There's Heat in the Kitchen
Celest920
Has anyone noticed the anti-adoptionists can't argue intelligently the
merits of so called ..."adoption reform"? It is important for us to know
why this is, quoted from the National Adoption Report...
"The tactic is borrowed from the talk shows, where the anti-adoption
groups and those who see adoption as pathological "pack" the audience with
zealots to try to prove to the host and the viewing audience that
"ordinary people" support their views. Those who are uncomfortable at
being yelled at, insulted or harassed (normal, happy members of the
adoption circle) soon stop going to these staged mud-wrestling contests,
so it appears that "everyone" is on the same side.
Various forms of peer pressure are used increasingly, because such
approaches can show results. Just look at the Internet and the various
on-line services: they are dominated by people who are so consumed they
are willing to spend hours hurling invective ("flaming" in computer
parlance) at people who log on with anything positive about adoption."
BBetzen
Celeste,
There are thousands of people who are strongly PRO-adoption who do not
agree with you about maintaining involuntarily sealed records and closed
adoptions. Please do not try to paint your point of view as the only
pro-adoption perspective. It is not.
I strongly support adoption that is fully voluntary in every way with all
parties educated and with an adoptee who is never held to a contract that
she/he did not agree to in being denied information about their birth. I
strongly believe in child-centered adoption wherein all parties are
concerned about the child first and foremost.
I will not get into a debate that involuntarily sealed records were or
were not child centered in 1930. I will strongly debate that such
involuntarily sealed records are NOT child centered in 1996.
Bill
-------------------------------------------
In article <4lvtke$m...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, cele...@aol.com
(Celest920) writes:
>Subject: There's Heat in the Kitchen
>From: cele...@aol.com (Celest920)
>Date: 28 Apr 1996 09:59:42 -0400
Elaine M.Petersen
In article <4m0lvk$1...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> bbe...@aol.com (BBetzen) writes:
>From: bbe...@aol.com (BBetzen)
>Subject: Re: There's Heat in the Kitchen
>Date: 28 Apr 1996 16:55:16 -0400
>Celeste,
>There are thousands of people who are strongly PRO-adoption who do not
>agree with you about maintaining involuntarily sealed records and closed
>adoptions. Please do not try to paint your point of view as the only
>pro-adoption perspective. It is not.
Agreed.
I am as pro-adoption as some one can get. . .and yet I would be termed "anti-
adoption" because of my position on open records and open adoption. These
attacks are absurd.
Lainie-birthmother in an open adoption and reunited
adoptee
nigel harvey
> Has anyone noticed the anti-adoptionists...
(bleat, bleat, bleat...)
C,
Can an adoptee be an anti-adoptionist?
Is this not like Christ being the Anti-Christ, one in the same?
P.s.--there's heat in the sky too, but don't look up you might drown yourself!
NH,
IN THE NAME OF THE M.O.M.A, DADA, AND THE HOLY BASTARD.
THE PONTIFF OF POURING SUNSHINE.
'begins the revision of categories, where something past comes again, as though out of the future; something formely accomplished as something to be completed.
Rilke, 1908.
Celest920
No Bill....you are "pro-only fully open adoption" meaning...
Dividing up the rights and responsibilities of adoptive parents amongst
birth parents, social workers and the courts.
The problem I see with this is that it looks a GREAT DEAL like a "foster
care arrangment" and threatened the integrity and permanency of adoptive
families.
Any time we talk of dividing the rights of parenting up, we are talking
about "co-parenting".
Celeste
BBetzen
Celeste,
This is why I will not engage in dialogue with you on these boards. You
know very well that the definition of open adoption I have used in 270
adoptions over the past 9 years does not follow YOUR definition of open
adoption.
You have been on my home page and the document on placing a child for
adoption at http://www.openadoption.org/bbetzen/parent.htm. You have seen
the section of that document dedicated to "What Open Adoption is NOT".
That section is dedicated to the fact that open adoption is not, and
should never be co-parenting by anyones definition. If a parent wants to
place a child, and sign an agreement so they can have bi-weekly
visitation, then they should NOT be placing their child for adoption.
The following is Celeste's definition of open adoption:
>Dividing up the rights and responsibilities of adoptive parents amongst
>birth parents, social workers and the courts.
>
>The problem I see with this is that it looks a GREAT DEAL like a "foster
>care arrangment" and threatened the integrity and permanency of adoptive
>families.
>
>Any time we talk of dividing the rights of parenting up, we are talking
>about "co-parenting".
>
>Celeste
With this definition of "open adoption" it is no wonder that you would
never want to have one.
Neither would I, nor would I recommend such an adoption for any family!
Bill
http://www.openadoption.org
Celest920
Well you should know then Bill that is what the goals of "adoption
reform" are. And don't ask me to post proof of it, unless you like
getting what you ask for! :+)
Celeste
PattyBybee
In article <4lvtke$m...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
cele...@aol.com (Celest920) writes:
>Subject:There's Heat in the Kitchen
>From: cele...@aol.com (Celest920)
>Date: 28 Apr 1996 09:59:42 -0400
>
> Has anyone noticed the anti-adoptionists can't argue intelligently the
>merits of so called ..."adoption reform"? It is important for us to know
>why this is, quoted from the National Adoption Report...
>
>
Celeste...
What the hell is the "National Adoption Report?" Please reply, being sure
to include the name of the AUTHOR of your quoted remarks, and the full
name, address, and phone number of the organization which publishes
the "National Adoption Report."
Patty B...
BBetzen
In article <4m3hso$s...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, cele...@aol.com
(Celest920) writes:
Celeste,
I am certain you will somewhere find a radical extreme under the alleged
umbrella of "adoption reform" that would be pushing for what you are
calling open adoption. That is not adoption reform as the large majority
of us pushing for open records for adult adoptees mean it.
You also know very well that the co-parenting definition of open adoption
you have given is only the radical extreme, an extreme that is NOT
accepted by any open adoption organizations I know of. Can you name one
such open adoption organization that is any bigger than one extreme
agency?
Can you even name one agency (doing more than 10 placements per year)
following your definition of "open adoption", and give me their phone
number so I can verify what you are saying about their practice? If you
can do that I will be amazed.
I await that agencies name and phone number.
Bill
Jacquie Gower
bbe...@aol.com (BBetzen) wrote:
>I am certain you will somewhere find a radical extreme under the alleged
>umbrella of "adoption reform" that would be pushing for what you are
>calling open adoption. That is not adoption reform as the large majority
>of us pushing for open records for adult adoptees mean it.
>You also know very well that the co-parenting definition of open adoption
>you have given is only the radical extreme, an extreme that is NOT
>accepted by any open adoption organizations I know of.
>Bill
I think that this is where we are running into trouble with semantics.
We need to make clear definitions of Adoption Reform, Open Adoption
and Open Records.
I am all for Adoption Reform if it is refering to Open Records for
both the minor adoptee (medical records) and the adult adoptee
(birth/birthparent information and original birth certificate). I
would be against Adoption Reform if it is refering to mandatory Open
Adoption (co-parenting) across the board or long term revocable
consent and that is the impression that I'm getting from some of the
extreme anti-adoption proponets on this NG. I realize that this will
probably make a few people mad but a birth mother has nine months
while she's pregnant to think about if she was ready to be a mother
and IMO if she needs anything over say six months after the baby is
born then she should try again later. A child shouldn't be made to
wait until the birth mother "feels like" parenting. In my state a
birth mother _can't_ sign relinquishment papers until the baby is
three days old and then has the option of petitioning the court to
revoke consent for an additional six months. That makes a total of 15
months or at least a year if she doesn't realize she's pregnant until
the second trimester. That's plenty of time.
Jacquie
Christina Johnson
Celest920 wrote:
>
> No Bill....you are "pro-only fully open adoption" meaning...
>
> birth parents, social workers and the courts.
>
> The problem I see with this is that it looks a GREAT DEAL like a "foster
> care arrangment" and threatened the integrity and permanency of adoptive
> families.
>
> Any time we talk of dividing the rights of parenting up, we are talking
> about "co-parenting".
>
> Celeste
Open adoption has nothing to do with dividing parental responsibilities.
Parental responsibilities are exhibited by those doing the parenting.
(The persons who are living everyday with the child, DUH). It's obvious
that you feel extremely threatened by the possibility of maintaining
contact with a birthparent.
No matter how hard you try, YOU CANNOT ERASE A PERSON'S HERITAGE OR
IDENTITY (No matter how many records you seal or birth certificates you
change). Once adoptive parents realize this, maybe then they can operate
in a realm of what is in the best interest of the child.
aPamela J.S. Mann
In <4m2k6b$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> cele...@aol.com (Celest920)
writes:
>No Bill....you are "pro-only fully open adoption" meaning...
>
> Dividing up the rights and responsibilities of adoptive parents
>amongst birth parents, social workers and the courts.
WRONG!!!!!! Once the adoption is FINAL, the courts and social workers
are out of the picture, just like in closet adoptions.
>The problem I see with this is that it looks a GREAT DEAL like a
>"foster care arrangment" and threatened the integrity and permanency
>of adoptive families.
WRONG!!!!! Once the adoption is FINAL, it's FINAL, just like in closet
adoptions.
>Any time we talk of dividing the rights of parenting up, we are
>talking about "co-parenting".
WRONG!!!!! Once the adoption is final, the adoptive parents have total
say of what happens in the child's life, just like in closet adoptions,
but without the secrets...
Celeste - let's go through this ONE MORE TIME, shall we? Can you
PLEASE try to listen this time? Thank you...
Open adoption DOES NOT MEAN CO-PARENTING, it DOES NOT MEAN deviding up
the rights of the adoptive parents, it simply means that the child's
birthfamily is a part of the child's life, like all his/her other
relatives are a part of his/her life, and that he/she will have full
access to his/her birthright (heritage, and access to people with a
biological connection who love him/her) There's NO FOSTER CARE
ARRANGEMENT, nor does it resemble one in any way, because just like
those closet adoptions that you're so fond of, open adoptions are
FINAL, and cannot be revoked, as you seem to think they can be. Once a
child is adopted, it's forever, PERIOD. You obviously have no concept
of what an open adoption is. My husband and I are parenting our son,
we do not have input from his birthfamily, unless we request it (which
we have in the past, especially concerning medical reasons.) We do not
"co-parent", nor do any of the other parents we know that have chosen
to not hide behind fear and paranoia. We simply chose to give our son
what was his in the first place, his roots (and a wonderful extended
family) It must be terrible to be as insecure as you are!
Please understand what it is you're trying to put down before you
attempt to put it down.
Pam, Mommy to Robbie, who is birthson to Jenn
Brenda L. Spencer
OPEN ADOPTIONS
> Once the adoption is FINAL, it's FINAL, just like in closed
> adoptions.
>
> Once the adoption is final, the adoptive parents have total
>
> Open adoption DOES NOT MEAN CO-PARENTING, it DOES NOT MEAN deviding up
> the rights of the adoptive parents, it simply means that the child's
> birthfamily is a part of the child's life, like all his/her other
> relatives are a part of his/her life, and that he/she will have full
> access to his/her birthright (heritage, and access to people with a
the past, especially concerning medical reasons.) We do not
wonderful extended family)
I really appreciate this discussion as it relates to re-unions these
days. I think "reunion" is another way of saying that we're
trying to change the status of a previously "closed" adoption to an
"open" adoption.
Reunions work just like an open adoption, but where all members are
usually adults (adoptee over 18 usually).
Thinking of reunions this way may make it easier for adoptees, aparents
and bparents to understand how it all fits together. It helps to
align expectations.
Brenda Spencer
Laura J. Lewis
On 28 Apr 1996, Celest920 wrote:
> Has anyone noticed the anti-adoptionists can't argue intelligently the
> merits of so called ..."adoption reform"? It is important for us to know
> why this is, quoted from the National Adoption Report...
