim responded:
> > Hey, isn't this what Lisa Boo, Connie, and I have been saying for, oh,
how
> > long now?
> >
> > - Kim.
> >
> > --
>
> I would like to ask you, Connie, Kim and Lisa and other folks in the
> "choice" camp there (and, no, not you, Anne.... I at least understood
> what you meant when you wrote the above):
>
> Is this what you advocate?
You must get lots of exercise making these incredible leaps of logic, Barb.
Connie, Lisa Boo and I merely responded to your assertion that you and other
birthmothers had no choice by pointing out that even really crappy choices are
in fact STILL choices. I don't know how you decided that pointing out that
really crappy choices are STILL choices means that we advocate parents killing
themselves and their children rather than being separated for life. The fact
remains that you and other birthmothers were threatened with dire consequences
if you didn't sign the papers, and instead of chosing to refuse to sign your
child away no matter what they did to you, you chose to "relinquish" your
child.
> Confrontationally Yours,
> Barbara Franks-Morra
I'm sure. The difference between you and I is that I am not deliberately
trying to be confrontational. I think deep in your heart you realize that
you chose to "relinquish" your daughter rather than risk being locked up in a
nuthouse, and you feel incredible guilt over this, and the reason that you
try so hard to convince us that you had no choice is because you really want
to convince yourself. You probably feel that you should have fought harder,
that you should have refused to sign and let them lock you up in order to get
your child. I am not saying that this is what you should have done (nor, to
my knowledge, have Connie, Lisa or I ever said this). I think the problem we
have with you is your saying that you had no choice when in fact you DID make
a choice, even though none of the options presented to you were really great
ones. I think you would feel a whole lot better if you acknowledged this to
yourself, worked through the guilt, and moved on.
kdkspa...@my-dejanews.com
a...@netcom.com (Alex Wolfson) wrote:
> Morra (mo...@onramp.net) wrote:
>
> : So, evidently, here is an example of a family that chose to be
> : together in death rather than separated for life.
>
> Nope, here is an example of two young children returned to their parents by
> CPS who were subsequently murdered by them.
Yep. That's exactly right.
kdkspa...@my-dejanews.com
Barb,
In article <36AE03...@onramp.net>,
mo...@onramp.net wrote:
snip
> let them stay up all night and worry about that. they *should.* they
> *should* review their past actions towards others and question
> themselves. that is the beginning of wisdom....to search your own soul
> honestly.
>
> then, they should be grownups about it and go back and apologize to
> those they have injured.
Yeah - just like birthmothers should apologize to the children they
"relinquished". Right?
kdkspa...@my-dejanews.com
Anne,
In article <78lk35$2bs...@annebabb.tdsnet.com>,
anne...@homes4kids.org (L. Anne Babb) wrote:
> In article <78khqq$otv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> kdkspa...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > Hey, isn't this what Lisa Boo, Connie, and I have been saying for, oh, how
> >long now?
> >
> >
>
> I dunno, Kim; I haven't been around consistently enough to know. But
> if it is what you've been saying, I agree (i.e., we always have a
> choice, even if the only alternative is death).
Yep. That's exactly what we've been saying all along. However, certain
people would have us all believe that they had NO CHOICE but to sign those
papers, when in fact they were presented with various options (even if they
were all pretty unappealing). CHOOSING to sign "relinquishment" papers rather
than being put in a nuthouse is just that - A CHOICE.
kdkspa...@my-dejanews.com
Anne,
In article <78lkr1$2bs...@annebabb.tdsnet.com>,
anne...@homes4kids.org (L. Anne Babb) wrote:
> In article <78lk35$2bs...@annebabb.tdsnet.com>,
> anne...@homes4kids.org (L. Anne Babb) wrote:
> >I dunno, Kim; I haven't been around consistently enough to know. But
> >if it is what you've been saying, I agree (i.e., we always have a
> >choice, even if the only alternative is death).
>
> Anne, now you'd better be careful, here. Think about what you just
> wrote to Don and get back with me about whether you want to *really*
> build a little vacation home on the stance you're taking here, or not.
>
> Let's talk,
> Anne
Hmmmmm... how many people have you got living inside your head, Anne?
kdkspa...@my-dejanews.com
Barb,
In article <36AE80...@onramp.net>,
mo...@onramp.net wrote:
> L. Anne Babb wrote:
> >
> > In article <78lk35$2bs...@annebabb.tdsnet.com>,
> > anne...@homes4kids.org (L. Anne Babb) wrote:
> > >I dunno, Kim; I haven't been around consistently enough to know. But
> > >if it is what you've been saying, I agree (i.e., we always have a
> > >choice, even if the only alternative is death).
> >
> > Anne, now you'd better be careful, here. Think about what you just
> > wrote to Don and get back with me about whether you want to *really*
> > build a little vacation home on the stance you're taking here, or not.
> >
> > Let's talk,
> > Anne
> >
> > --
> > L. Anne Babb
> > anne...@homes4kids.org
> > http://www.homes4kids.org
>
> OK Anne,
> three inpatient days a week, forget the shrimp, forget the tickets, it's
> all on me ;D
> all the springer, sally jesse and ricki you can eat.
>
> my best offer,
> barbara
It's interesting that you didn't comment on the fact that Anne appears to be
engaged in a conversation with herself. Maybe you don't consider that kind
of behavior to be unusual enough to comment upon....
kdkspa...@my-dejanews.com
Lina,
In article <78mjck$g0n$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
lev...@scu.edu.au wrote:
> In article <78khc8$odk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> kdkspa...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> >
>
> >
> > How come it's OK for birthmothers to blame social workers for "doing what
> > they were told to do", but it's not OK for ANYONE to hold birthmothers
> > accountable for their actions when they were "doing what they were told to
> > do"? Looks like another hypocritical double standard to me!
>
> Kim, you need to get your facts straight.
No, YOU need to get your facts straight. Certain people have been saying
that social workers should be held accountable for their actions even though
they were "only following orders", but they ALSO claim that birthmothers
should NOT be held accountable for THEIR actions BECAUSE they were "only
following orders". Whether the social workers did things they weren't
supposed to be doing was never brought into the discussion.
A lot of social workers did the very
> opposite of what they were supposed to do..and did many things they were NOT
> supposed to do. For instance, in Australina adoption law, they were supposed
> to give the mother ALL the information about her options, they were NOT
> supposed to "by force or fraud" keep her from her baby, they were not to take
> a signature of relinquishment if the mother had any doubts at all.....to name
> just a few. They often took it upon themselves to act the way they did. This
> is why there is now an inquiry into past adoption practices going on here in
> OZ, because many adoption laws were broken. Lina
Well, that's no fun, is it?
pat...@dial1.net
would have been much higher.
Di
Morra wrote:
>
> Patty B... wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Anne made a comment about the differences in age between a sw and bmom. I
> > > don't even see that as an issue because the average age of bmoms was not the
> > > young, impressionable teen. The average age was 19, which makes them pretty
> > > much an adult. By age 19, many females were looking at getting married. Some
> > > were away at colleges and living on their own and making their own decisions.
>
> evidently SOME PEOPLE stop developing at nineteen.
>
> but not this person.
>
> barbara
pat...@dial1.net
penny's dropped.
Jackie C wrote:
>
> On 26 Jan 1999 00:41:24 GMT, jrob...@aol.comcan.it. (Jrobnett1)
> wrote:
>
> >I agree Albert (and I actually understood what you were saying, lol). The
> >Social Workers, the Doctors, the Nurses, Nuns and others were doing what they
> >were told to do- what *society* told them to do. There were not necessarily
> >"written laws" but these were accepted practices. Accepted *by* society. They
> >don't deserve the ire, imo.
