' [Birth Mother] First Mother Forum: Telling first mothers to shut up--again!

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Telling first mothers to shut up--again!

Lorraine
Apparently we are not supposed to say in public that adoptions in general remind us of the mother and family of loss. Yesterday's post noting that Hoda Kotb's new adoption--which generated happy congratulatory tweets and well-wishes from more than 60 thousand people--did not make us happy because we knew that somewhere out there a mother was bleeding on the battlefield of loss.

Other than noting that she is 52 without further comment, I didn't specifically attack Hoda and I said that I didn't have more details about the adoption.


Well, first of all came a few outraged comments on Facebook at The ALMA Society page from adoptees who couldn't get over that I wasn't "thrilled" by the adoption. "Are you serious?? You don’t know anything about this so you're automatically 'not thrilled'?? Hoda adopts a baby, so it’s automatically 'lost' by her biological mother? You’re assuming she didn’t choose to do so. I was adopted 52 years ago and I thank God for that today...." it began. A few others also criticized the post.

But at The ALMA Society? The Adoptees Liberty Movement Society? Started by Florence Fisher to change adoption radically and NOT encourage more adoptions? as the comments above do.

A few people countered the critiques of the pro-adoption people. I was surprised, but blew it off. Then last night Anonymous left a comment here that said: You people are miserable. It appeared to come from a law firm in Los Angeles.

Apparently even first mothers are supposed to applaud every adoption and shut up about our feelings. Even today. Maybe especially today, as adoption has become so normalized in society, so much more than in the last century when it was a source of such shame for us mothers. Now, we're supposed to get on the bandwagon and cheer for every one.

About our own feelings? Just shut up. What gives you the right to say anything, you made your bed and now lie in it, you're just a "host" for a baby, according to an Oklahoma legislator. Well, World, you know what? The adoption of my daughter led to a damn hole in my heart that has never healed. I will go on saying that as long as I breathe. --lorraine
__________________________
Yesterday's post

Why we aren't celebrating with Hoda as she adopts a baby


53 comments :

  1. The truth about adoption loss seems to be a desecration of an icon to those in denial and those who profit from it. It's a scalpel that cuts through that warm, fuzzy skin, peels it back and shows the cancer of pain and selfishness at the center. I am so over that bunch. I try to ignore their rants because it just makes me angry and that does me no good. Yesterday's post was the truth and it cut into their fantasies. Too bad for them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I do shudder at the likelihood, that Hoda (even if you approve of this adoption) may not live long enough to raise this child. She's already battled what for many women is a fatal disease (breast cancer), which could easily recur at any time and often does! ...and even if you choose to overlook her advanced age, that disease as well as any others connected with growing older like heart disease just may leave that child with another loss to face - possibly losing a second "mother"!

    No, I'd have to say that no thought was given to the "best interests" of the child! The thought occurs to me that since pregnancy and childbirth are life affirming events, this woman may very well have been secretly hoping to compensate for the specter of death from disease and the aging process. I would like to see what objective and neutral, experienced psychiatrists would have to say about this situation. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. These people, who have no empathy or compassion for those who lose so much-while others gain from that loss, sicken me beyond comprehension. Go to hell. That's all I got.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And I thank you for saying it over and over again!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, we must shut up, most people find that you finally keep your mouth, it's been so long ago – are you now not yet done with it? You have don a big favor to the adoptive parents.!!! You have a nice life now with husband and daughter and grandchild! No. It continues hurts me. The loss is there every day. And after I had met my the pain became worse because I had missed so much. There is so much in our lives happened where we had not taken part together. No, the pain continues. And I will never, ever keep my mouth. I will fight for thoose women that cannot do it it itself. I am thankful that I have never made a secret of. I have always told: I'm First a mother, that my son is taken away from me, that it was not voluntary. Never do I keep my mouth.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It follows a pattern evident in the battle for OBC access. Legislators purport to speak for mothers, insisting they stay hiding in their closets of guilt and shame from eons ago. Sadly, they are joined by religious-affiliated adoption agencies, with self-serving interest in keeping mothers closeted. Even the ACLU takes it upon itself to speak for mothers. That's why your voice, Lorraine, is so important, along with the thousands that struggle to be heard above the chorus of "Isn't Hoda's adoption of a newborn wonderful?"