Has anyone ever noticed how Celeste and Co. (Pierce, Style and the other
fearmongers hiding behind her) spew out crap about others not arguing
intelligently about adoption issues as they frantically sidestep those
issues, throw out red herrings, divert, distract, fearmong and muddy the
waters in any way possible that lets them avoid honest discussion and
debate? Including quoting people paid to lie about adoption.
National Adoption Reports, for those who don't know, is a newsletter put
out by the National Council for Adoption. Its function is to scare the
bejeebers out of already frightened (but rich) adoptive parents, so they
will donate lots of money to the NCFA to keep records sealed -- and also
to keep paying Bill Pierce's six-figure salary, of course! Gotta keep
churning out the anti-mother rhetoric so they can justify taking those
healthy white newborn babies from their, um, pathological mothers. This
increases their inventory (their term, not mine), essential to the
babyselling business. It also ensures that adopters will keep demanding
middlemen to protect them from us evil, babystealing birth mothers, and
those middlemen will just keep raking in the money.
> "The tactic is borrowed from the talk shows, where the anti-adoption
> groups and those who see adoption as pathological "pack" the audience with
> zealots to try to prove to the host and the viewing audience that
> "ordinary people" support their views. Those who are uncomfortable at
> being yelled at, insulted or harassed (normal, happy members of the
> adoption circle) soon stop going to these staged mud-wrestling contests,
> so it appears that "everyone" is on the same side.
No, they don't go to talk shows OR honest, open public discussions of
adoption issues because they can't argue intelligently, with facts in
hand. That is because the facts and the public sentiment are
overwhelmingly on our side -- and this is why groups like the NCFA are
slinking around behind the scenes, spying on people, siccing moronic
reporters on them, collecting 'anti-adoption evidence' against them,
heckling them at their book signings, trying to assassinate their
characters and other high class intellectual endeavors...
If they openly engaged in this ridiculous behavior, the public and media
would see right through them, and know exactly where they were coming
from. But their very dishonesty and cowardice mean they and their slimy
motives stay hidden. The last thing these people want is honest and
fair public debate on adoption issues. It would do them in.
> Various forms of peer pressure are used increasingly, because such
> approaches can show results. Just look at the Internet and the various
> on-line services: they are dominated by people who are so consumed they
> are willing to spend hours hurling invective ("flaming" in computer
> parlance) at people who log on with anything positive about adoption."
>
>
Yes, my oh my, look at the Internet. People openly discussing that
which Bill & Co. want to stay hidden and shameful -- and thus very
lucrative. Living, breathing, sensitive, caring human beings taking
charge of their own lives and relationships rather than allowing a bunch
of liars and imbeciles to control them. It's really a tragedy, isn't it,
when people think, act and speak for themselves rather than letting total
strangers interpret their experience to the world? Hmmmm, all those
millions upon millions of adoptees and birth mothers who are happy with
adoption -- how odd that they don't speak up here, or anywhere.
No, Bill and Mary Beth, we are so consumed by righteousness and so
thrilled to finally have an uncensored forum where womanhaters and paid
liars such as yourselves can't manipulate and distort the truth, where
we can speak for ourselves, and where the FACTS can be publicized so that
all are free to make their own judgments about our experience, and about
the way adoption is done in the United States, without 'help' from a
bunch of lying opportunists, that we are shouting this news from the
rooftops! You are free to tell the truth here. And so are we.
If you people have arguments worth presenting, Celeste, you and your
NCFA friends are encouraged to present them here. You are welcome to
refute every word and fact I and others have written here and pick
apart every study I cite. So are Mr. Pierce, Ms. Style, Ms. Ademac and
the others.
I don't believe this will happen, though. The modus operandi of Pierce
& Co. is to attack outspoken birth mothers and adoptees from behind,
with sleazy, dishonest media setups and slanderous innuendo, not honestly
debate them. They know they would lose in an aboveboard public debate,
because all they know is how to talk fast and change the subject. They
know the truth is on our side, and they're scared, not for any child's
or mother's sake (what a joke!), but for their fat paychecks.
Have you ever noticed that your National Adoption Report doesn't even
publish letters to the NCFA from adoption reform activists? Know why?
The facts would interfere with their brainwashing of adoptive parents,
and would expose the NCFA for the major con operation it is.
Laura
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Laura Lewis * lle...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu * lle...@teaminfinity.com * USA
Steve White
In article <Pine.A32.3.91.960502...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu>,
"Laura J. Lewis" <lle...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu> wrote:
> > "The tactic is borrowed from the talk shows, where the anti-adoption
> > groups and those who see adoption as pathological "pack" the audience with
> > zealots to try to prove to the host and the viewing audience that
> > "ordinary people" support their views.
>
> No, they don't go to talk shows OR honest, open public discussions of
> adoption issues because they can't argue intelligently, with facts in
> hand. That is because the facts and the public sentiment are
> overwhelmingly on our side -- and this is why groups like the NCFA are
> slinking around behind the scenes, spying on people, siccing moronic
> reporters on them, collecting 'anti-adoption evidence' against them,
> heckling them at their book signings, trying to assassinate their
> characters and other high class intellectual endeavors...
Hate to tell you this, but the public sentiment is NOT on your side. If it
were, the laws would be a lot closer to being changed.
Frankly, 95% of the public doesn't give a damn.
And to hope that Montel and Sally Jesse will provide an open, public
discussion on anything is to hope to see a pink elephant once in your
life.
> If they openly engaged in this ridiculous behavior, the public and media
> would see right through them, and know exactly where they were coming
> from. But their very dishonesty and cowardice mean they and their slimy
> motives stay hidden.
Gee, Bad Bill seems pretty open to me. He's openly waltzing around state
capitols spreading influence. He does TV interviews without hiding behind
a screen. Dishonest and cowardly maybe, but hidden? He's doing what he
does right in front of you.
> Hmmmm, all those
> millions upon millions of adoptees and birth mothers who are happy with
> adoption -- how odd that they don't speak up here, or anywhere.
Your hyperbole is undermining your argument (as usual).
Most people don't speak up. The "millions and millions" of ANY group
generally take care of their lives and do what they do. It's a vocal
minority that says anything to anyone in the first place.
Indeed, few adoptees and birthparents speak up about their lot in life.
Bill says that's because they're all content, and you say it's because
they're all traumatized and in denial. We just won't know until they say
for themselves, will we?
You and Bill Pierce are equally presumptuous: you both claim to speak for
people you've never met.
> Have you ever noticed that your National Adoption Report doesn't even
> publish letters to the NCFA from adoption reform activists? Know why?
> The facts would interfere with their brainwashing of adoptive parents,
> and would expose the NCFA for the major con operation it is.
It's their newsletter, they can print what they want. Same as for the CUB
newsletter -- when was the last time the CUB newsletter printed a letter
from NCFA?
steve
Elaine M. Petersen
In article <swhite-0205...@pulm-mac2.bsd.uchicago.edu>, swh...@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu (Steve White) says:
>
>In article <Pine.A32.3.91.960502...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu>,
>"Laura J. Lewis" <lle...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu> wrote:
>
>> > groups and those who see adoption as pathological "pack" the audience with
>> > zealots to try to prove to the host and the viewing audience that
>> > "ordinary people" support their views.
>>
>> adoption issues because they can't argue intelligently, with facts in
>> hand. That is because the facts and the public sentiment are
>> overwhelmingly on our side -- and this is why groups like the NCFA are
>> slinking around behind the scenes, spying on people, siccing moronic
>> reporters on them, collecting 'anti-adoption evidence' against them,
>> heckling them at their book signings, trying to assassinate their
>> characters and other high class intellectual endeavors...
>
>
>were, the laws would be a lot closer to being changed.
I think you are both right:
The public doesn't give a rat's patootie about open records, tis true,
but the public eats up these reunion stories.
Basically, somebody has got to figure out how to channel the public's
love of reunions into an understanding of the unjust laws that
stand in the way of these reunions.
Lainie
Lainie Petersen
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. USA
epe...@lulu.acns.nwu.edu
If you wanna kiss the sky better learn how to kneel-U2
http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~epe084/test.html
Shea Grimm
"Laura J. Lewis" <lle...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu> wrote:
>Has anyone ever noticed how Celeste and Co. (Pierce, Style and the other
>fearmongers hiding behind her) spew out crap about others not arguing
>intelligently about adoption issues as they frantically sidestep those
>issues, throw out red herrings, divert, distract, fearmong and muddy the
>waters in any way possible that lets them avoid honest discussion and
>debate?
Well, actually, yes Laura, I had noticed that.
> The last thing these people want is honest and
>fair public debate on adoption issues. It would do them in.
I don't know if this is accurate. I've seen good ol' Bill in an awful
lot of public debates, from CNN to NPR. Oh, sure, he lies, dodges, and
in general 'muddies the waters', but it occurs to me that he
appreciates the opportunity, and is seldom pitted against anyone who
has intelligent and prepared responses to his lies. Instead, his
'adversaries', ostensibly representing adoption reform, become as
alarmist and full of rhetoric as Bill is.
> It's really a tragedy, isn't it,
>when people think, act and speak for themselves rather than letting total
>strangers interpret their experience to the world? Hmmmm, all those
>millions upon millions of adoptees and birth mothers who are happy with
>adoption -- how odd that they don't speak up here, or anywhere.
We're in vast agreement on this point. I do think that alt.adoption is
threatening to Pierce and Celeste, and others of their ilk, because
they don't want aparents or prospective aparents getting any ideas
that maybe the rosy picture that Pierce and others like to paint of
sealed adoptions and quickie relinquishments is a little off kilter.
I also think that one of the ways in which these slimy folks operate
is to try and paint certain types of adoptees (searching, 'angry',
adoptees) as being sick, psychotic, and alone in their feelings. It is
precisely forums like alt.adoption where like-minded individuals come
together and realize they are NOT alone, and thus the seeds of
revolution are sown.
Shea
For Celeste: "I'm so happy 'cause today I found my friends
they're in my head"
--NIRVANA
"I knew that we were having problems when
You put those pirhanas in my bathtub again...."
--Weird Al Yankovic
--------------------------------------------
Shea's place http://www.alt.net/~waltj/shea/intro.html
sh...@oz.net
Laura J. Lewis
On 3 May 1996, Elaine M. Petersen wrote:
> In article <swhite-0205...@pulm-mac2.bsd.uchicago.edu>, swh...@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu (Steve White) says:
> >
> >In article <Pine.A32.3.91.960502...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu>,
> >"Laura J. Lewis" <lle...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> > "The tactic is borrowed from the talk shows, where the anti-adoption
> >> > groups and those who see adoption as pathological "pack" the audience with
> >> > zealots to try to prove to the host and the viewing audience that
> >> > "ordinary people" support their views.
> >>
> >> No, they don't go to talk shows OR honest, open public discussions of
> >> adoption issues because they can't argue intelligently, with facts in
> >> hand. That is because the facts and the public sentiment are
> >> overwhelmingly on our side -- and this is why groups like the NCFA are
> >> slinking around behind the scenes, spying on people, siccing moronic
> >> reporters on them, collecting 'anti-adoption evidence' against them,
> >> heckling them at their book signings, trying to assassinate their
> >> characters and other high class intellectual endeavors...
> >
> >
> >Hate to tell you this, but the public sentiment is NOT on your side. If it
> >were, the laws would be a lot closer to being changed.
>
> I think you are both right:
>
> The public doesn't give a rat's patootie about open records, tis true,
> but the public eats up these reunion stories.
>
> Basically, somebody has got to figure out how to channel the public's
> love of reunions into an understanding of the unjust laws that
> stand in the way of these reunions.
>
> Lainie
>
>
In my experience, most outsiders to adoption, i.e. normal citizens who
are free to find, meet, know and associate with their own family members,
reject adoption as an alternative for themselves and accept searching
and reunions. Our problem is that although people respond to the t.v.
reunions very positively on a gut level, most have no understanding of
the oppressive laws and barbaric, dishonest procedures surrounding those
of us unfortunate to live in Adoption Land. They take it for granted
that we search for each other, and most have no problem with this
(and surveys show that) but fail to recognize that in a civilized
society, in a civilized adoption system, among civilized people -- we
should not be separated in the first place, let alone be forced to
embark on expensive, painful, humiliating searches for each other.