> >
> Then why, did not one of them, sit down with me and say.. "How are you
> doing?" That would not have been going against the darn rules..
>
> Why did they not have a discussion with me about my alternatives?
> How to get welfare.. What would happen.. etc..
>
> Why, (I have heard this since) is the bmom, if she decides to keep her
> child, expected pay all the expenses.. of the birth..
>
> She, who is starting out.. trying to keep her child..
> Why?
>
> Humane people would have seen the stress I was in..
> Wondered why I was not saying a word..
> Would have considered my feelings, when they put a woman in the bed
> next to me, after the delivery, that was keeping her child..
> Would have said to themselves.. hey that is kind of cruel to do that..
>
> Jackie C
pat...@dial1.net
Di
Morra wrote:
>
> pat...@dial1.net wrote:
>
> >
> > Jeanette - they were advertising our babies as unwanted. They were
> > making society believe we didn't want our babies. Society accepted the
> > adoption of infants as a good thing because THEY were 'led to believe'
> > we were giving them away. Society condemned us with the stigma of being
> > 'the sort of mothers who could give away our own babies. We ended up
> > with a stigma far greater than becoming a single mother could ever be.
> >
> > They condemned us for acquiescing to the doctrine of the ADOPTION
> > INDUSTRY who promoted it as being in our children's best interest. It
> > had nothing whatsoever to do with social mores of the time. It was an
> > orchestrated social engineering program and nothing less. Sadly, through
> > our trauma induced silence, it came to be seen as a social norm - a
> > sanctioned evil as it were.
> > Di
>
> right-o. in my humble opinion, their behaviour could fairly be
> characterized as fraudulent. in my opinion, it was
> misrepresentation....deceitful, overreaching behaviour towards both
> natural parents and adoptive parents. the behaviour was designed to
> induce us natural parents to part ways with our legal rights to our
> children, and to induce adoptive parents to part with their money. all
> based on social worker's version, or should i say their perversion, of
> the truth.
>
> let them stay up all night and worry about that. they *should.* they
> *should* review their past actions towards others and question
> themselves. that is the beginning of wisdom....to search your own soul
> honestly.
>
> then, they should be grownups about it and go back and apologize to
> those they have injured.
>
> barbara
>
> amen and amen
>
> barbara
pat...@dial1.net
social workers as a whole.
Di
Marley Elizabeth Greiner wrote:
>
> Jrobnett1 <jrob...@aol.comcan.it.> wrote in article
> <19990125222747...@ngol08.aol.com>...
> >
> > In article <36AC5E...@onramp.net>, Morra <mo...@onramp.net> writes:
> >
> > >true enough about the laws, al. but then again, what type of human
> > >actually *engages* in executing said inhumane laws? hard working and
> > >underpaid 'executionists', if you will, must have *some* terifically
> > >strong motive for choosing work that doesn't pay well, and is so very
> > >demanding. perhaps the opportunity for legalized inhumanity itself is
> >
>
> Jeanette:
> > I think they thought they were helping you. They were doing what was
> > recognized by society at the time as the right thing to do. Do you know
> how
> > many of them lie awake at night thinking about the terrible things they
> did?
> > This reminds me of Judgement at Nuremburg when the Burt Lancaster (?)
> character
> > gets up and makes his speech at the end.
>
> When I was in college in the mid-1960s the social work profession was one
> of the most honorable professions one could pursue. I seriously
> considered it myself, but quickly realized that my "people skills" were
> lacking and there was no way I could ever make them up. Back then, hard as
> it may seem, people--especially young people--really believed that poverty
> and racism could be eradicated in our time. Virtually every minority
> student in my college went into the social work field working in a myriad
> of areas: state welfare programs, hospitals, VISTA, community organizing,
> family counseling, welfare reform, policy making, school breakfasts,
> vocational training, prisons, safe houses for battered women, church
> programs, draft counseling--and adoption counseling. The only area that
> was generally condemned and avoided was the old bat brigade of welfare
> workers who went man hunting in the closets of female recipients. In my
> hometown it was social workers who organized civil rights and anti-war
> demonstrations. My cousin with a social work degree was an organizer of
> the big anti-poverty march in Washington where he got his head beat in by
> the cops. I never met a social worker of my generation back then who didn't
> fully believe in what he or she was doing. They believed they could make a
> positive difference in the lives of individuals and eventually society as a
> whole. They were liberals who saw welfare programs as a temporary stop-gap
> measure that empowered people to function on their own. It's my rather
> vague theory that I really haven't thought out yet, that these very
> idealistic people were eventually co-opted by a bureaucracy of middle class
> ideologues that put themselves ahead of the people it served. It's a
> natural progression that happens in most hierarchical situations. I think
> what happened is that social workers, became the complacent bottom feeders
> of the social welfare industry. Of course, a lot of factors played into
> this.
>
> I'm rambling, and not really saying what I'm thinking, but I'm just
> throwing this out right now. I'd like to add though that a wholesale
> condemnation of social workers is silly. Some social workers are good,
> others bad. They do tremendous work in many areas: hospitals, hospices,
> drug rehab programs, battered women's shelters, homecare programs.
> Adoption social workers are a tiny fraction of social workers, and unless
> you have a connection to adoption they mean jack. And, they must be judged
> by the standards of the day in which they worked.
> --
> The minute you settle for less than you deserve, you get less than you
> settled for....Maureen Dowd
>
> *****BASTARD NATION*****
> www.bastards.org
>
> By all means necessary,
> Marley
lis...@my-dejanews.com
> In article <78jhq1$2bo...@annebabb.tdsnet.com>,
> anne...@homes4kids.org (L. Anne Babb) wrote:
> snip
> > We always have a choice, even if the only choice other than submission
> > is death.
> Hey, isn't this what Lisa Boo, Connie, and I have been saying for, oh, how
> long now?
Anne's wrong -- everyone knows it's only a choice when all your options are
equally warm and fuzzy.
BTW Kim, how did you manage to give me your cold over the net? I'm DYING
here!
Illin'-Boo
kdkspa...@my-dejanews.com
Lisa,
In article <78nam4$2du$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
lis...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <78khqq$otv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> kdkspa...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> >
>
> > In article <78jhq1$2bo...@annebabb.tdsnet.com>,
> > anne...@homes4kids.org (L. Anne Babb) wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > > We always have a choice, even if the only choice other than submission
> > > is death.
>
> > Hey, isn't this what Lisa Boo, Connie, and I have been saying for, oh,
how
> > long now?
>
> Anne's wrong -- everyone knows it's only a choice when all your options are
> equally warm and fuzzy.
Sorry, I keep forgetting.
> BTW Kim, how did you manage to give me your cold over the net? I'm
DYING
> here!
I don't know - you're the scientist, you figure it out. I'm a mere
manicurist, remember?
> Illin'-Boo
I was starting to wonder what happened to you.
- Kim.
lis...@my-dejanews.com
> ...or DEATH TO FAMILIES UNFORTUNATE ENOUGH TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH SOCIAL
> WORKERS.
Or, DEATH TO CHILDREN UNFORTUNATE ENOUGH TO BE BORN TO SUICIDAL PARENTS ...
or, DO YOU THINK THOSE CHILDREN WERE CAPABLE OF DECIDING TO COMMIT SUICIDE
... or, WHAT WOULD YOU SAY IF IT TURNED OUT THESE WERE *ADOPTIVE* PARENTS,
BARB?