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you for not shutting up, for never shutting up.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Reading the comment above, I was thinking about the playwright Wendy Wasserstein, who gave birth at age 48 in 1999. The child was born three months premature. Wasserstein died six years later in January of 2006. The child, Lucy, was being raised by Wendy's brother, Bruce Jay Wasserstein, until he died in 2009. So By the time the girl was ten, she had lost her mother, and then a second caregiver, her uncle. I don't know what happened after that. This can happen to anyone, but the odds increase when one is an older mother, especially without a known father.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Last I read, Lucy Jane Wasserstein was being raised by her late uncle Bruce's former wife, who is also raising two sons, Lucy's cousins. The couple divorced before Bruce's sudden death.

      According to "Wendy and the Lost Boys," Wasserstein's biography by Julie Salomon, many people believe Wendy's premature death was hastened by her mega-mega drug doses during her intensive fertility treatment. Other observers (and former intimates) are still stung by Wasserstein's heavily edited memoir-essay of Lucy Jane's journey to life, "Complications," available online at The New Yorker.

      I wept over the essay, as expected to, on first reading, and then wept for entirely different reasons after reading Salomon's book. Oh, what a tangled web assisted conception (and adoption) can weave!

      Delete
  9. I have to think that those criticizing first mothers who haven't joined in America's love affair with adoption are members of the newly fashionable cult of misogyny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought your post was really great - enlightening people on the flip side of their "happy day". Keep it up and don't ever shut up.

      Delete
  10. Are you being accused of fake news, Lorraine? C'mon. You've been warned. You were given an explanation...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Huh? Don't understand your meaning~

      Delete
    2. Megan is mocking those who attack us for not being enamored with adoption. These warriors say our claim that adoption is painful is fake news and that they've warned us not to repeat these heresies.

      Nevertheless we mothers will persist until they pry the mouse from our cold dead hands!

      Delete
    3. I had an interesting conversation regarding Hoda's adoption on my page. As an adoptee, I stand firmly with mother's. So mothers and myself, an adopted, were conversing with my "friends" who represent the general public... the only difference was, I believe they were listening. Some may have walked away with a different understanding. I want to thank Lorraine, and the other mothers for helping me to educate regarding the the ugliest of adoption.

      Delete
    4. "Fake News Is what constitutes adoption" You've been warned...C-mom Megan who the F*ck do you think you are an angry birthparent-blog's TROLL...
      You are sick to be reading these painful words only to discount them. The sickness lies with people like you being here to poison the truth, you are the cancer that eats away the truth.

      Delete
    5. Jane and Lorraine, blog on! Your courage and clarity hearten me!

      Delete
    6. FYI: Megan's post was being sarcastic...she was mimicking the male congressional response to Elizabeth Warren....(they said, "She was warned, but still she persisted....") Maybe the internet is not a good place for sarcasm for it seems to have been misunderstood. As far as I could tell, Megan was being funny and On Y(our) Side!

      Delete
  11. Thank you for never shutting up. Without women like you that have been willing to speak truth, I would still be beating myself up for not feeling the way the adoption professionals and the public say I should.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's part of the general myth of adoption, isn't it, that women freely choose to give up their children for adoption.
    People believe this because it means they can keep hold of their beliefs which serve their self-interests.

    The realisation that a mother [was made to feel] so utterly crap about herself that she felt like a liability to her own beloved child is not what people want to face. It destroys the fallacy of women just lightly wobbling around in a pregnant state then gaily handing out their children to better people. That somebody might be howling in unrelenting grief at having to lose their very own beloved child doesn't register for those who just want to believe their baby arrived sans pain for anyone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cherry,
      I love all the responses here but yours in particular. Very descriptive.
      Joy

      Delete
    2. "Howling in unrelenting grief at losing their own beloved child" Cherry, you know my heart, I hate that!! Sweet thoughts and hugs!

      Delete
  13. So "birth" mothers are just hosts. That sound like it come from someone who has never been pregnant. Amazing, how becoming a mother becomes being called a "host" would you call your own mother that or tell her that, I think NOT.
    Let me explain when a woman is fertile and they have sex they can become pregnant. Sex education 101. Those that do become pregnant are carrying their baby. It is made up of DNA from both parents. Both are needed but mom is essential for survival. The baby depends on its mother for food, comfort and support to thrive and grow. When time is right the baby is ready to be born. The woman's body then goes through an enormous change. She becomes a mother to her baby. The baby she loves and knows even before birth. The baby knows her voice, her movements her smell and will move to nurse from his mother's breast. It's nature. Next time you want to tell a mom she is just a host do it. I hope she slaps you. You are truly ignorant.

    Mother

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ... House Bill 1441 was introduced by Oklahoma State Representative Justin Humphrey, who referred to pregnant women as “hosts” for fetuses, The Intercept reports.Feb 14, 2017

      Delete
    2. Thank you for speaking the truth. The people trying to shut you up will be long dead fifty years from now but the now infants will still be dealing with having their life altered, so will their blood families.