Because most people are not even aware that these barbaric laws and
procedures (such as the fake 'birth certificate') exist, and because many
have been deliberately misled about adoption and adoptees' and birth
parents' experience by groups such as the NCFA, they fail to question all
these discrepancies, or apply what they know about real-life adoptees and
birth mothers to go one step further and endorse humanizing the adoption
laws. I and others have had many arguments with ordinary citizens who
refuse to believe that birth mothers have often been manipulated and
deceived into surrendering, have been denied separate legal counsel, and
have NO legal right to information about their children ever again!
Adoptees have told me they meet the same resistance when they tell people
about the fake birth certificate. Some have had fierce arguments with
outsiders who insist that 'this sort of thing', i.e. the legal
falsification of birth documents, is not done!! In other words, the most
basic social and legal aspects of adoption are denied by society, even as
this same society embraces reunions with open arms.
Adoption reform activists have a lot of educating to do, but I believe
we will succeed in changing this system. It has always been true that
the people most deeply and personally affected by an injustice have been
those most likely to work to eradicate it. Many people have been harmed
so badly by adoption practices that they have lost all sense of
self-worth and autonomy. They have become so used to allowing others to
think for them, and 'protect' them from reality, that their moral and
intellectual muscles have atrophied.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the average American (and the average
adoption-affected American as well) is simply too stupid and passive to
question the laws that control his or her life and relationships. H.L.
Mencken observed that no one ever went broke underestimating the
intelligence of the American public, and that could certainly be applied
to adoption in this country. The average person is at best amazingly
uncritical and unobservant when it comes to adoption. But I also believe
there are enough thinking, caring people both within and without adoption
reform to ultimately make a positive difference.
As for the talk shows, I am always interested to see how Bill Pierce
and the NCFA attack the adoption reunions on talk shows. I think they
hate these programs because if they do nothing else they illustrate the
FACT that most birth parents and adoptees who find each other are quite
happy about that and well able to navigate the emotional repercussions
involved. In fact, even talk shows that focus on negative reunions (the
kind Bill & Co. misrepresent as either the norm or as sufficient cause to
keep depriving the huge majority of caring, responsible birth family
members of our civil and human rights) invariably result in positive feed-
back from adoption-separated family members. After one such negative talk
show, featuring adoptees and birth mothers who searched and/or were
found, the search group whose number was aired logged thousands of calls
from outraged family members who stated that they would NEVER reject their
child, siblings or birth parents, or people requesting search help.
I also think it's interesting that Bill & Co. have frequently stated that
CUB 'sponsors' television reunions to plug its 'anti-adoption' agenda (or
some such bizarre nonsense). In fact, CUB has NEVER sponsored or even
endorsed these talk shows. CUB's leaders believe they fail to address
the real issues, and contribute to the public's ignorance about adoption
by suggesting that it's easy for people to find each other, and that
separating mothers and children is just fine because we can always stage
wonderful, happy reunions years later and erase all the pain and harm
done by the original separation.
Most talk shows crave sensationalism, and the people who produce them are
seldom if ever interested in exploring the deeper issues. The same
applies to most media coverage of adoption. It is a sacred cow, and as
one publisher wrote Mirah Riben, people (especially adoptive parents) do
not want to hear about the dark side of adoption. They do not want to
hear about the pain and loss underlying most adoptions. They only want
the happy reunions. Whether this is because we are an exceptionally
naive, superficial, materialistic culture compared to others (and this
possibility seems most likely) or because we are a nation composed of
exceptionally stupid citizens, is uncertain.
I could believe either, truthfully. I've been sweet-talked and bribed by
a lot of producers to appear on talk shows since the NCFA's
Schmidt-DeBoer circus. These people want to see the fur fly, attract
audiences and make money. They, like many reporters, will parrot
whatever sounds sensational. They LOVE fights, and LOVE groups like the
NCFA whose representatives talk fast and loud and sleazy, and are experts
at changing the subject, and skilled at perpetuating myths, stereotypes
and fears while maintaining a facade of professionalism. The talk show
people seem flabbergasted that CUB leaders discourage bringing adoption
issues into their shallow, sensational arena. If anyone thrives in this
environment it is dishonest groups like the NCFA. They are well aware
that the talk show format discourages in-depth discussion, fair debate or
intelligent and scholarly participation.
I do think it's funny and revealing, though, that no matter how down and
dirty these talk shows get, the public overwhelmingly comes down in favor
of reunions. Even if they don't comprehend this intellectually, most
people intuitively sense that the separation of a mother and child is a
tragic situation, and their reunion a positive, healthy step forward.
In my opinion, reunions are a bone thrown to the starving after everyone
else, all the 'normal' people, have enjoyed their feast. But a reunion
of any kind is better than no reunion at all in most cases...and most
people are begrudged even this under our current adoption system.
Laura
Laura J. Lewis
On Thu, 2 May 1996, Steve White wrote:
> In article <Pine.A32.3.91.960502...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu>,
> "Laura J. Lewis" <lle...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu> wrote:
>
> > > "The tactic is borrowed from the talk shows, where the anti-adoption
> > > groups and those who see adoption as pathological "pack" the audience with
> > > zealots to try to prove to the host and the viewing audience that
> > > "ordinary people" support their views.
> >
> > No, they don't go to talk shows OR honest, open public discussions of
> > adoption issues because they can't argue intelligently, with facts in
> > hand. That is because the facts and the public sentiment are
> > overwhelmingly on our side -- and this is why groups like the NCFA are
> > slinking around behind the scenes, spying on people, siccing moronic
> > reporters on them, collecting 'anti-adoption evidence' against them,
> > heckling them at their book signings, trying to assassinate their
> > characters and other high class intellectual endeavors...
>
>
> Hate to tell you this, but the public sentiment is NOT on your side. If it
> were, the laws would be a lot closer to being changed.
>
> Frankly, 95% of the public doesn't give a damn.
No, public sentiment IS on our side when it comes to rejecting this
insane adoption system on a personal level. Lest you forget, the huge
majority of people have NO interest in participating in adoption in any
way, either by surrendering their children to it or adopting other
people's children. As the old Thai saying goes, "Adopting children of
others is like chewing food for others, a nice gesture but it doesn't
fill the belly." Or something to that effect.
Secondly, the public is overwhelmingly in favor of openness in adoption
and polls support this. And of course most know nothing about adoption
laws because they are not personally discriminated against by them, as we
are. Nor are most people interested in upping the rates of adoptions or
pushing adoption on teenaged mothers -- unlike the NCFA, the Republican
congress, the fake feminists and the infertile prospective adopters and
adoptive parents' groups. Who do NOT sponsor (or want) intelligent
public debates on any of these issues, I assure you.
> And to hope that Montel and Sally Jesse will provide an open, public
> discussion on anything is to hope to see a pink elephant once in your
> life.
>
As I wrote elsewhere, I have turned down offers from many talk show
producers for this very reason. They want shock and sensationalism, and
that's all. But the fact is, even the most negative, slanderous programs
these idiots have aired (and I include "Nightline" in that category,
right along with CBN, Geraldo, etc.) have had an overwhelmingly POSITIVE
response from the public in terms of support for and from adoption
separated family members. Interesting, isn't it?
> > If they openly engaged in this ridiculous behavior, the public and media
> > would see right through them, and know exactly where they were coming
> > from. But their very dishonesty and cowardice mean they and their slimy
> > motives stay hidden.
>
>
> Gee, Bad Bill seems pretty open to me. He's openly waltzing around state
> capitols spreading influence. He does TV interviews without hiding behind
> a screen. Dishonest and cowardly maybe, but hidden? He's doing what he
> does right in front of you.
>
He hardly works publicly with all these reporters and others he
influences to 'cover' this issue! How naive of you to suggest this.
The NCFA goes straight to adoptive parents they know in the media and
feed them a bunch of lying hype (ala the Schmidt-Deboer debacle) and
persuade them that birth mothers are psycho bitches from hell. Then,
when these media idiots -- I'm sure it's purely coincidence that most are
either adoptive parents or prospective adopters -- buy into their lies
and publish articles and 'news' programs on adoption, they turn around
and use this lying crap as 'proof' for their position. They rely on the
FACT that the average adoptive parent media personality or legislator
is a pompous, lazy ignoramus who will not care enough to research the
issue any further, will not care enough to check out facts, sources,
whatever, but will turn around and spew out NCFA hogwash for public
consumption. Of course it is also dumped into the legislative trough, as
evidenced by Bill and Co.'s distribution of the atrocious Lucinda Franks
New Yorker article about CUB to legislators and NCCUSL members.
The public and lawmakers are incredibly naive regarding NCFA and other
babyselling lobby groups' ongoing attempts to manipulate and shape public
opinion. Most of the NCFA's maneuverings never become public knowledge,
but occur behind the scenes. They do not even publicize their official,
documented goals and most media people and legislators they snuggle up to
are too stupid and biased and uncritical to ask for them.
> > Hmmmm, all those
> > millions upon millions of adoptees and birth mothers who are happy with
> > adoption -- how odd that they don't speak up here, or anywhere.
>
>
> Your hyperbole is undermining your argument (as usual).
>
> Most people don't speak up. The "millions and millions" of ANY group
> generally take care of their lives and do what they do. It's a vocal
> minority that says anything to anyone in the first place.
>
> Indeed, few adoptees and birthparents speak up about their lot in life.
> Bill says that's because they're all content, and you say it's because
> they're all traumatized and in denial. We just won't know until they say
> for themselves, will we?
No, you seem to miss my point, which is typical. My point is that EVERY
open public forum adoptees and birth parents are given, EVERY opportunity
we have to share our views, EVERY professional research study published
over the past 20 years, which queries adoptees and birth parents on what
WE want, has found (overwhelmingly) that most of us want openness in
adoption. If what Bill Pierce and others claim is true, that 90 percent
of birth mothers in the U.S. "dread" being found by their children and
that "the streets will run with blood" (of abortion) if adoptees are
allowed access to their birth records, and that only one percent of
adoptees ever search, they haven't an iota of evidence for any of this.
>
> You and Bill Pierce are equally presumptuous: you both claim to speak for
> people you've never met.
I have NEVER claimed to speak for people I've never met. Unlike all these
self-serving folks who claim to speak for us birth mothers and adoptees.
I have only and consistently stated the truth: That all the evidence
points to the fact that far more adoptees and birth parents come down on
our side than on the NCFA's or any closed adoption lobby group. How dare
you suggest that our mountains of evidence, published by dozens of honest,
reputable social scientists, falls into the same category as the
baldfaced lies and trash promulgated by Bill Pierce and Co. Are you so
afraid of the truth of this being known that you just blindly lash out
and write idiotic things like this? Apparently so!
TEN YEARS AGO, sociologists Harriet Ganson and Judith Cook did a
meticulous analysis of letters sent to public officials regarding
proposed model adoption legislation that would allow adoptees and birth
parents access to their records, facilitating reunions. All opinions
from all perspectives were actively solicited in the media and
elsewhere. The results:
FOR access to records: 95% of birthparents who wrote supported
access to records. Most said the loss of their child was a lifelong
source of pain, and not knowing made this even harder. 94% of adopted
adults who wrote in supported this proposed legislation, saying that
sealed records laws violated their civil rights.
AGAINST access to records: 87 percent of adoptive parents opposed
giving adoptees and birth parents access to their records. Many, wrote
the researchers, claimed that they wanted secrecy to remain in place to
'protect' the birth mothers. The researchers pointed out that this was
in direct contradiction to what the birth mothers said they wanted.