> WFAA, the ABC affiliate in Dallas is reporting this noon on the
> apparent murder-suicide of a family of four- mother, father, and two
> sons aged 5 and 7, and the family German shepard, found dead by the
> Fort Worth police in their car this morning. Apparent cause of death was
> carbon monoxide poisoning. A hose from their dryer had been attached
> to the exhaust pipe of the car and threaded through the driver's side
> window. The car had been covered with a heavy tarpaulin. The couple's
> children had been removed by Child Protective Services and returned
> recently. The family was still under ongoing investigation by CPS
> because of financial problems, according to their neighbor and close
> friend, who said the couple was distraught over the continuing CPS
> investigation. The neighbor was a close friend who helped drive the
> children to day care and school while the couple worked.
The dog too?
> So, evidently, here is an example of a family that chose to be
> together in death rather than separated for life.
I'm sorry Barb, but out of the five living beings that died, only two were
capable of making any "choice" at all when it came to suicide. Five and seven
year old children and german shepards generally don't "choose" to commit
suicide.
> Anne wrote, most ironically:
Doesn't irony occur when the stated meaning is the opposite of the intended
meaning?
> > > We always have a choice, even if the only choice other than submission
> > > is death.
> and Kim responded:
> > Hey, isn't this what Lisa Boo, Connie, and I have been saying for, oh, how
> > long now?
> I would like to ask you, Connie, Kim and Lisa and other folks in the
> "choice" camp there (and, no, not you, Anne.... I at least understood
> what you meant when you wrote the above):
> Is this what you advocate?
Interesting reading of Anne's statement and Kim's response. Anne pointed out
that there IS a choice, even if it's between submission and death. Kim
agrees, and so do I.
However, I'm wondering how this applies to the children and the dog, Barb.
Did they make a choice? Did the adults give them an option, stay with us and
die or be taken back by DSS and live? Did the adults in this sad little
equation have the right to make this choice for their children and their dog?
I'm finding it difficult to believe that a SOCIAL WORKER or anyone else told
the adults that their choices were to either lose their kids or kill
themselves and murder their children and dog.
Suicide's a fairly selfish decision, Barb. Murdering your children rather
than having them taken away from you is even more selfish.
> Confrontationally Yours,
> Barbara Franks-Morra
Likewise,
Lisa-Shoot-me-now-I'm-SO-sick Boo
lis...@my-dejanews.com
kdkspa...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Barb,
>
> In article <36AE0B...@onramp.net>,
> mo...@onramp.net wrote:
<snip>
> > So, evidently, here is an example of a family that chose to be
> > together in death rather than separated for life.
> Are you sure about that? Are you REALLY sure that was the "reasoning" going
> on in the parents' heads when they decided to kill themselves and take their
> kids with them? Are you sure they weren't just a couple of nuts?
I take exception to the use of the word "family" here. Children ages seven
and under and german shepards generally don't "choose" to commit suicide --
although I'm sure a few young children have done so, though it's my
understanding this is usually precipitated by a psychiatric disorder, and I'd
guess suicide is even rarer amongst dogs.
> Anyway, for the sake of argument, let's say that your theory is correct, and
> that the parents really did think it would better for everyone to be dead than
> separated for life. Let's even say that chosing death over losing their
> children makes them some kind of martyrs. Following this reasoning to its
> logical conclusion, birthmothers STILL aren't martyrs, because they didn't
> chose death over losing their children. In fact, many of them chose signing
> the papers over something bad happening to them (i.e. being incarcerated in a
> mental hospital).
Yes, but these people chose death for their children as well as themselves,
which tarnishes their martyrdom somewhat, I should think. It's a pretty
selfish thing to do, IMO, to kill your kids as well as yourself.
In any event, it IS curious that Barb interprets this as a choice on the part
of the parents.
<snip>
> > I would like to ask you, Connie, Kim and Lisa and other folks in the
> > "choice" camp there (and, no, not you, Anne.... I at least understood
> > what you meant when you wrote the above):
> > Is this what you advocate?
> You must get lots of exercise making these incredible leaps of logic, Barb.
> Connie, Lisa Boo and I merely responded to your assertion that you and other
> birthmothers had no choice by pointing out that even really crappy choices are
> in fact STILL choices. I don't know how you decided that pointing out that
> really crappy choices are STILL choices means that we advocate parents killing
> themselves and their children rather than being separated for life. The fact
> remains that you and other birthmothers were threatened with dire consequences
> if you didn't sign the papers, and instead of chosing to refuse to sign your
> child away no matter what they did to you, you chose to "relinquish" your
> child.
I'm still confused as to why Barb's calling THIS a choice but when you,
Connie, or I call something similar a choice we're wrong.
> > Confrontationally Yours,
> > Barbara Franks-Morra
> I'm sure. The difference between you and I is that I am not deliberately
> trying to be confrontational. I think deep in your heart you realize that
> you chose to "relinquish" your daughter rather than risk being locked up in a
> nuthouse, and you feel incredible guilt over this, and the reason that you
> try so hard to convince us that you had no choice is because you really want
> to convince yourself. You probably feel that you should have fought harder,
> that you should have refused to sign and let them lock you up in order to get
> your child. I am not saying that this is what you should have done (nor, to
> my knowledge, have Connie, Lisa or I ever said this). I think the problem we
> have with you is your saying that you had no choice when in fact you DID make
> a choice, even though none of the options presented to you were really great
> ones. I think you would feel a whole lot better if you acknowledged this to
> yourself, worked through the guilt, and moved on.
The most interesting part of this whole mess, to me anyway, is that it was
originally brought up in an article I wrote describing the way SOME adoptees
feel. My original point was to throw this out into the fray and perhaps
discuss why such feelings occur and how they affect birthparent-adoptee
relationships.
What do you think we've learned from this?
Dayquil-swilling Boo
kims...@my-dejanews.com
markg...@aol.com (Markg91359) wrote:
>
> This "choice" topic irks me for some internal reason. I can't really explain
> it.....But I guess my major point is "so what" if in a broad philosophical
> sense someone had a choice between two terribly bad alternatives?
It irks me as well. It seems to me like to "Take Responsibility For Your
Decision" camp vs the "It Wasn't My Fault" camp. It's a tiresome debate,
which I don't think will ever be resolved. Moving on from this topic seems
way over due to me.
What I find puzzling about it, is why it is that these people are so concerned
about the actions of internet pen pals. I don't understand how, other than to
fuel more of their anger, it serves a purpose in each of their lives.
Tina
Sue Tretter
<snip>
Whoa. I think we're talking about two different things here. Seemed to
me that Patty and Barb were arguing that THEN ACCEPTABLE standards of
social work/adoption practice should be punished NOW, according to our
?more enlightened? current insights.
> People MUST be willing to file > complaints,
Absolutely. Against ANY and ALL professionals who provides a service,
take money for it, and fail his/her obligations to the client.
> especially against any person who is a certified social worker in > the state in which they are working.
Yep. Bill can you provide addresses for those who might be considering
lodging a complaint?
> Every state with such certification has a
> complaint process. In Texas I know that they followed and did censure people > and take away their certification to practice when there were valid complaints.
Nitty gritty time here Bill. With the insights you have developed
working in the social work field in Texas for all these years, what
percentage of the "bad apples" do you think have been censured?
Even in states with the most aggressive processes, what are the chances
that unsavory professional practices are going to be penalized?
And can the censured person simply move to another state and begin
functioning there without any black marks against his name?
> We must use those proceedures when possible to stop the unprofessional work > that continues to be done every day.
On one of the mailing lists, SYSTEMIC wrongs within the social work
field are being discussed. These problems are so fundamental and
pervasive that few perceive them as wrong. In fact, at least one
sometime-a.a. participant has pointed to this particular agency being
discussed as one of the most ethical and most of the adoption world
seems to be following the lead of this large agency, and of course, they
have the ear of most legislators in our country, and perhaps in a dozen
nations around the world.
If you haven't been reading the particular list I'm talking about, this
probably doesn't make sense ... Sorry.
Best wishes. Good to see you here, Bill. Sue T.
Sue Tretter
<snip>
> Oh Bullcrap Anne.
I don't think it's bull, Jeannette. Seems to me that there's some truth
in what almost everyone here is saying, but that many of you?us? are
taking such politicized positions that no understanding is possible.
Perhaps understanding is not even desired by the participants?????
You can't prosecute someone that broke the law before the
> law went into effect, can you?
I'm unclear as to whether Patty and Barbara were discussing legalities.
I think not. I certainly wasn't -- my goal is ETHICAL conduct, not
necessarily legal conduct (until/unless the two become intertwined), and
a profession which calls itself "social work" sure as heck needs to be
concerns with ethics, imo.
<snip>
> Enlightenment brings change.
Well, I like to think so.
> I've worked with bad social workers, and
> good ones. For the most part they *all* believed they were doing right by me. > Some did, some didn't.
Exactly. Do you remember Robyn Hindmarsh? (If not, substitute
Celeste.)
She definitely believed, for example, that homosexuals shouldn't be
allowed to adopt, teach, marry ... perhaps even breathe. Should she be
able to warp social policy to fit her agenda? I don't think so.
In Bill Betzen's favorite <s> movie, Blossoms in the Dust, Greer Garson
plays Edna Gladney, who if the movie is to be believed single-handedly
brought forever-closed adoption into existance. There's no one nicer,
more child-centered than the Edna Gladney character as portrayed by
Greer Garson -- should she have the power to effect millions of lives
because she thinks closed adoption is best?
Your minister UNCRITICLY thought the church should help a particular
prospective adoptive couple, if I recall correctly. Should his
prejudices be allowed to stand without input from those with a broader
view?
> Should we punish *all* of them? I think not.
There we agree. What's happened in this thread, it seems to me, is that
a discreet situation (endured by many) has been over-generalized,
resulting in prejudice against ALL social workers. And retaliation is
sought. The next step in that progression is mob violence ...
Best wishes. Sue T.
lis...@my-dejanews.com
bbe...@aol.com (BBetzen) wrote:
> >The abuses in adoption practice in the past and now are sometimes
> >disgusting and criminal--I don't blame Barbara for taking some
> >literary license, here. It's her perception of the process.
> >Anne
> Anne,
> Tragically Anne I must agree with you fully. I have seen too much "bad social
work practice" (to put it mildly) in child placement relative to adoption,
and most of it in the interest of financial profit. People MUST be willing
to file complaints, especially against any person who is a certified social
worker in the state in which they are working. Every state with such
certification has a complaint process. In Texas I know that they followed and
did censure people and take away their certification to practice when there
were valid complaints.>
I'll agree with you as to reporting sw's, and you're right, every state does
have a complaint process.
However, what constitutes a 'valid complaint' is wildly open to
interpretation, at least in MA. It's damned near impossible to get any real
action taken against a sw (believe me, I've been in on three complaints),
since the review board here tends to favor the sw. In order to actually get
anything done, one must provide documentation of the alleged incidents, which
is a little difficult for a citizen to do since DSS doesn't allow the
complainant to view it's internal documents. Also, the board pretty much
dismisses any direct testimony from an individual UNLESS it's corroborated by
a disinterested third party -- which doesn't happen very often.
> We must use those proceedures when possible to stop the unprofessional work
> that continues to be done every day.
> Bill Betzen, ACSW
<snip>
Well, it can't hurt, but I personally think the complaint procedure -- in MA,
anyway -- needs its own overhaul. Our DSS is a screaming joke here -- an
unusually high number of foster-care deaths, one instance where an infant was
"lost" by his foster family who didn't report him missing for two days (he
may have been sold by them, killed by them, or kidnapped by his natural
mother/ father, this was months ago and they STILL haven't located him),
foster parents with no criminal records in MASSACHUSETTS but with rap sheets
as long as my arm in other states and at the federal level, no requirement
that foster parents show English proficiency ... I could go on, but it's
depressing me.
Stuffed-up Boo
Jackie C
wrote:
>In article <36b4d9b5...@enews.newsguy.com>, ja...@csi.com wrote:
>>I know, you were not in the delivery room.. calling the parent of your
>>newly adopted child.. "my bmom".
>>I know, that adoptee has a wonderful chance now, in this life with
>>you as a parent...
>
>Well, thank you Jackie. No, I wasn't in the delivery room, nor would I
>have ever wanted to be. My husband and I have felt grieved that other
>adoptive parents didn't leap to adopt this baby because of her special
>needs (not thinking about all her potential!). We sure consider her a
>treasure.
As I have said here before.. What you said in SF, gave the side of
adoption to me, that gave me heart..
We hear about the negative all the time.. And you and yours are the
positive.. What adoption should be about..
Children needing homes, and you there, welcoming them..
And what you said in your talk, about the time, when you found the
bparent of one of your kids.. And the lesson you learned.. How, when
you set your child free, and were not in fear of the bparent.. That
was when you found parent love.. This was my interpretation of what
you said..
My kids are leaving my nest.. now.. And that lesson is so very
powerful for me.. No matter what they do .. They will always have a
mom here that loves them..
>>I saw your adopted daughters in SF.. and it gave me heart..
>
>Actually, you saw my daughter and former AAC treasurer Lois Wight's
>daughter. My daughter was the one without the freckles. :-)
>
>Anne
Wonderful happy .. girls..
Jackie C
kdkspa...@my-dejanews.com
Lisa,
In article <78niae$9ij$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
lis...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <78n4o1$t2l$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> kdkspa...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >
> > In article <36AE0B...@onramp.net>,
> > mo...@onramp.net wrote:
> <snip>
> > > So, evidently, here is an example of a family that chose to be
> > > together in death rather than separated for life.
>
> > Are you sure about that? Are you REALLY sure that was the "reasoning"
going
> > on in the parents' heads when they decided to kill themselves and take
their
> > kids with them? Are you sure they weren't just a couple of nuts?
>
> I take exception to the use of the word "family" here. Children ages
seven
> and under and german shepards generally don't "choose" to commit suicide --
> although I'm sure a few young children have done so, though it's my
> understanding this is usually precipitated by a psychiatric disorder, and I'd
> guess suicide is even rarer amongst dogs.
You know, you're right. I sort of overlooked that point, didn't I?
> > Anyway, for the sake of argument, let's say that your theory is correct,
and
> > that the parents really did think it would better for everyone to be dead
than
> > separated for life. Let's even say that chosing death over losing their
> > children makes them some kind of martyrs. Following this reasoning to its
> > logical conclusion, birthmothers STILL aren't martyrs, because they didn't
> > chose death over losing their children. In fact, many of them chose
signing
> > the papers over something bad happening to them (i.e. being incarcerated in
a
> > mental hospital).
>
> Yes, but these people chose death for their children as well as themselves,
> which tarnishes their martyrdom somewhat, I should think. It's a pretty
> selfish thing to do, IMO, to kill your kids as well as yourself.
Oops! You're right again. The Robitussin must be clouding my mind.
> In any event, it IS curious that Barb interprets this as a choice on the part
> of the parents.
It WAS a choice on the part of the parents - they chose to kill themselves
and their kids (for whatever reason... I'm not sure I buy Barb's theory). I
bet the kids and the German shepard didn't have a choice in the matter - hey,
sort of like adoptees, huh?
> <snip>
> > > I would like to ask you, Connie, Kim and Lisa and other folks in the
> > > "choice" camp there (and, no, not you, Anne.... I at least understood
> > > what you meant when you wrote the above):
>
> > > Is this what you advocate?