Go get this study and read it. I urge you. It pretty much lays it
on the line in terms of showing who in adoption thinks what and who feels
what strongly enough to write in about. If scads of adoptees and birth
mothers are out there cringing in fear of openness and reunions, loving
every minute of adoption as Bill & Co. claim, then WHERE THE HELL ARE
THEY!!!! Why aren't they frantically writing letters and calling their
legislators to oppose our reforms? Why is it only adoptive parents, baby
brokers and 'prolifers' fighting our reforms? Why are we open-minded
adoptees and birth parents out here speaking for ourselves (and the
thousands of others we've been elected to represent), while the alleged
thousands (nay, millions) of fearful, closeted adoptees and birth parents
can't even write a letter to anyone in opposition to us?
Your arguments are absurd, Steve, as specious as Bill & Co.'s. In
fact, I have right here in my office plenty of examples that illustrate
how this same inane argument came up in New Zealand and other countries
when adoptees and birth parents fought for reform. Government-appointed
experts analyzed the communications received from all members of the
adoption triad. Out of thousands of letters endorsing reform, they came
up with only TWO from birth mothers who opposed access to records. One
was anonymous and the other appeared to be a fake. The fact that some
groups (and not adoption reform activists, either!) would not be above
concocting fake 'evidence' against openness did not go unmentioned by
experts, either, who were all too familiar with opposition tactics.
Oh, you'll need to present a lot better evidence than this, Steve, to
put our methods and arguments in the same camp as Bill Pierce's. In
fact, your arguments are suspiciously like his -- and the 'evidence' you
bring to the forum is equally flimsy and/or non-existent.
> > Have you ever noticed that your National Adoption Report doesn't even
> > publish letters to the NCFA from adoption reform activists? Know why?
> > The facts would interfere with their brainwashing of adoptive parents,
> > and would expose the NCFA for the major con operation it is.
>
>
> It's their newsletter, they can print what they want. Same as for the CUB
> newsletter -- when was the last time the CUB newsletter printed a letter
> from NCFA?
>
>
> steve
>
CUB has published NCFA letters more times than I can remember, as well as
rebuttals, counter-rebuttals and honest criticism from all members of the
triad, including adoptive parents. Clearly, you've never bothered to
read our so-called rag enough to even be aware of this. I think you
need to take a long break from alt.adoption, Steve, and actually learn
something about what is going on in adoption reform, before coming out
with these lame excuses for debate. Go subscribe the NCFA's 'news'
letter and read it for yourself for a year or two, as many of us have.
Go subscribe to the CUB Communicator and all the other activist
publications, and read them. Go read the books and study the research.
Do all the homework that those you criticize have done, then get back
to us with your opinions and speculations.
What absurdity -- I'm amazed that anyone could take your criticisms
seriously! You attack (and defend) groups you obviously know little or
nothing about. You malign CUB's newsletter as a 'rag' and liken it to
the NCFA's, yet cite no evidence for this. You insult my and others'
intelligence by accusing me of claiming to speak for women I do NOT speak
for (and never wanted nor pretended to) yet profess phoney concern about
some alleged vast group of adoptees and birth parents, whom you neither
know nor were elected to represent, whose opinions are (allegedly) in
direct contradiction to mine and other adoption reform activists'. Who,
exactly, appointed you to speak for them, Steve? Could you tell us?
Why don't you and others just 'adopt' a little humility for a change,
and admit that you don't understand adoption very well, and haven't done
much homework on these issues, and speak for no one but yourselves? I
really would appreciate it if you'd present solid evidence here when you
attempt to refute my arguments, rather than all this blustering and
innuendo. You haven't cited one piece of solid evidence yet -- all I'm
seeing is 'theoretical speculations,' the same kind of sophistry churned
out by the NCFA, all form and no substance.
Quit insulting my and others' intelligence.
Laura
Steve White
In article <Pine.A32.3.91.960505...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu>,
"Laura J. Lewis" <lle...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu> wrote:
> No, public sentiment IS on our side when it comes to rejecting this
> insane adoption system on a personal level. Lest you forget, the huge
> majority of people have NO interest in participating in adoption in any
> way, either by surrendering their children to it or adopting other
> people's children. As the old Thai saying goes, "Adopting children of
> others is like chewing food for others, a nice gesture but it doesn't
> fill the belly." Or something to that effect.
Because they're not being forced to consider adoption for themselves. Most
fertile couples don't consider it. But since infertility, etc., can strike
anyone, the cross-section of people willing to adopt is the same as that
of society in general.
> Secondly, the public is overwhelmingly in favor of openness in adoption
> and polls support this. And of course most know nothing about adoption
> laws because they are not personally discriminated against by them, as we
> are.
Do you see how your second sentence contradicts your first? If most people
know nothing about adoption and adoption law, how can they favor openness
in adoption? Not only do most people know nothing about adoption law, most
know nothing about adoption. So they'll support anything phrased properly
in the pollsters' questions.
> > And to hope that Montel and Sally Jesse will provide an open, public
> > discussion on anything is to hope to see a pink elephant once in your
> > life.
> >
> As I wrote elsewhere, I have turned down offers from many talk show
> producers for this very reason. They want shock and sensationalism, and
> that's all.
There we are in agreement.
> He [NB: Bill Pierce] hardly works publicly with all these reporters and
others
> he influences to 'cover' this issue! How naive of you to suggest this.
> The NCFA goes straight to adoptive parents they know in the media and
> feed them a bunch of lying hype (ala the Schmidt-Deboer debacle) and
> persuade them that birth mothers are psycho bitches from hell. Then,
> when these media idiots -- I'm sure it's purely coincidence that most are
> either adoptive parents or prospective adopters -- buy into their lies
> and publish articles and 'news' programs on adoption, they turn around
> and use this lying crap as 'proof' for their position.
The likelihood that media idiots are aparents is the same as in society in
general -- about 1 - 2%. What's the excuse of the other 98 - 99% of the
idiots? You can't have the numbers both ways.
Lobbying reporters isn't public and isn't meant to be. YOU have the same
opportunity to lobby. Time to get that Rolodex out and get to work. You're
whining because Bill is more successful.
> They rely on the
> FACT that the average adoptive parent media personality or legislator
> is a pompous, lazy ignoramus who will not care enough to research the
> issue any further, will not care enough to check out facts, sources,
> whatever, but will turn around and spew out NCFA hogwash for public
> consumption. Of course it is also dumped into the legislative trough, as
> evidenced by Bill and Co.'s distribution of the atrocious Lucinda Franks
> New Yorker article about CUB to legislators and NCCUSL members.
>
> The public and lawmakers are incredibly naive regarding NCFA and other
> babyselling lobby groups' ongoing attempts to manipulate and shape public
> opinion. Most of the NCFA's maneuverings never become public knowledge,
> but occur behind the scenes. They do not even publicize their official,
> documented goals and most media people and legislators they snuggle up to
> are too stupid and biased and uncritical to ask for them.
Sounds like the typical successful lobbyist organization.
The point is, you have two choices: get into the trenches and fight, or
whine about it. And if you're going to fight, you might start learning how
to do it well. My one continuing observation of CUB is that, apart from
all philosophy and rhetoric, CUB is hopelessly naive when it comes to
getting something done with the law. Protests and vigils don't get it
done.
As much as you hate Bad Bill, you'd better start learning from him.
> I have NEVER claimed to speak for people I've never met. Unlike all these
> self-serving folks who claim to speak for us birth mothers and adoptees.
> I have only and consistently stated the truth: That all the evidence
> points to the fact that far more adoptees and birth parents come down on
> our side than on the NCFA's or any closed adoption lobby group. How dare
> you suggest that our mountains of evidence, published by dozens of honest,
> reputable social scientists, falls into the same category as the
> baldfaced lies and trash promulgated by Bill Pierce and Co.
This from the same person who rejected science in her last couple of
posts, that social science was shaminism, and who claimed that scientists
were just more evil scum?
Would you please make up your mind?
And you do claim to speak for others. Ask the adoptees on this forum how
they appreciate you using their pain and their experiences to justify what
YOU want.
> TEN YEARS AGO, sociologists Harriet Ganson and Judith Cook did a
> meticulous analysis of letters sent to public officials regarding
> proposed model adoption legislation that would allow adoptees and birth
> parents access to their records, facilitating reunions.
Their study is flawed in a fundamental way. They meticulously analyzed
letters sent by citizens who cared enough to write, and didn't find out
what the people who didn't write thought. That's called (in statistics)
SELECTION BIAS. It's a fundamental flaw that precludes generating anything
that is useful.
In any population study, if you examine what the motivated part of the
population is saying, you have an incomplete picture of what everyone else
is thinking. Those "scads" of bparents and adoptees who are content and
happy just might not have bothered to write their officials.
And if I were Bad Bill, that's how I would dismiss the study.
> CUB has published NCFA letters more times than I can remember, as well as
> rebuttals, counter-rebuttals and honest criticism from all members of the
> triad, including adoptive parents. Clearly, you've never bothered to
> read our so-called rag enough to even be aware of this.
Yes I have, though I confess that I'm not a regular subscriber. It strikes
me the same as NCFA's rag (yes, theirs is a rag too) and those of most
other political advocacy groups (of which I've read many) -- completely
one sided. That's ok, you're supposed to preach to the converted and try
to make new converts. But please don't try to tell me how "fair" the CUB
Communicator is.
Finally, Laura, I always speak for myself. Thought you knew that.
steve
Clisby Williams
In article <swhite-0605...@pulm-mac2.bsd.uchicago.edu>, swh...@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu (Steve White) writes:
|> In article <Pine.A32.3.91.960505...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu>,
|> "Laura J. Lewis" <lle...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu> wrote:
|>
|> > No, public sentiment IS on our side when it comes to rejecting this
|> > insane adoption system on a personal level. Lest you forget, the huge
|> > majority of people have NO interest in participating in adoption in any
|> > way, either by surrendering their children to it or adopting other
|> > people's children. As the old Thai saying goes, "Adopting children of
|> > others is like chewing food for others, a nice gesture but it doesn't
|> > fill the belly." Or something to that effect.
|>
|>
|> Because they're not being forced to consider adoption for themselves. Most
|> fertile couples don't consider it. But since infertility, etc., can strike
|> anyone, the cross-section of people willing to adopt is the same as that
|> of society in general.
|>
I'm not sure to what extent that's a valid assumption. Infertile people
are not forced to consider adoption, and aren't necessarily
willing to adopt. Seems to me they might just as likely be
people who would feel an adopted child could not take the place
of a biological child, and would wisely though sadly choose to
remain childless.
Clisby
IMUGpat
While I certainly can not claim to speak for all, or even most, infertile
couples - I CAN tell you that as one, we certainly are not forced to
consider adoption. Unless of course, the infertile people WANT children.
Why would you think that the maternal/paternal instincts in a person who
can not conceive are any less than that of those that can? In order to
fulfill these natural needs, we have no other choice.
There are no doubt people who can not come to terms with their inability
to conceive and may always feel adoption is "second best". And you are
quite right that they should remain childless.
But for myself, and every other adoptive parent I personally know, the
process of adoption is a different, but not inferior, way to build a
family. The love is the same.
And please, I know that for adoptive children, it IS different. There are
issues and pain that I can only begin to imagine that my sons will need to
deal with. We will do what we can to be supportive and loving, and can
only hope that they come to terms with it better than many of the writers
in this newsgroup.
-pat
llewis
On 8 May 1996, IMUGpat wrote:
> While I certainly can not claim to speak for all, or even most, infertile
> couples - I CAN tell you that as one, we certainly are not forced to
> consider adoption. Unless of course, the infertile people WANT children.
I think it is interesting that only about 10% of infertile couples choose
to adopt, yet NCFA propagandists imply that most or all infertile couples
want to adopt children. That is not the case.
Most infertile people eventually accept their infertile status (if they did
not willingly choose it), and manage to maintain close relationships to
children and/or be productive and fulfilled in other ways. They are not
obsessed with an illusion that having or adopting children is required to
live a meaningful and happy life.
> Why would you think that the maternal/paternal instincts in a person who
> can not conceive are any less than that of those that can? In order to
> fulfill these natural needs, we have no other choice.
People have a lot of needs they want to fulfill, but most are (like
adopting a child) hardly necessary or vital to their wellbeing. I resent
the constant implication that infertility is comparable to a
life-threatening disease, or a basic need such as hunger or a need to be
reared among one's own kin. It is not. To imagine that the 'need' to
rear a child is as profound or important as the basic human need of a
mother to nurture her own child, and a child's basic human need to be
reared in its own natural family, is to put these all on the same level
of importance. As sad as infertility is (and MANY of my birth mother
friends are now infertile; they never had another child thanks to the
trauma of surrendering their first), it is an incapacity, an inability to
conceive a child, not a loss of your family OR your child.
> There are no doubt people who can not come to terms with their inability
> to conceive and may always feel adoption is "second best". And you are
> quite right that they should remain childless.
To the contrary, I have research that shows many infertile couples claim
to have 'resolved' their infertility, and even adopted, yet continue to
seek infertility treatments. I also think this obsession most infertile
adopters have with adopting newborn infants shows they have not really
dealt with their infertility. They do not accept that however they might
feel toward that child, nothing they do can ever make their relationship
with that child -- or the child's relationship with them -- similar to the
relationship they would have with their own biological child. Yet their
adopted children and all of society are coached, subtly or otherwise, to
deny those differences, not for the child's sake as much as the adults'.
The baby brokers thrive on this illusion; they perpetuate it if anything,
since the very scarcity of healthy white newborns drives their price up.
I wonder why so many people try to avoid this fact, that depending upon
the age, color, background, etc., of the child adopted, the adoption fees
vary dramatically. This has nothing to do with the work involved in
arranging adoptions; it is a direct reflection of what one physician
called the 'racist selectivity' among prospective adopters, and their and
the larger society's devaluation of so-called unadoptable children.
> But for myself, and every other adoptive parent I personally know, the
> process of adoption is a different, but not inferior, way to build a
> family. The love is the same.
>
So, because the adoptive parents (most of whom have never had a
biological child so have no way of knowing if 'the love is the same')
claim to love the child the same as they would a biological child, the
corollary of this is that the child 'should' feel the same way toward the
adoptive parents as he/she would toward the natural parents. I think
this is one of the most destructive, selfish arguments in adoption. The
adopters HAVE their biological family ties, and (supposedly) accept their
infertility. That is their perspective. Their perspective does NOT
apply to the child, who has been stripped of his/her biological family,
and expected to pretend this is no big deal, and expected to accept not
knowing or associating with its biological family simply because the
ADOPTERS want, accept and even LIKE this situation, since without
it they would not be seen as parents. How, really, can their positive
orientation toward adoption ever really be shared by the child? It is
not as if most adoptees are rescued from horrible birth families.
> And please, I know that for adoptive children, it IS different. There are
> issues and pain that I can only begin to imagine that my sons will need to
> deal with. We will do what we can to be supportive and loving, and can
> only hope that they come to terms with it better than many of the writers
> in this newsgroup.
> -pat
>
I think many of the adopters on this newsgroup have not come to terms
with their issues and pain, REALITY, in other words. I think that many
adopters seem quite willing to accept adoptees' and birth mothers' pain,
and see it as something we must endure, because deep down they know that
if not for our pain and loss they would never be 'parents.' If our pain
and loss were prevented from the outset, i.e. by honest counseling, short
term assistance, telling young pregnant women the whole truth and nothing
but the truth about adoption's risks for themselves and their child,
most adoptive parents would not BE adoptive parents. That is the bottom
line, and most seem unwilling to accept it. Rather, most presuppose the
continued availability of healthy white babies to adopt, and see this as
some sort of God-given right awarded them. Many are very upset when they
discover that the only reason healthy white infant adoptions were so
prevalent in the past is because social workers were pushing them, many
if not most 'birth' mothers were lied to and coerced -- and this is
documented now -- and the harm of adoption separation for mother and
child was not understood. All that has changed. Sweden, for example,
which emerged from the dark ages of adoption decades ago, had only two
healthy white infant adoptions last year.
Few will acknowledge that THEIR actions and attitudes (including this user
mentality) are in need of closer examination and rehabilitation. Few seem
to recognize that their perpetuating this self-serving demand for healthy
white newborn infants shows they haven't dealt with their own issues, and
also results in tremendous social pressure being put on young, single and
poor parents to surrender their (white) infants, and cruelly unjust laws
that discriminate against birth parents and adoptees for fear adoptive
families will look less 'real,' and children being priced by baby brokers
according to their desireability, and all the other human rights abuses
adoption inflicts on the young and the poor. No, they insinuate that OUR
pain and OUR outrage over this agonizing abuse of power and privilege are
unjustified, and maybe even a sign of mental illness.
I well understand why so few adoptive parents are out here fighting for
the radical reforms needed. If such reforms were put into place, as they
have been in more advanced countries, there would be few or no healthy
white newborns available for adoption. That's the bottom line, folks.
Laura
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kate Workman
llewis <lle...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu> wrote:
>On 8 May 1996, IMUGpat wrote:
While the birthmother part of me often agrees wholeheartedly with Laura, I do
have the following comments to make:
>Most infertile people eventually accept their infertile status (if they did
>not willingly choose it), and manage to maintain close relationships to
>children and/or be productive and fulfilled in other ways. They are not
>obsessed with an illusion that having or adopting children is required to
>live a meaningful and happy life.
For some people, life without children is meaningless because there ARE people
who simply love everything about children, and have always thought of a future
with children as the focal point. I've met people like this, and I have a
family member who is probably one of the best candidates for motherhood that
I've ever met - yet years of infertility treatment are proving fruitless and
terribly disheartening. It it simply not right or fair that she should remain
childless: any child adopted by her and her husband will have a wonderful life,
of that I have no doubt at all.
>People have a lot of needs they want to fulfill, but most are (like
>adopting a child) hardly necessary or vital to their wellbeing. I resent
>the constant implication that infertility is comparable to a
>life-threatening disease, or a basic need such as hunger or a need to be
>reared among one's own kin. It is not. To imagine that the 'need' to
>rear a child is as profound or important as the basic human need of a
>mother to nurture her own child, and a child's basic human need to be
>reared in its own natural family, is to put these all on the same level
>of importance. As sad as infertility is (and MANY of my birth mother
>friends are now infertile; they never had another child thanks to the
>trauma of surrendering their first), it is an incapacity, an inability to
>conceive a child, not a loss of your family OR your child.
Again, it depends on which side of the fence you happen to be sitting. While no
birthparent should be coerced to relinquish in any way, there will always be
those birthparents who feel that adoption is the best option for their child's
well-being.... and they may be absolutely right (provided that it's an open
adoption, of course).
There is nothing wrong with adoption. There is everything wrong with closed
adoption.
>To the contrary, I have research that shows many infertile couples claim
>to have 'resolved' their infertility, and even adopted, yet continue to
>seek infertility treatments. I also think this obsession most infertile
>adopters have with adopting newborn infants shows they have not really
>dealt with their infertility. They do not accept that however they might
>feel toward that child, nothing they do can ever make their relationship
>with that child -- or the child's relationship with them -- similar to the
>relationship they would have with their own biological child. Yet their
>adopted children and all of society are coached, subtly or otherwise, to
>deny those differences, not for the child's sake as much as the adults'.
I don't know about this.... in addition to having 7 siblings with very distinct
and different personalities, I have raised/am raising both a birthchild and an
adoptive child, and I have to say that ALL children are unique individuals from
the minute they're born, whether they are adopted or birth children. There are
traits about them that you truthfully won't like much, and traits that you'll
really admire. They are people in their own right, and we honestly don't feel
more love for our birthchild than we do our adopted child. We don't have
exactly the same relationship with both girls, but that has more to do with
their age difference (9 years) than anything else, and the stage of life we're
in now compared to when our older daughter was young. This happens in most
families with a fairly large age gap between children. Your kids are your
kids.... full stop.
>> But for myself, and every other adoptive parent I personally know, the
>> process of adoption is a different, but not inferior, way to build a
>> family. The love is the same.
>>
>So, because the adoptive parents (most of whom have never had a
>biological child so have no way of knowing if 'the love is the same')
>claim to love the child the same as they would a biological child, the
>corollary of this is that the child 'should' feel the same way toward the
>adoptive parents as he/she would toward the natural parents. I think
>this is one of the most destructive, selfish arguments in adoption.
If you have 2+ birth children, you can bet that you will NOT feel the same way
about each of them.... how you interact with them depends upon their
personalities, not their birth origins. Same thing is true if you have 2+
adopted children, or any combination thereof. You will love them all, but you
will 'like' them for different reasons. You will not necessarily 'like' or
'love' your birthchildren more at all, if that's what you're saying.
>The adopters HAVE their biological family ties, and (supposedly) accept their
>infertility. That is their perspective. Their perspective does NOT
>apply to the child, who has been stripped of his/her biological family,
>and expected to pretend this is no big deal, and expected to accept not
>knowing or associating with its biological family simply because the
>ADOPTERS want, accept and even LIKE this situation, since without
>it they would not be seen as parents. How, really, can their positive
>orientation toward adoption ever really be shared by the child? It is
>not as if most adoptees are rescued from horrible birth families.
You're right about this, of course. I think that this is where an open adoption
really triumphs over a closed one. Just today both my husband and I noticed a
striking resemblance in our daughter to her birthmother.... the first time we've
really seen it. When we told her, she was tickled pink, and we're very relieved
that we are able to recognize something like this. It must be awful for both
adoptee and adoptive parents when they aren't able to experience this. People
NEED to know that they are 'linked' to someone else biologically, IMHO.... it is
not a reflection of their feelings for their adoptive parents. It simply IS.
>I well understand why so few adoptive parents are out here fighting for
>the radical reforms needed. If such reforms were put into place, as they
>have been in more advanced countries, there would be few or no healthy
>white newborns available for adoption. That's the bottom line, folks.
I think it's important to note that not all adoptive parents adopt because they
are infertile. Also, there are birthparents who do relinquish willingly, and
their decision may in fact be a good one; and one that is in the best interest
of the child.
Having said that, you're basically right: there are far too many infertile
white couples who are trying to adopt a very limited number of healthy, white
infants.... and they are not (as a general rule) anxious to limit the number of
babies available any further. And really, who can blame them? It's selfish,
but understandable.
Kate Workman
Damsel Plum
In <4n60i2$5...@soap.news.pipex.net> gs...@dial.pipex.com (Kate Workman)
writes:
>
>llewis <lle...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu> wrote:
>>So, because the adoptive parents (most of whom have never had a
>>biological child so have no way of knowing if 'the love is the same')
>>claim to love the child the same as they would a biological child,
>>the corollary of this is that the child 'should' feel the same way
>>toward the adoptive parents as he/she would toward the natural
>>parents. I think this is one of the most destructive, selfish
>>arguments in adoption.
Actually many adoptive parents (mine and others' on this group, e.g.)
end up having their own biokid after they adopt. I certainly never
felt that my parents loved my sister more. And I feel very little
connection with any of my bios other than having some similar looks and
talents. Culturally we're very different. Where do you get these
theories about children requiring to be raised by biological parents?
Where are the studies revealing the evil effects of adoption on
adoptees? I believe it's probably more destructive to the birthmother.
I've seen many more guilt-ridden basket case biomoms than adoptees.
>>Their perspective does NOT apply to the child, who has been stripped
>>of his/her biological family, and expected to pretend this is no big
>>deal, and expected to accept not knowing or associating with its
>>biological family simply because the ADOPTERS want, accept and even
>>LIKE this situation, since without it they would not be seen as
>>parents.
True. Adoptive parents need to understand that adoptees' curiousity
about their biological origins is not a threat to their status as
parents (so long as they've been loving parents). Not all adoptees
want to search (especially males) but those who do should be supported.
It boggles my mind that there are aparents out there who would not tell
their kid s/he was adopted or would bad-mouth the birthmom in an
attempt to shame the child into not searching. Reading some of the
posts on this ng I now know that such people do, unfortunately, exist.