>
> > You must get lots of exercise making these incredible leaps of logic,
Barb.
> > Connie, Lisa Boo and I merely responded to your assertion that you and
other
> > birthmothers had no choice by pointing out that even really crappy choices
are
> > in fact STILL choices. I don't know how you decided that pointing out that
> > really crappy choices are STILL choices means that we advocate parents
killing
> > themselves and their children rather than being separated for life. The
fact
> > remains that you and other birthmothers were threatened with dire
consequences
> > if you didn't sign the papers, and instead of chosing to refuse to sign
your
> > child away no matter what they did to you, you chose to "relinquish" your
> > child.
>
> I'm still confused as to why Barb's calling THIS a choice but when you,
> Connie, or I call something similar a choice we're wrong.
This probably falls under the "it's OK when birthmothers do it" rule.
> > > Confrontationally Yours,
> > > Barbara Franks-Morra
>
> > I'm sure. The difference between you and I is that I am not deliberately
> > trying to be confrontational. I think deep in your heart you realize that
> > you chose to "relinquish" your daughter rather than risk being locked up in
a
> > nuthouse, and you feel incredible guilt over this, and the reason that you
> > try so hard to convince us that you had no choice is because you really
want
> > to convince yourself. You probably feel that you should have fought
harder,
> > that you should have refused to sign and let them lock you up in order to
get
> > your child. I am not saying that this is what you should have done (nor,
to
> > my knowledge, have Connie, Lisa or I ever said this). I think the problem
we
> > have with you is your saying that you had no choice when in fact you DID
make
> > a choice, even though none of the options presented to you were really
great
> > ones. I think you would feel a whole lot better if you acknowledged this
to
> > yourself, worked through the guilt, and moved on.
>
> The most interesting part of this whole mess, to me anyway, is that it was
> originally brought up in an article I wrote describing the way SOME adoptees
> feel. My original point was to throw this out into the fray and perhaps
> discuss why such feelings occur and how they affect birthparent-adoptee
> relationships.
>
> What do you think we've learned from this?
What, the members of THIS ng learn something? You must be joking.
> Dayquil-swilling Boo
Ah, it was the Dayquil talking.
kdkspa...@my-dejanews.com
Lisa,
In article <78nh2i$8bi$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
lis...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <36AE0B...@onramp.net>,
> mo...@onramp.net wrote:
>
> > ...or DEATH TO FAMILIES UNFORTUNATE ENOUGH TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH SOCIAL
> > WORKERS.
>
> Or, DEATH TO CHILDREN UNFORTUNATE ENOUGH TO BE BORN TO SUICIDAL PARENTS ...
No, no - it's all the social worker's fault. She shouldn't have threatened
to remove the children from their (possibly) abusive home, because that
clearly left the parents with no other choice but death for all involved.
> or, DO YOU THINK THOSE CHILDREN WERE CAPABLE OF DECIDING TO COMMIT SUICIDE
It doesn't matter - biological parents ALWAYS know what's best for their
kids and ALWAYS act with the best interest of the kids in mind, unlike mere
adoptive parents.
> ... or, WHAT WOULD YOU SAY IF IT TURNED OUT THESE WERE *ADOPTIVE* PARENTS,
> BARB?
I'm sure she'd say that it's pretty clear that the parents were abusers,
because we all know that social workers have Child Abuser Detection Radar and
therefore never investigate parents unless they are abusers. Plus, we all
know that every single adoptive parent in the universe is an abuser, simply
because they're adoptive parents. I'm also pretty sure that she'd say that
killing the children was a purely selfish act on the part of the adoptive
parents.
> > WFAA, the ABC affiliate in Dallas is reporting this noon on the
> > apparent murder-suicide of a family of four- mother, father, and two
> > sons aged 5 and 7, and the family German shepard, found dead by the
> > Fort Worth police in their car this morning. Apparent cause of death was
> > carbon monoxide poisoning. A hose from their dryer had been attached
> > to the exhaust pipe of the car and threaded through the driver's side
> > window. The car had been covered with a heavy tarpaulin. The couple's
> > children had been removed by Child Protective Services and returned
> > recently. The family was still under ongoing investigation by CPS
> > because of financial problems, according to their neighbor and close
> > friend, who said the couple was distraught over the continuing CPS
> > investigation. The neighbor was a close friend who helped drive the
> > children to day care and school while the couple worked.
>
> The dog too?
Well, imagine how traumatic it would have been for the dog if he'd been
separated from the family he loved?
> > So, evidently, here is an example of a family that chose to be
> > together in death rather than separated for life.
>
> I'm sorry Barb, but out of the five living beings that died, only two were
> capable of making any "choice" at all when it came to suicide. Five and
seven
> year old children and german shepards generally don't "choose" to commit
> suicide.
They don't?
> > Anne wrote, most ironically:
>
> Doesn't irony occur when the stated meaning is the opposite of the intended
> meaning?
That's what I thought, but I guess I was wrong - after all, Barb is a
college graduate, while I am a mere manicurist.
> > > > We always have a choice, even if the only choice other than submission
> > > > is death.
>
> > and Kim responded:
> > > Hey, isn't this what Lisa Boo, Connie, and I have been saying for, oh,
how
> > > long now?
>
> > I would like to ask you, Connie, Kim and Lisa and other folks in the
> > "choice" camp there (and, no, not you, Anne.... I at least understood
> > what you meant when you wrote the above):
>
> > Is this what you advocate?
>
> Interesting reading of Anne's statement and Kim's response. Anne pointed out
> that there IS a choice, even if it's between submission and death. Kim
> agrees, and so do I.
But that's no good, Lisa! Certain Birthmothers won't be happy until they've
convinced us (and more importantly THEMSELVES) that they really didn't have a
choice. Only then will the enormous guilt that they feel be lifted from their
shoulders. This is clearly a much better way of going about it than
acknowledging that they made a choice, working through the guilt, and moving
on.
> However, I'm wondering how this applies to the children and the dog, Barb.
> Did they make a choice? Did the adults give them an option, stay with us and
> die or be taken back by DSS and live? Did the adults in this sad little
> equation have the right to make this choice for their children and their dog?
>
> I'm finding it difficult to believe that a SOCIAL WORKER or anyone else told
> the adults that their choices were to either lose their kids or kill
> themselves and murder their children and dog.
Clearly, the family FELT that they had no other choice, and according to
Certain Birthmothers, feeling like you have no chioce is EXACTLY THE SAME as
actually HAVING no chioce. Plus, it's the social worker's fault that they
felt that death was the only option available to them. It couldn't be that
they were a couple of nuts.
> Suicide's a fairly selfish decision, Barb. Murdering your children rather
> than having them taken away from you is even more selfish.
Yep. Of course, I also think it's selfish to refuse to sign relinquishment
papers so a baby can be moved from a nursery where she stands a risk of
becoming ill, but then signing them faster than the eye can follow once a
threat is applied to the birthmother herself.
> > Confrontationally Yours,
> > Barbara Franks-Morra
>
> Likewise,
Glad you're back!
> Lisa-Shoot-me-now-I'm-SO-sick Boo
I know the feeling. This cold is still hanging on, and I'm taking
Robitussin and coughing like a TB patient until my whole chest hurts.
Rupa K. Bose
>
> It's interesting that you didn't comment on the fact that Anne appears to be
> engaged in a conversation with herself. Maybe you don't consider that kind
> of behavior to be unusual enough to comment upon....
>
> - Kim.
I think it's lovely. One really gets to examine all sides of an issue. I
really like the idea of Anne vs Anne vs Anne flame-wars. (I'd be an
enthusiastic spectator, siding, of course, with Anne.) Now imagine
Celeste doing the same thing.
Rupa
Jackie C
Jackie wrote
>>Then why, did not one of them, sit down with me and say.. "How are you
>>doing?" That would not have been going against the darn rules..
>
>How many times did you go to one and ask them how *they* were doing? It goes
>both ways.
Connie.. I was pregnant, visiting them, getting the arrangements
made..
I was living alone, in a motel.. No one to talk to except my parents,
they would visit me..
I was shut down.. acting and re-acting..
There should have been a red flag.. Seeing I was in distress..
>
>>Why did they not have a discussion with me about my alternatives?
>>How to get welfare.. What would happen.. etc..
>
>Maybe because that wasn't their job? Why didn't you look into all of the
>options, before letting your parents know you were pregnant? Being uninformed
>isn't their fault.
I am not talking about my parents.. I am talking about the agency
workers, the workers were I went to get my medical check ups..
My alternatives with my parents, were getting an abortion or giving
the child up for adoption.. and because I choose the latter I had to
never go near my parents home till it was over.. I was hidden away..
>
>>Why, (I have heard this since) is the bmom, if she decides to keep her
>>child, expected pay all the expenses.. of the birth..
>
>Hello? Why is ANY mother expected to pay the costs of prenatal care, delivery
>and care after the birth? Who do you expect to pay it?
Well you see that was the trap I was in Connie.. I had no insurance..
I was a 22 year old woman that did not think it could happen to me..
I had no money..
I was trapped..
I did work when I was pregnant and I paid for the Motel.. where I was
hidden away..
And as soon as the baby was born.. I had to get back out into the work
force..
>
>>Humane people would have seen the stress I was in..
>>Wondered why I was not saying a word..
>
>So you think they should've opened their mouth and lost their job?
The discussion here was, and what I was responding to.. Was whether
the social workers were humane.. I say they were not, in those days..
>>Would have considered my feelings, when they put a woman in the bed
>>next to me, after the delivery, that was keeping her child..
>>Would have said to themselves.. hey that is kind of cruel to do that..
>>
>>
>
>Sorry Jackie, but it's the same treatment they gave to moms who had their baby
>die during delivery.
Well to me this is not very nice..
They do not do it today.. It is something that has never left me
Connie.. The feelings I got from that woman in the bed next to me..
never
Jackie C
Marley Elizabeth Greiner
kdkspa...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
<78nsoi$j8i$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> >
> > The dog too?
>
> Well, imagine how traumatic it would have been for the dog if he'd been
> separated from the family he loved?
Kim., remember the Pamela Smart murder case--the teacher who had an affair
with one of her students and got him to whack her husband. One of Pam's
stipulations was that the deed be done when the dog wasn't around because
it would upset the dog.
I also know a case up in Medina where a college student killed his parents.
His little brother wasn't home when it happened. So big brother killed
the kid when he came home so he wouldn't be upset by finding the parents'
bodies.
Linda Fortney
>
>>
>> So, evidently, here is an example of a family that chose to be
>> together in death rather than separated for life.
The innocent little ones had a choice???
Dear God, Barb, do you think CPS just casually picks out innocent parents
to pick on? Do you think that the parents decided to kill themselves and
their kids might indicate that they were more than a little crazy?
Do little people have any rights at all, or are they only possesions of
their biological parents?
Markg91359
>Congratulations, Kim...you have rendered the word "choice" meaningless.
Which is my point, exactly. I don't understand why certain folks keeping
beating this to death. Do Kim or others feel that it would have been better
for a birthmother to jump out the window of a seven story building and commit
suicide than relinquish her child? How many adoptees feel that adoption is so
bad that would have preferable? Kim, exempted of course....
"Though all the winds of evil and truth were loosed to do do battle with one
another, what of if? Whoever, knew truth the worst in a fair and open fight?"
....John Stuart Mills ( a paraphrase)
MarkG
lis...@my-dejanews.com
kdkspa...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Lisa,
> In article <78nh2i$8bi$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> lis...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article <36AE0B...@onramp.net>,
> > mo...@onramp.net wrote:
> > > ...or DEATH TO FAMILIES UNFORTUNATE ENOUGH TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH SOCIAL
> > > WORKERS.
> > Or, DEATH TO CHILDREN UNFORTUNATE ENOUGH TO BE BORN TO SUICIDAL PARENTS ...
> No, no - it's all the social worker's fault. She shouldn't have
> threatened to remove the children from their (possibly) abusive home, because > that clearly left the parents with no other choice but death for all involved.
I'm sure there was no good reason to remove them in the first place either.
Goodness, look at the parenting skills these people obviously possessed!
> > or, DO YOU THINK THOSE CHILDREN WERE CAPABLE OF DECIDING TO COMMIT SUICIDE
> It doesn't matter - biological parents ALWAYS know what's best for their
> kids and ALWAYS act with the best interest of the kids in mind, unlike mere
> adoptive parents.
Of course!
> > ... or, WHAT WOULD YOU SAY IF IT TURNED OUT THESE WERE *ADOPTIVE* PARENTS,
> > BARB?
> I'm sure she'd say that it's pretty clear that the parents were abusers,
> because we all know that social workers have Child Abuser Detection Radar and
> therefore never investigate parents unless they are abusers. Plus, we all
> know that every single adoptive parent in the universe is an abuser, simply
> because they're adoptive parents. I'm also pretty sure that she'd say that
> killing the children was a purely selfish act on the part of the adoptive
> parents.
But wait -- don't social workers deal with adoptive parents? And since all
adoptive parents are abusers, shouldn't social workers know that they're
abusers? Adoptive parents must have some sort of stealth technology going.
<snip>
> > The dog too?
> Well, imagine how traumatic it would have been for the dog if he'd been
> separated from the family he loved?
The only thing sicker than the image of those children slowly dying is the
image of that poor dog feeling sicker and sicker, sensing that something is
terribly wrong, and being unable to do a damned thing about it. People who'd
do that to children and animals are better off dead. Too bad they took the
defenseless and choiceless along with them.
> > > So, evidently, here is an example of a family that chose to be
> > > together in death rather than separated for life.
> > I'm sorry Barb, but out of the five living beings that died, only two were
> > capable of making any "choice" at all when it came to suicide. Five and
> > seven year old children and german shepards generally don't "choose" to
> > commit suicide.
> They don't?
Pretty sure about the dog, anyway.
> > > Anne wrote, most ironically:
> > Doesn't irony occur when the stated meaning is the opposite of the intended
> > meaning?
> That's what I thought, but I guess I was wrong - after all, Barb is a
> college graduate, while I am a mere manicurist.
Hell, I got it out of a movie ... my brain's fried since I gave birth, you
know.
> > > Is this what you advocate?
> > Interesting reading of Anne's statement and Kim's response. Anne pointed
> > out that there IS a choice, even if it's between submission and death. Kim
> > agrees, and so do I.
> But that's no good, Lisa! Certain Birthmothers won't be happy until they've
> convinced us (and more importantly THEMSELVES) that they really didn't have a
> choice. Only then will the enormous guilt that they feel be lifted from their
> shoulders. This is clearly a much better way of going about it than
> acknowledging that they made a choice, working through the guilt, and moving
> on.
You know, you're really going to have to stop prefacing birthmothers with the
word, "certain". This gives the impression that you're merely disagreeing
with certain people on the merits of their argument, rather than illustrating
the immense and unreasoning hatred for all birthmothers that everyone knows
you have.
> > However, I'm wondering how this applies to the children and the dog, Barb.
> > Did they make a choice? Did the adults give them an option, stay with us
> > and die or be taken back by DSS and live? Did the adults in this sad little
> > equation have the right to make this choice for their children and their
> > dog?