>> How, really, can their positive orientation toward adoption ever
>>really be shared by the child?
Easily. If the child has a happy life. If the child was indeed saved
from an unfit mother (sorry, but this does also occur). If the child
has an open adoption.
>People NEED to know that they are 'linked' to someone else
>biologically, IMHO.... it is not a reflection of their feelings for
>their adoptive parents. It simply IS.
Apparently not everyone does, but enough people do that it makes a
difference. In the case of knowing about medical and birthing history,
and talents/conditions that run in the family, it would seem stupid not
to want this information, especially for adoptees who want start
families of their own.
Another Adoptee
Bastard Nation
Dana K. Kressierer
Damsel Plum wrote:
> >llewis <lle...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu> wrote:
>
> >>So, because the adoptive parents (most of whom have never had a
> >>biological child so have no way of knowing if 'the love is the same')
>
> Actually many adoptive parents (mine and others' on this group, e.g.)
> end up having their own biokid after they adopt.
As an FYI - having kids after adopting is largly a myth. A number
of articles (which I don't have on hand, but will look up if anyone
questions my memory) have suggested that less than 5% of infertile
couples who adopt later go on to have biological children.
> >> How, really, can their positive orientation toward adoption ever
> >>really be shared by the child?
>
> Easily. If the child has a happy life.
I'm not sure how "easy" that is, but I'll grant you this point
if you grant me the fact that adoptees are vastly over-represented
in the prison and mental hospital populations... :-/
> If the child was indeed saved
> from an unfit mother (sorry, but this does also occur).
Agreed, but let's not make it seem common without at least
defining "fitness." If you are defining "fitness" by
age, marital status and financial resources then yes, many
birth mothers could be classified "unfit." If you are defining
"fitness" by the ability to love and care for a child, regardless
of age/marriage/financial status, than most birth mothers could
be classified as "fit" were they to have raised their children.
> If the child
> has an open adoption.
Personally, I'd change this to "open records," or an identified
adoption. I'm not yet all too comfortable with the truly
open adoptions (but, I don't have one, and I haven't done
too much research on the topic, so I am speaking solely from
my own personal biases).
Dana
Elaine M. Petersen
"Dana K. Kressierer" <"cubabe"@netset. com> wrote:
>I'm not sure how "easy" that is, but I'll grant you this point
>if you grant me the fact that adoptees are vastly over-represented
>in the prison and mental hospital populations... :-/
Dana, could you get me some information on what the definition of
"adoptees" is in these studies? I ask this, because I have often wondered
if these statistics were based on people who were adopted as infants, by
step-parents, or as older kids.
>Agreed, but let's not make it seem common without at least
>defining "fitness." If you are defining "fitness" by
>age, marital status and financial resources then yes, many
>birth mothers could be classified "unfit." If you are defining
>"fitness" by the ability to love and care for a child, regardless
>of age/marriage/financial status, than most birth mothers could
>be classified as "fit" were they to have raised their children.
I am generally in agreement here, but I think it is important to note that
many people may be able to love a child, but not to care for him/her. I
really do not believe this "love is all a child needs" stuff. I think that
love is an important primary ingredient in being a good parent, but I
don't think it is the only thing necessary for successful child rearing.
Parenting, IMHO, is not something that "comes naturally", but is a learned
skill, which is supported by the maturity, social network, and material
resources available to the parent(s) in question.
>
>Personally, I'd change this to "open records," or an identified
>adoption. I'm not yet all too comfortable with the truly
>open adoptions (but, I don't have one, and I haven't done
>too much research on the topic, so I am speaking solely from
>my own personal biases).
I was of this opinion myself for a long time. But the more I thought about
it, the more I realized that we expect kids to adapt to all kinds of odd
family situations, so why not open adoption? Also, since one of the goals
of adoption reform has been to make sure that a-families have access to
information about birthparents, it seems silly to give a child all kinds
of information about his/her birthfamily but say "you can't meet them
until you are 18". I don't think open adoptions are always the best
choice for everyone, but I do think they are a workable, humane option.
I also might add that since many adoptees have voiced feelings of
rejection and abandonment by their birthparents, open adoption offers kids
a chance to know that their birthparents are still very much available to
them, and still have an interest in their lives.
Lainie
--
Elaine M. Petersen
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. USA
Jrobnett1
In article <4n9g54$b...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, "Elaine M. Petersen"
<epe...@nwu.edu> writes:
>I am generally in agreement here, but I think it is important to note
that
>many people may be able to love a child, but not to care for him/her. I
>really do not believe this "love is all a child needs" stuff. I think
that
>love is an important primary ingredient in being a good parent, but I
>don't think it is the only thing necessary for successful child rearing.
>Parenting, IMHO, is not something that "comes naturally", but is a
learned
>skill, which is supported by the maturity, social network, and material
>resources available to the parent(s) in question.
I agree with you Lainie- when I relinquished my son at age 19, I was
realistically (read: financially) able to care for him. But I knew then
and I know without a doubt now (at age 35) that there is a very slim
chance that I would have been capable of being a good (or even passable)
parent. Parenting DOES NOT come naturally, but is learned by example. My
example was not a good one. Life, a wonderful woman (and mother) that
"adopted" me at age 22, coupled with 6+ years of therapy has made me the
mother I am to my younger two sons. I DID do the right thing- and will
remain convinced of this no matter what kind of parents my son has- It was
a chance I had to take, for both of us.
Jeannette/bmom
Baby Boy
Dudley
18 Sep
80/Tacoma WA
Madigan
Army Medical Center
Dana K. Kressierer
Elaine M. Petersen wrote:
>
> "Dana K. Kressierer" <"cubabe"@netset. com> wrote:
>
> >I'm not sure how "easy" that is, but I'll grant you this point
> >if you grant me the fact that adoptees are vastly over-represented
> >in the prison and mental hospital populations... :-/
>
> Dana, could you get me some information on what the definition of
> "adoptees" is in these studies? I ask this, because I have often wondered
> if these statistics were based on people who were adopted as infants, by
> step-parents, or as older kids.
I've read statistics indicating that all of the types of adoptees you
mention are over-represented in the mental health and prison populations.
The largest percentage of adoptees suffering from these problems are
those adopted as older children, but infant-adoptees are over-represented
in these populations as well (Brodzinsky and Schechter (sp?) in
_The Psychology of Adoption_ note that even infant adoptees are prone to
mental health problems, as well as lying, stealing, aggressive behavior,
trouble making friends, promiscuity, the list goes on and on).
Parents who think they are adopting a "blank slate" because their
infant has not been formerly abused or neglected are often in for
a surprise as the child ages, if the research is to be believed.
> I am generally in agreement here, but I think it is important to note that
> many people may be able to love a child, but not to care for him/her. I
> really do not believe this "love is all a child needs" stuff.
Nor do I, which is why I stated "to love and care for" in my message.
However, I do not equate financial success, age or marital status with
one's ability to love or care for one's child.
> Parenting, IMHO, is not something that "comes naturally", but is a learned
> skill, which is supported by the maturity, social network, and material
> resources available to the parent(s) in question.
But, as a "learned resource" it is certainly something that can be taught
to those lacking in maturity, social network and material resources. Those
parents who are lacking may need extra "tutoring" sessions, but I would
not presuppose to cast them as poor parents, or unable parents, if they
have not yet learned the skills they need.
> I was of this opinion myself for a long time. But the more I thought about
> it, the more I realized that we expect kids to adapt to all kinds of odd
> family situations, so why not open adoption? Also, since one of the goals
> of adoption reform has been to make sure that a-families have access to
> information about birthparents, it seems silly to give a child all kinds
> of information about his/her birthfamily but say "you can't meet them
> until you are 18". I don't think open adoptions are always the best
> choice for everyone, but I do think they are a workable, humane option.
Again, I am speaking from my personal biases when I say that I am not sure
about truly open adoptions. I agree with all that you state above, but
am quite confident that during my sometimes-difficult teen years I would
have taken advantage of the situation and played one mom against the other.
Perhaps I would have adjusted well to open adoption, and learned not only
to accept but thrive in such an environment. I just don't know enough
about it to be comfortable with the experience.
> I also might add that since many adoptees have voiced feelings of
> rejection and abandonment by their birthparents, open adoption offers kids
> a chance to know that their birthparents are still very much available to
> them, and still have an interest in their lives.
Yes, you are correct. Again, there are many other issues surrounding
open-adoption that cloud my outright support of such an option. I'm
more in favor of it than I was 5 years ago... by my mind is yet to be
made up ITO total support.
Dana
Rosemarie Ventura
In a previous article, "cubabe"@netset. com ("Dana K. Kressierer") says:
[big snip of conversation between Dana and Laine]
>Again, I am speaking from my personal biases when I say that I am not sure
>about truly open adoptions. I agree with all that you state above, but
>am quite confident that during my sometimes-difficult teen years I would
>have taken advantage of the situation and played one mom against the other.
Of course as a minor you would have tried to work any angle to gain
an advantage! Isn't that part of the job of a normal, healthy
child? Are you going to tell me you *never* tried to work the
fact of your adoption with your adoptive parents? Never tried to
guilt them into buying something, a later curfew, overlooking some
trangression? If your parents were sharp, it didn't work. If
they were more skilled than you in the art of emotional manipulation
it might have really backfired. But if you're going to tell me you
never, ever used everything in your arsenal in an attempt to get your
way - than pardon me, Dana, but you musta been a wimpy kid! :) :)
That's all beside the point though, isn't it? You may have
reservations about open adoption, but I don't think a concern
about trying to play one mom against the other is really at
the heart of it. No one decides not to have bio kids because
the rugrat might try to play dad off mom, or their parents
off their friends parents. "But all the other parents let their
kids do drugs/have sex/join cults/pierce whatever/get tattoos/
travel overnight unsupervised to another city."
Perhaps what you're picking up on is an undercurrent that
tries to present some form of adoption as "painfree" or
without loss. A generation ago it was closed adoption
that used that sales pitch, and *some* people now try to
give only the good news about open adoption. It's as
untrue and unrealistic a view of open adoption as it
was of closed adoption.
The fact is adoption will always have a certain amount
of loss and pain involved in it. Open adoption corrects
some of the unnecessary pain and separation that was
built into the old system. We're still looking at
the least of several less than ideal choices and we
shouldn't forget that.
--
Rosemarie Ventura
DSM Editor
Hi,
I'm butting in because I saw something that caught my eye...
RV> Of course as a minor you would have tried to work any angle to gain
RV> an advantage! Isn't that part of the job of a normal, healthy
RV> child?
No.
RV> Are you going to tell me you *never* tried to work the fact
RV> of your adoption with your adoptive parents?
Absolutely never.
RV> Never tried to guilt
RV> them into buying something, a later curfew, overlooking some
RV> trangression?
Not only did I not do it, it never would have crossed my mind to do it!
RV> If your parents were sharp, it didn't work.
Shit, they were smart. They raised a kid smart enough not to even *think*
of something so stupid.
RV> If they
RV> were more skilled than you in the art of emotional manipulation it
RV> might have really backfired.
I guess so. My family is 100% manipulation free. Guilt free also.
RV> But if you're going to tell me you
RV> never, ever used everything in your arsenal in an attempt to get
RV> your way - than pardon me, Dana, but you musta been a wimpy kid! :)
RV> :)
Well, Dana may have been a wimpy kid, but I kicked ass and took names
then, just as I do now. If I wanted my way, I simply demanded it. The
secret was that I knew what was demandable and what wasn't. Does everyone
you know play games with their parents. We never did that. I was treated
as a virtual equal with my parents almost my entire life. We decided
things as a family and team, not as advesaries. Isn't this normal? If not,
it should be.
Yours,
Dana K. Kressierer
Rosemarie Ventura wrote:
>
> In a previous article, "cubabe"@netset. com ("Dana K. Kressierer") says:
>
> [big snip of conversation between Dana and Laine]
> fact of your adoption with your adoptive parents?