> > I'm finding it difficult to believe that a SOCIAL WORKER or anyone else told
> > the adults that their choices were to either lose their kids or kill
> > themselves and murder their children and dog.
> Clearly, the family FELT that they had no other choice, and according to
> Certain Birthmothers, feeling like you have no chioce is EXACTLY THE SAME as
> actually HAVING no choice. Plus, it's the social worker's fault that they
> felt that death was the only option available to them. It couldn't be that
> they were a couple of nuts.
I'm no psychiatrist, but I have a feeling that suicide almost never happens
in response to a solitary event. Sure, it's reactionary, but I think it's a
camel's straw kind of thing -- these people weren't dealing with a full deck
and probably had a lot of other problems to begin with, and this was the last
straw.
> > Suicide's a fairly selfish decision, Barb. Murdering your children rather
> > than having them taken away from you is even more selfish.
> Yep. Of course, I also think it's selfish to refuse to sign relinquishment
> papers so a baby can be moved from a nursery where she stands a risk of
> becoming ill, but then signing them faster than the eye can follow once a
> threat is applied to the birthmother herself.
Yeah, but you're just a manicurist, remember?
> > > Confrontationally Yours,
> > > Barbara Franks-Morra
> > Likewise,
> Glad you're back!
Glad to be back, I think ... my head feels like a balloon.
> > Lisa-Shoot-me-now-I'm-SO-sick Boo
> I know the feeling. This cold is still hanging on, and I'm taking
> Robitussin and coughing like a TB patient until my whole chest hurts.
Yeah, I managed to contract secondary bronchitis from it, and I've been
braying like a horse. I even got to go to the emergency room because my
fever went up so high I was semi-hallucinating. Now I can really relate to
the lyrics to "Comfortably numb".
Seeing-small-animals-that-aren't-there Boo
Steve White
> Are you sure about that? Are you REALLY sure that was the "reasoning" going
> on in the parents' heads when they decided to kill themselves and take their
> kids with them? Are you sure they weren't just a couple of nuts?
For Barbara to claim that these folks "reasoned" this out is for Barbara
to demonstrate that she is almost as nuts as the people who did this to
their children.
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, BARBARA: you cannot even BEGIN to claim that you know
what is in the mind of people who murder their children.
Now pick yourself up from your pratfall -- don't try to explain it -- and
try again.
> Anyway, for the sake of argument, let's say that your theory
> is correct, ....
Let's not, ok? It's just plain goofy.
> Let's even say that chosing death over losing their children
> makes them some kind of martyrs. Following this reasoning to its
> logical conclusion, birthmothers STILL aren't martyrs, because
> they didn't chose death over losing their children. In fact,
> many of them chose signing the papers over something bad happening
> to them (i.e. being incarcerated in a mental hospital).
There yo go trying to be logical again. You KNOW you can't follow Barb's
brand of logic, don't you?
steve
Reply to: stevewhite at ce dot mediaone dot net
Steve White
> I take exception to the use of the word "family" here.
I'd also take exception to the use of the words "human being", "parents",
and "dog lovers" to describe these people.
> Yes, but these people chose death for their children as well as
> themselves, which tarnishes their martyrdom somewhat, I should
> think. It's a pretty selfish thing to do, IMO, to kill your kids
> as well as yourself.
Well, Barbara didn't canonize them, which I take as a (small) step in the
right direction.
> In any event, it IS curious that Barb interprets this as a choice
> on the part of the parents.
> What do you think we've learned from this?
Don't get me started.
Steve White
> I'm sorry Barb, but out of the five living beings that died,
> only two were capable of making any "choice" at all when it
> came to suicide. Five and seven year old children and german
> shepards generally don't "choose" to commit suicide.
The dog might have been 49 in dog-years. Clearly old enough to make this
decision, if you believe that suicide is a "decision" and not a
psychiatric illness.
> Suicide's a fairly selfish decision, Barb. Murdering your children
> rather than having them taken away from you is even more selfish.
Suicide is a tragic, terrible illness. Murder is a depravity. Both go well
beyond the word "selfish".
Steve White
markg...@aol.com (Markg91359) wrote:
> I don't understand why certain folks keeping beating this
> to death. Do Kim or others feel that it would have been better
> for a birthmother to jump out the window of a seven story
> building and commit suicide than relinquish her child?
I understand your point. The choice between surrendering a child or being
committed is a terrible choice, and one that I wouldn't want to make.
Something about "Sophie's Choice" keeps coming to mind.
Kim and others are saying that they would have been committed rather than
surrendering their child. That's their choice. It's still a rotten one.
Don's right.
lis...@my-dejanews.com
kdkspa...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Lisa,
<snip>
> > I take exception to the use of the word "family" here. Children ages
seven and under and german shepards generally don't "choose" to commit
suicide - - although I'm sure a few young children have done so, though it's
my understanding this is usually precipitated by a psychiatric disorder, and
I'd guess suicide is even rarer amongst dogs.> >
> You know, you're right. I sort of overlooked that point, didn't I?
Don't feel bad. So did Barb.
> > Yes, but these people chose death for their children as well as themselves,
> > which tarnishes their martyrdom somewhat, I should think. It's a pretty
> > selfish thing to do, IMO, to kill your kids as well as yourself.
> Oops! You're right again. The Robitussin must be clouding my mind.
See, I'm in a curious place ... I alternate between being really sharp and
really woozy. This thing's really knocked me on my ass.
> > In any event, it IS curious that Barb interprets this as a choice on the part of the parents. > >
> It WAS a choice on the part of the parents - they chose to kill themselves
> and their kids (for whatever reason... I'm not sure I buy Barb's theory). I
> bet the kids and the German shepard didn't have a choice in the matter - hey,
> sort of like adoptees, huh?
I just don't think kids of that age can make a rational choice to commit
suicide.
<snip>
> > I'm still confused as to why Barb's calling THIS a choice but when you,
> > Connie, or I call something similar a choice we're wrong.
> This probably falls under the "it's OK when birthmothers do it" rule.
Or when Barb does it.
And *I* am the one supposedly having a meltdown.
> > The most interesting part of this whole mess, to me anyway, is that it was
> > originally brought up in an article I wrote describing the way SOME adoptees
> > feel. My original point was to throw this out into the fray and perhaps
> > discuss why such feelings occur and how they affect birthparent-adoptee
> > relationships.
> > What do you think we've learned from this?
> What, the members of THIS ng learn something? You must be joking.
Yeah, what was I THINKING!
> > Dayquil-swilling Boo
> Ah, it was the Dayquil talking.
Alas, it was ... and the ampicillin, and the vicks vapor rub ...
Head-on-a-string Boo
pat...@dial1.net
SCOM2 wrote:
>
> >Yes they could if their babies hadn't been hidden from them in the
> >confines of locked and hidden nurseries.
>
> A little difficult to do when you're still pregnant.
Uh Hello? You lose your baby at birth usually. To lose it earlier is
called an abortion or miscarriage. Unless of course you mean we should
have had our babies in back alleys without medical intervention. Had we
known the hospital routine ahead of time I suspect some of us might have
considered it though.
>
> > If however
> >their parents would not let them come home with said "bastard child"
> >(thank you Anne on behalf of all adoptees) the Child Protection
> >Department immediately swooped in and confiscated the child as being AT
> >RISK where it would then be classified as destitute, made a state ward
>
> Gee, all the women who lied about being widows had this happen? You make it
> sound like there were Unwed Mother Police.
How many women lied about being widows - and if they did I would suggest
it was because they intended to keep said child. Why bother otherwise?