Quite honestly, Rosemarie, I do not remember ever doing this. Adoption
was really a non-issue to me throughout my childhood, and even into
my late teen years. I never said 'you aren't my *real* mother,' or
'I wish you had never adopted me.' I was unaware of the impact
adoption was having on my life and, when I was angry or unhappy,
found a myriad of other issues upon which to blame my problems.
Until I hit college, I rarely even thought of myself as "adopted."
It was embarking upon a search (the true motivations for which I
still am not sure) that made me feel like an 'adoptee.' Until
that point, I was Dana, daughter of Sheila and Fred, who might
have had some questions about my adoption, but rarely felt like
I didn't 'belong,' and who never used adoption as a means to
get anything.
If anything, my parents felt guilted due to their own biases.
I often was given more than my non-adopted siblings, and was
my father's 'favorite' child. I feel that my parents felt
the need to prove that they loved me as much as they loved
my siblings (their biological kids), but I never felt less
loved to begin with.
> Never tried to
> guilt them into buying something, a later curfew, overlooking some
> trangression? If your parents were sharp, it didn't work.
My parents were always very generous, open, and understanding. I
truly didn't have to guilt them into anything, and still don't.
> If
> they were more skilled than you in the art of emotional manipulation
> it might have really backfired. But if you're going to tell me you
> never, ever used everything in your arsenal in an attempt to get your
> way - than pardon me, Dana, but you musta been a wimpy kid! :) :)
Perhaps I was. Or, maybe I was a happy kid. I got everything I
ever wanted ('cept that pony... but whose keeping track?). :-)
Besides, there were plenty of other things in my 'arsenal.' I
was a good student, employeed from the age of 10 (as a mother's
helper) and working full-time in the summers by age 14. I was
a good kid (for the most part), and my parents rewarded me for that.
And, quite honestly, I often think I'm an emotional cripple...not
good at sharing feelings no matter how deeply I feel them. I'd
have a hard time manipulating anyone's emotions but my own... :-)
> That's all beside the point though, isn't it? You may have
> reservations about open adoption, but I don't think a concern
> about trying to play one mom against the other is really at
> the heart of it.
No, probably not, but it's all I've been able to put my finger
on ITO my reservations about open-adoption. There is just
something about it that doesn't sit well with me. My guess
is that it's my social programming - the idea that one mother
is all anyone needs - indeed all anyone is allowed to have.
Rationally I know that we adoptees can love more than one woman
as 'mother' (or 'mother' and 'birth mother'), just as we can
love more than one sibling. But, the age-old 'face only
a mother could love' (indicating that mother's love is the
strongest) keeps me from fully accepting open adoptions.
Irrational? Caving into biased social norms and conventions?
Probably... but at least I can identify the problem even if
I haven't been able to overcome it.
> Perhaps what you're picking up on is an undercurrent that
> tries to present some form of adoption as "painfree" or
> without loss. A generation ago it was closed adoption
> that used that sales pitch, and *some* people now try to
> give only the good news about open adoption. It's as
> untrue and unrealistic a view of open adoption as it
> was of closed adoption.
I don't think so. My view is more along the lines that
adoption should be irrevocable, and that a firm bond
(legal and social) needs to exist between a/pars and
their children. Children need to feel secure, need
an authority figure, need to know to whom they should
turn with problems, etc. Perhaps this is possible with
a multitude of parental figures (or, perhaps the
birth parents are not seen as parental figures at all),
I don't know. I believe in fully identified adoptions,
I'm just on-the-fence about on-going contact.
> The fact is adoption will always have a certain amount
> of loss and pain involved in it. Open adoption corrects
> some of the unnecessary pain and separation that was
> built into the old system. We're still looking at
> the least of several less than ideal choices and we
> shouldn't forget that.
Good point, if one views adoption as the 'lesser of
two evils.' Though you'd have a hard time convincing
me that adoption is truly an 'evil' thing to begin with...
:-)
Dana
Damsel Plum
In <4neogc$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> dsme...@aol.com (DSM Editor)
"The Doonster" writes:
>RV> Are you going to tell me you *never* tried to work the fact
>RV> of your adoption with your adoptive parents?
>
>Absolutely never.
Wow. I'll have to agree with Doon here. I never did that either and
can't imagine doing so. It's a repulsive thought actually.
>RV> Never tried to guilt them into buying something, a later curfew,
>overlooking some trangression?
>
>Not only did I not do it, it never would have crossed my mind to do
>it!
Mine neither, certainly not using adoption. Can we take a poll on
this? I generally don't agree with Don but I find it hard to believe
that "guilting" your aparents into doing something because you're
adopted is common among adoptees. How many of you guys remember doing
anything like this, or even thinking about it?
>RV> If your parents were sharp, it didn't work.
>
>Shit, they were smart. They raised a kid smart enough not to even
>*think* of something so stupid.
It has nothing to do with stupidity, it has to do with self-hatred.
Can you imagine the sense of worthlessness someone would have to feel
to resort to such tactics? Also, Doon, there *is* such a thing as
native intelligence. Sometimes there are problems when there is a big
difference in intelligence between the adoptee and the aparents.
There's only so much highly intelligent parents can do with a kid whose
IQ is 85.
>RV> If they were more skilled than you in the art of emotional
manipulation it might have really backfired.
>
>I guess so. My family is 100% manipulation free. Guilt free also.
Now this is hard to believe. Isn't every family full of manipulation
and guilt? Only mine?
>I was treated as a virtual equal with my parents almost my entire
>life.
Which is why you're such an arrogant BASTARD, right?
>We decided things as a family and team, not as advesaries. Isn't this
>normal? If not, it should be.
Da zdravstuyet Kommunizm!
>Yours,
Mine,
Another Adoptee
Bastard Nation
Sub-Directorate of Guilt and Manipulation
Rosemarie Ventura
In a previous article, "cubabe"@netset. com ("Dana K. Kressierer") says:
>Rosemarie Ventura wrote:
>>
>> [big snip of conversation between Dana and Laine]
>> Of course as a minor you would have tried to work any angle to gain
>> an advantage! Isn't that part of the job of a normal, healthy
>> child? Are you going to tell me you *never* tried to work the
>> fact of your adoption with your adoptive parents?
[big snip]
Glad to hear you and Don had exceptional parents. When I was
comming up, a major social activity was to gather with ones
peers and work out strategy for getting what one wanted from
ones parents. From what I see of kids today that might still
be true. I know one of the main activities when I'm
with parents of teenagers is to plot counter-intelligence,
reconnaissance (sp), espionage and other parenting skills.
We also laugh at the stuff kids are still trying that didn't
even work back when we were young. This is more a
generational thing though, not an adoption thing.
>> That's all beside the point though, isn't it? You may have
>> reservations about open adoption, but I don't think a concern
>> about trying to play one mom against the other is really at
>> the heart of it.
>
>No, probably not, but it's all I've been able to put my finger
>on ITO my reservations about open-adoption. There is just
>something about it that doesn't sit well with me. My guess
>is that it's my social programming - the idea that one mother
>is all anyone needs - indeed all anyone is allowed to have.
Do you have the same concerns about step parents? What
kind of gut assumptions do you have about the boundaries
and roles of step parents vs original parent and how
does it compare to your assumptions about adoptive parent
vs birth parent?
You see, I think step parents are in a much more vulnerable
position than birth parents in open adoptions, but I think
we have a clearer idea of what we assume about and expect
from step parents so we aren't as concerned about them.
>Good point, if one views adoption as the 'lesser of
>two evils.' Though you'd have a hard time convincing
>me that adoption is truly an 'evil' thing to begin with...
Neither is raising one's child in less than ideal circumstances.
The point is when one is in a position where they seriously
have to weigh raising a child themselves in some sort of
hardship [poverty or whatever] vs open adoption vs
closed adoption vs long term foster care vs guardianship vs
informal in family care vs whatever else, NONE of those is an
option without some loss attached.
--
Rosemarie Ventura
craig anne
man...@ix.netcom.com (Damsel Plum) wrote:
>In <4neogc$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> dsme...@aol.com (DSM Editor)
>"The Doonster" writes:
>
>>RV> Are you going to tell me you *never* tried to work the fact
>>RV> of your adoption with your adoptive parents?
>>
>>Absolutely never.
>
>Wow. I'll have to agree with Doon here. I never did that either and
>can't imagine doing so. It's a repulsive thought actually.
>
>>RV> Never tried to guilt them into buying something, a later curfew,
>>overlooking some trangression?
>>
>>Not only did I not do it, it never would have crossed my mind to do
>>it!
>
>Mine neither, certainly not using adoption. Can we take a poll on
>this? I generally don't agree with Don but I find it hard to believe
>that "guilting" your aparents into doing something because you're
>adopted is common among adoptees.
How many of you guys remember doing
>anything like this, or even thinking about it?
>
>
>Another Adoptee
>Bastard Nation
>Sub-Directorate of Guilt and Manipulation
Dear Another Adoptee:
Absolutely, positively, never, ever did I use the fact that I was
adopted to 'guilt' my parents into something. Never even crossed
my mind. My sister was also adopted and I can speak for her,
too. Never.
Although one of my aparent's bio kids (another sister) did try to
make them feel quilty because she *wasn't* adopted. But she's a
wacko anyway. She was always jealous of me as an adoptee because
I took her place as first born or some garbage. She's 31 yo and
still hasn't gotton over it. Has any other adoptees had
difficulty from a sibling in this regard?
craig anne
searching adoptee
Card Carrying Member of Bastard Nation Since 11/23/61.
Damsel Plum
In <4nht9h$4...@chaos.dac.neu.edu> craig anne <j.c...@nunet.neu.edu>
writes:
>Although one of my aparent's bio kids (another sister) did try to
>make them feel quilty because she *wasn't* adopted. But she's a
>wacko anyway. She was always jealous of me as an adoptee because
>I took her place as first born or some garbage. She's 31 yo and
>still hasn't gotton over it. Has any other adoptees had
>difficulty from a sibling in this regard?
>craig anne
>searching adoptee
>Card Carrying Member of Bastard Nation Since 11/23/61.
I have a younger sister who wasn't adopted. A few times when we were
fighting she pulled out "I wish they had never adopted you" as a last
method of defense, but she always apologized profusely afterwards.
I doubt she was jealous of me for being adopted. What a concept!
Another Adoptee
Bastard Nation
Ministry for Sibling Rivalry
llewis
On 13 May 1996, Damsel Plum wrote:
> In <4n60i2$5...@soap.news.pipex.net> gs...@dial.pipex.com (Kate Workman)
> writes:
> >
> >llewis <lle...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu> wrote:
>
> >>So, because the adoptive parents (most of whom have never had a
> >>biological child so have no way of knowing if 'the love is the same')
> >>claim to love the child the same as they would a biological child,
> >>the corollary of this is that the child 'should' feel the same way
> >>toward the adoptive parents as he/she would toward the natural
> >>parents. I think this is one of the most destructive, selfish
> >>arguments in adoption.
>
> Actually many adoptive parents (mine and others' on this group, e.g.)
> end up having their own biokid after they adopt. I certainly never
> felt that my parents loved my sister more. And I feel very little
> connection with any of my bios other than having some similar looks and
> talents. Culturally we're very different. Where do you get these
> theories about children requiring to be raised by biological parents?
> Where are the studies revealing the evil effects of adoption on
> adoptees? I believe it's probably more destructive to the birthmother.
> I've seen many more guilt-ridden basket case biomoms than adoptees.
"I" get these theories from long, hard experience with reality, and from
doing a lot of research. Psychologists, social workers, psychiatrists
and others have been observing adoptive families for over 50 years now,
and their alarming observations on the unique problems of adopted
children (i.e. children reared apart from their natural families)
have been documented during that time. Child welfare experts in the
U.S. and other advanced countries are generally convinced, after decades
of observing children reared in every kind of situation, including
adoption by 'carefully screened' couples (ha!) that children fare best in
terms of emotional health, academic achievement, etc., when reared in
their own natural families. The exceptions only prove the rule. I
suspect that when I argue this point, my argument is dismissed or called
into question because I am a 'biased' birth parent. Of course I am. But
then why don't my critics complain to all these outside experts who agree
with me, who have FAR more social and political influence than I do?