Yes there was morals police. They were called The Department of Child
Welfare. Each unmarried mother who gave birth in a hospital had a
Report of Investigation made out about her by the Department of Child
Welfare which was handed to police if she was a minor. That pleasant bit
of legislation has never been repealed. During the 1960's there was a
total control of the whereabouts of illegitimate children. If a mother
was allowed to bring the baby home to her parents she was still
controlled and ordered to make regular visits Baby Health Centers where
if the baby was not putting on weight or was a little grubby it would be
reported back to the Child Welfare Department who would then make
unannounced visits to the girls home, barge through the house. Reprimand
the mother and warn her that the baby would be removed if it didn't
thrive. Too bad if the baby had colic or some other such baby ailment.
For unmarried mothers that was not accepted as a defense. I dare say it
was not only unmarried mothers this happened to. Many deserted or
widowed mothers had their children removed by the morals gestapo too.
Sure, there may have been a few
> women who did have CPS take the baby. BUT how can your parents, social worker,
> etc., take the baby if they don't even know where you are?
And where do you suppose a teenager could hide out with a baby and no
money?
>
> >Connie please either speak of things you know or educate yourself.
>
> ROFLMAO!!
> You assume to have a clue of what I know.
You are not indicating otherwise.
>
> >If you hate bmothers be honest enough to say so
>
> Now you assume I hate bmoms. Why do bmoms claim this anytime someone says the
> truth?
I suppose it's because of your snide reaction to them and because you do
not know the truth.
>
> >but please do not try to
> >rewrite history at our expense in order to justify your animosity.
> >Di
>
> Hmmm, reality is really hard for you. Isn't it?
Sorry, reverse psychology wont work on me. I've been done over by the
best
when I was 16, so I'm afraid your too late to try that one on me again.
Besides, mock me if you will, but it was my own personal research, and
hence my accusations, that began the NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into
Illegal Adoption Practices between 1950 and 1998. So I must have some
concept of reality - unless you propose that our Govt is silly enough to
go spending millions of taxpayers money just to pacify my little
fantasies.
Di
>
> Connie
> Why is there braille on drive-up ATM machines.......hmmmm
pat...@dial1.net
SCOM2 wrote:
>
> >Then why, did not one of them, sit down with me and say.. "How are you
> >doing?" That would not have been going against the darn rules..
>
> How many times did you go to one and ask them how *they* were doing? It goes
> both ways.
What was this a tea party? Do you go to your doctor and say "how can I
help you today Doc"?
> >Why did they not have a discussion with me about my alternatives?
> >How to get welfare.. What would happen.. etc..
>
> Maybe because that wasn't their job? Why didn't you look into all of the
> options, before letting your parents know you were pregnant? Being uninformed
> isn't their fault.
SORRY BUT IT WAS THEIR JOB! AND YES IT WAS THEIR FAULT.
>
> >Why, (I have heard this since) is the bmom, if she decides to keep her
> >child, expected pay all the expenses.. of the birth..
>
> Hello? Why is ANY mother expected to pay the costs of prenatal care, delivery
> and care after the birth? Who do you expect to pay it?
If the mother was a minor her parents health insurance should have
covered it. To think you are the wealthiest country in the world and a
mother has to give her own baby up because she cant afford the cost of
giving birth. The US is more a third world country in terms of humanity
than any country on this earth. It's even more disgraceful than ours and
that's saying something.
>
> >Humane people would have seen the stress I was in..
> >Wondered why I was not saying a word..
>
> So you think they should've opened their mouth and lost their job?
So it WAS all a conspiracy?
>
> >Would have considered my feelings, when they put a woman in the bed
> >next to me, after the delivery, that was keeping her child..
> >Would have said to themselves.. hey that is kind of cruel to do that..
> >
> >
>
> Sorry Jackie, but it's the same treatment they gave to moms who had their baby
> die during delivery.
>
pat...@dial1.net
lev...@scu.edu.au wrote:
>
> In article <36ADCCCF...@dial1.net>,
> pat...@dial1.net wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Jeanette - they were advertising our babies as unwanted. They were
> > making society believe we didn't want our babies. Society accepted the
> > adoption of infants as a good thing because THEY were 'led to believe'
> > we were giving them away. Society condemned us with the stigma of being
> > 'the sort of mothers who could give away our own babies. We ended up
> > with a stigma far greater than becoming a single mother could ever be.
> >
> > They condemned us for acquiescing to the doctrine of the ADOPTION
> > INDUSTRY who promoted it as being in our children's best interest. It
> > had nothing whatsoever to do with social mores of the time. It was an
> > orchestrated social engineering program and nothing less. Sadly, through
> > our trauma induced silence, it came to be seen as a social norm - a
> > sanctioned evil as it were.
> > Di
>
> Right on Di!!
Thanks Lina.
>
> I also believe that these women were seeking power in a very male dominated
> world and the way they chose to clamber up the ladder was on the backs of
> their less fortunate sisters.
Totally agreed. I understand that social work was the very first female
profession that gave women authority over others. no other profession
allowed them such power. To play God by determining who shall parent a
woman's child is a power no human being should have. As it was men who
introduced legislation to protect mothers and babies from exploitation
and to provide assistance to enable an unmarried woman to raise her own
baby (which has never been followed), and as most adoption workers and
principal officers were women, I believe this social travesty was a
matriarchal crime, perpetrated by women, upon women, for women. I
believe that is why the feminist movement gave adoption a wide berth and
I didn't mind saying so when I was interviewed by the London Times
Magazine in 1997.
>
> These social workers took the law into their own hands in order to make their
> judgemental and inhumane decisions....they actually went against the adoption
> laws that were in place...for instance, mothers were often not allowed to see
> or hold their babies, I know, I was one of those mothers and have since
> leanrt that this was unlawful. There was so much cruelty...I couldn't trust
> another woman for years after their treatment . Lina
Your reaction to women was a common response. A hungarian Psychiatrist
who was in contact with our organization, once said it is a very sick
society indeed who could sanction the separation of a mother and infant,
and more so by actually believing that any mother could do it willingly.
Cheers Di
> > > Growth is the only evidence of life. -Cardinal Newman
> > > ***************************************************************
> > > Compassion is daring to acknowledge our own destiny so that
> > > we might move forward together. - Henri Nouwen
kdkspa...@my-dejanews.com
Barb,
In article <36AF98...@onramp.net>,
mo...@onramp.net wrote:
> kim and lisa,
> all of your arguments are irrelevant.
Really? Why?
> the point is
> this man and this woman committed suicide themselves and murdered
> their children rather than live seperated from each other....
How do you KNOW this is why they did it? Did they leave a note saying this?
Did they call you beforehand and tell you what they were planning and why?
Are you sure they didn't do this because they were a couple of nuts?
and you
> call this a choice.
It was a choice. Or did someone strap them all into the car and leave them
to die?
> choice, my ass.
Who forced them to kill themselves and their children and their dog?
> choice implies freedom and viable that is, ****VIABLE****
> ,alternatives.
This is absurd. Rather than lose their children, they CHOSE to kill
themselves and their kids and their dog. That's a choice.
By the way, do you imagine that it's possible that the social worker had a
good reason for removing those kids from that home? Do you think that family
was being investigated for NO REASON? Do you think that social worker was
just bored that day and decided to do random investigations of families or
something? The fact that the parents CHOSE to kill themselves, their kids
and their dog tells me that those "evil" social workers who supposedly just
LIVE for separating children from their innocent and superior biological
families might actually have been onto something in this case. Do you think
that might be a possiblity?
> it wasn't *NO* choice.
Yes it was.
> it was terrified desperation.
How do you know? How do you know they weren't a couple of nuts?
> again i ask you, is this what you advocate?
No. But it sounds like YOU advocate it.
> yes, or no?
As I said in my previous post, NO. I guess you didn't read that part.
- Kim.