I think there is a lot shoved under the carpet in adoption, a lot of
facts that aren't being considered or acknowledged when people claim that
being adopted is as good for children as being reared by their own kin.
Also, I didn't say adoptive parents CAN'T love their adopted children as
they would their own biological children, just that it shows a lack of
compassion for the child's feelings and experience that so many use this
argument as evidence for why an adoptive family upbringing is as good
for a child as being brought up in its birth family. There are people in
this world who love ME more than my biological parents did and do, but
that doesn't mean I should be expected to look on them as a substitute for
my biological parents. It's their choice to love me, just as it's the
adoptive parents' choice to love the child. Why should the child have
this expectation dumped on him/her, not only by the adopters but by all
of society, that because certain people reared the child, he or she is
obliged to feel the same way toward them as he or she would feel toward
the biological family/parents? This seems wrong to me.
For quite awhile I have noticed that many adoptive families seem to be
operating on a 'let's pretend' basis. "Let's pretend we're just like a
biological family." There is even research that shows this is common,
that from the time an adopted child enters its adoptive family, all
members are focused on trying to mimic what they THINK are the natural
roles of parents and children in intact biological families. Apparently,
many fear they have no sound basis as a social group unless they can look
as much as possible like a natural family -- which they can never do!
Why this obsession we see among so many adoptees and adoptive parents
about how they're 'just the same as birth families' and 'love their
children the same'? To me, this only indicates they are uncertain about
that, and/or know the larger society doesn't perceive them in the same
way. Why do they need this seemingly constant, patronizing reassurance
that no, really, they ARE just like biological families -- unless they
themselves recognize on some level that natural families are the most
desireable family form, which, all other things being equal, they
ARE? If adoptive families are so great, in other words, then why all
these many and varied attempts to model them on BIRTH families, even to
sealing up and falsifying birth records? I see a lot of inconsistencies
here that many adoption-affected people seem hesitant to address.
> >>Their perspective does NOT apply to the child, who has been stripped
> >>of his/her biological family, and expected to pretend this is no big
> >>deal, and expected to accept not knowing or associating with its
> >>biological family simply because the ADOPTERS want, accept and even
> >>LIKE this situation, since without it they would not be seen as
> >>parents.
>
> True. Adoptive parents need to understand that adoptees' curiousity
> about their biological origins is not a threat to their status as
> parents (so long as they've been loving parents). Not all adoptees
> want to search (especially males) but those who do should be supported.
> It boggles my mind that there are aparents out there who would not tell
> their kid s/he was adopted or would bad-mouth the birthmom in an
> attempt to shame the child into not searching. Reading some of the
> posts on this ng I now know that such people do, unfortunately, exist.
>
> >> How, really, can their positive orientation toward adoption ever
> >>really be shared by the child?
>
> Easily. If the child has a happy life. If the child was indeed saved
> from an unfit mother (sorry, but this does also occur). If the child
> has an open adoption.
And what if the child hasn't had a happy life, or as happy a life as he
or she would have had with the birth family? Is anyone going to
recognize this and return the child to its own kin? Hardly. And what
about unfit adoptive mothers (sorry, but this also occurs)? In my
experience, an unfit biological mother is far more likely to be caught
than an unfit adoptive mother, and that is because ignorant people
automatically assume that adoptive parents are better and more loving
parents than birth parents, when there is no evidence for this. As for
open adoption, I know several adoptees and 'birth' mothers involved in
open adoptions. A close friend is both. She has told me many times that
she is far more like her birth family than her adoptive one, that she
loves both her families, but feels that any kind of adoption, open or
closed, tears the child in two. She believes that open adoptions are not
often done for the children's sake, but for the parents' sakes, to spare
themselves guilt. I think she makes some good points.
> > >People NEED to know that they are 'linked' to someone else
> >biologically, IMHO.... it is not a reflection of their feelings for
> >their adoptive parents. It simply IS.
>
> Apparently not everyone does, but enough people do that it makes a
> difference. In the case of knowing about medical and birthing history,
> and talents/conditions that run in the family, it would seem stupid not
> to want this information, especially for adoptees who want start
> families of their own.
>
> Another Adoptee
> Bastard Nation
>
>
Laura
ATVDSOT
ATTENTION: THIS IS A FORWARD MESSAGE FROM AN ESTEEMED MEMBER OF BASTARD NATION.
PLEASE NOTE THAT IT IS BEING FORWARDED BY A NON-MEMBER. THANK YOU.
Hello All--
My system is still down, and Don has been sending stuff to me that he thinks
would interest me. So, since I can't always read everything in the
original, I can only comment on answers (and I have to do it at work, and
that can get troublesome!) .
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm butting in because I saw something that caught my eye...
>>
>> RV> Of course as a minor you would have tried to work any angle to gain
>> RV> an advantage! Isn't that part of the job of a normal, healthy
>> RV> child?
>
BIG CUT
Don wrote this:
>> Well, Dana may have been a wimpy kid, but I kicked ass and took names
>> then, just as I do now. If I wanted my way, I simply demanded it. The
>> secret was that I knew what was demandable and what wasn't.
Marley writes:
Anyway, I agree with Don on this one. It never occured to me to "guilt"
my parents into anything. If anyone was guilty it was me--for being born,
for existing. I was a spoiled only child, and I demanded. I may not have
always got what I wanted, but I did a darned good job of it.
Don wrote: Does everyone
>> you know play games with their parents. We never did that. I was treated
>> as a virtual equal with my parents almost my entire life. We decided
>> things as a family and team, not as advesaries. Isn't this normal? If not,
>> it should be.
Marley answers again:
But I do have to disagree with Don here. I was never treated as a "virtual
equal" with my parents. I can't imagine any kid who is. (Don your parents
really are exceptional) The amerikan family is a hierarchial structure,
with kids at the bottom, even if they are spoiled, whiney, and get what they
want. I cannot imagine my mom or dad ever asking my opinion about
anything. They didn't when I was a kid and they certainly didn't when I was
grown up. Any opinion I had was literally ignored by my mother because,
"What could you possibly know. You're just a young girl." or "Why would a
nice girl like you think something like that?" or "You weren't brought up
like that." Children, just not adoptive children, are infantalized by
their parents. When I was 33 years old my mother beat me in the head with a
hairbrush because she didn't like my new hair cut. It embarassed her--and
what would I possibly know about hair. (And I was never spanked or hit as
a child, no less.) There's not way out of it. I give up. You win. Now
just leave me alone. That's how I lived my life after I got out of the house.
Oopss! The almight Boss just walked in. Gotta go. But you get the idea.
By all means necessary
Marley
Bastard Nation
Never blow up a beaver
count...@pipeline.com
I think even many of us who try to treat their children as equals wind up
saying things that they didn't mean to, making their children unequal. We
are products of our environment, and it creeps into our lives very
pervasively. All we can do is try to do our best and apologize if we find
we've slipped from our high expectations of ourselves. And love!
- Ilene
Kate Workman
count...@pipeline.com wrote:
Yes... how many times have you caught yourself thinking: "I can't believe I
just said that! Oh, my God -- I've become my mother!" Scary.
Kate Workman
sbun...@news.epix.net
: Absolutely, positively, never, ever did I use the fact that I was
: adopted to 'guilt' my parents into something. Never even crossed
: too. Never.
I have to admit that I, like Doon, am amazed. It's not that I think
adopted kids would have any more problems or any more baggage, it's just
that teens can be rotten people. I think a large percentage of teens at
some point use whatever ammunition they've got expressly to hurt their
parents. In some ways, I think your non-adopted sister may have been
upset simply because she didn't have that weapon. I think a lot of kids
would love to have something like that they could use to wound Mom & Dad.
My wife and I are thinking of adopting, and this is one of the minor
issues that scares us a bit. The whole infertility thing has made me
realize for the first time how vulnerable I am, and I'm afraid of being
hurt in any way in the future. I'm sure it's ridiculous to worry about
something that *might* happen 15-years from now, and that's why this is
only a very minor issue. But it's been fascinating to hear what you
folks have been saying. I look forward to more input on this thread.
Steve
Linda Fortney
Steve--
Know you that if a teenager didn't have the "You're not my REAL
father"weapon to club dad over the head, he or she would find something
else equally nasty to use. And, keep in mind, that with most people,
eventually reason reasserts itself over the ductless glands.
BastNation
Hello All--
My system is still down, and Don has been sending stuff to me that he
thinks
would interest me. So, since I can't always read everything in the
original, I can only comment on answers (and I have to do it at work, and
that can get troublesome!) .
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm butting in because I saw something that caught my eye...
>>
>> RV> Of course as a minor you would have tried to work any angle to gain
>> RV> an advantage! Isn't that part of the job of a normal, healthy
>> RV> child?
>
BIG CUT
Don wrote this ( think)
Reply to Marley at:
egre...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
ATVDSOT
In article <4ngtj8$h...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, man...@ix.netcom.com
(Damsel Plum) wrote:
> In <4neogc$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> dsme...@aol.com (DSM Editor)
> "The Doonster" writes:
>
> >RV> Are you going to tell me you *never* tried to work the fact
> >RV> of your adoption with your adoptive parents?
> >
> >Absolutely never.
>
> Wow. I'll have to agree with Doon here. I never did that either and
> can't imagine doing so. It's a repulsive thought actually.
Are you and Smithhh the same boring person?
> >RV> Never tried to guilt them into buying something, a later curfew,
> >overlooking some trangression?
> >
> >Not only did I not do it, it never would have crossed my mind to do
> >it!
>
> Mine neither, certainly not using adoption. Can we take a poll on
> this? I generally don't agree with Don but I find it hard to believe
> that "guilting" your aparents into doing something because you're
> adopted is common among adoptees. How many of you guys remember doing
> anything like this, or even thinking about it?
>
> >RV> If your parents were sharp, it didn't work.
> >
> >Shit, they were smart. They raised a kid smart enough not to even
> >*think* of something so stupid.
>
> It has nothing to do with stupidity, it has to do with self-hatred.
> Can you imagine the sense of worthlessness someone would have to feel
> to resort to such tactics? Also, Doon, there *is* such a thing as
> native intelligence. Sometimes there are problems when there is a big
> difference in intelligence between the adoptee and the aparents.
> There's only so much highly intelligent parents can do with a kid whose
> IQ is 85.
>
> >RV> If they were more skilled than you in the art of emotional
> manipulation it might have really backfired.
> >
> >I guess so. My family is 100% manipulation free. Guilt free also.
>
> Now this is hard to believe. Isn't every family full of manipulation
> and guilt? Only mine?
Not only yours. But my family has never operated on that level. Kelly and
I don't either.
> >I was treated as a virtual equal with my parents almost my entire
> >life.
>
> Which is why you're such an arrogant BASTARD, right?
Bingo!
> >We decided things as a family and team, not as advesaries. Isn't this
> >normal? If not, it should be.
>
> Da zdravstuyet Kommunizm!
Translator, please!
Your friend,
Don
Rosemarie Ventura
In a previous article, sbun...@news.epix.net () says:
[snippety-doo-dah]
>
>I have to admit that I, like Doon, am amazed. It's not that I think
>adopted kids would have any more problems or any more baggage, it's just
>that teens can be rotten people. I think a large percentage of teens at
>some point use whatever ammunition they've got expressly to hurt their
>parents. In some ways, I think your non-adopted sister may have been
[snippety-dee-hay]
Yes, Steve B, that was pretty much my point. If it's not as
common a teenage trait as I thought, great. As for your
personal concerns, I think recognizing your sensitivity in
that area now + 15 years of parenting will give you lots of
time to resolve your stuff and build your defenses. Look at
it this way, you have 15 years to practice saying, "Nice try,
but you still can't have the car."
--
Rosemarie Ventura