      Delete
    3. Mother, no reason to downplay the maternal contribution to the next generation that much. The NUCLEAR DNA comes for 50%, or a bit less in the case of boys, from the father, but a human being, or even a human cell is much more than the nuclear DNA, basically the blue print book, so to say, everything else, the cell, the life itself is donated by the mother, "life of my life, blood of my blood, bone of my bone" is a rather no-nonsensical and true description of a newborn if said by his or her mother, who was not only source of half the blueprints, but of all the "machines", the raw materials and was herself the climate controled location to turn the "blue prints" into a baby, which indeed meant that she was reorganized as well.

      But why are y'all upset by the designation "host"? For people with medical, biological, bio-medical training it just means the large being, one or more small beings live in or on, no matter the nature of their relationship, be parasitic, symbiotic or different. The appletree is host to mistletoe, for instance, to mention an example which is unlikely to be seen as disgusting, though the mistletoe is a parasite. If the gravida is described as "host" (mind you, not "hostess"!)in the Pro-Life-Pro- Choice discussion, the intended effect is a lack of emotional involvement with the pregnancy, with the slight suggestion that the being in the womb is a parasite, and that, for instance, destroying it is not really different from, say, de worming a cat, just a slight suggestion, because the host is the human patient, whose health is to be protected. We are more or less talking Pro-Abortion-Doctor-Terminology here. Using that in the defense of an anti-abortion bill, can best be seen as a shoots-himself-in-the-foot-he-has-in-his-mouth situation.

      Delete
  14. With guys like Justin Humphrey and a VP like Mike Pence, we need to do all we can to educate the general public about the effect of having one's child taken from us. People don't know and for way too long, we have ben shamed into silence. I am happy Lorraine is talking.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This first bit is off topic but I think important, in reference to the side bar notice on the *birth mother survey* it is asking only for mother's who 'voluntarily placed' their children for adoption. Isn't it something how it seems no one wants to hear from those who were coerced, forced, or in dire straits and desperate?!

    Oh, the idol of adoption, may it come crashing down and smash into a bazillion pieces, just like the human 'wreckage' it has left and is still leaving in it's wake.

    It will someday, but until that time, no, I will not "shut up", nor will I sing it's praises, or celebrate it. I have much experience on the other side of the fairy tale and consider the long term outcomes *and* the effects on those separated. It's not something to celebrate. It's like they are dancing around the figurative graves of the people who lost the child and I will add they do not think of the next generation of children who may grow up with a parent who was/is an adoptee and just didn't get the message drilled into them that it was something to celebrate, and ended up hurt (and angry) their whole life long over the loss of their parents.

    Self labeled "spiritual" people thinking that it is a loving thing to take a child from someone and leave the mother in her disadvantaged state is beyond reprehensible. How is that 'loving your neighbor'?

    Here, you can't afford to raise this child that you love so much? Make a PLAN and give it to me and I'll give it all that you can't, you'll have another when you're more able to care for it, well, unless you suffer from secondary infertility, or you might have another and cannot function well due to the grief burden that losing your child to adoption left you with. I don't want to 'have to' care for you, I just want the baby. Thanks. Oh we love "OUR" birth mother so much we left her in her disadvantaged state and hoped things would improve for her even though she now carries enormous grief over the loss of her child as well as being poor / abandoned by any support system.

    When only one side of the story is told or allowed you know something in that story really stinks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cindy, I tried to do the survey myself, but because my daughter is one of the adoptee suicide statistics, and I no longer have much of a relationship with her adoptive parents, I gave up halfway through. Was there no place to offer an explanation of why the wording was offensive? I will get in touch with the survey originator and ask her to reply to your issue with the wording. She said she was not adopted nor a mother herself but that there was adoption in her family.

      Delete
    2. But I will add that the more surveys that are done about first mothers, the better.

      Delete
    3. "This first bit is off topic but I think important, in reference to the side bar notice on the *birth mother survey* it is asking only for mother's who 'voluntarily placed' their children for adoption. Isn't it something how it seems no one wants to hear from those who were coerced, forced, or in dire straits and desperate?!"

      I think we can't rule out the possibility that the person behind the survey just has no clue about adoption reality (yet), and that "voluntarily placed" is their version of saying "not taken by CPS for abuse/neglect".
      I wouldn't call it likely, but it's not impossible either.

      Delete
    4. Cindy, I agree with you. There is definitely something about our culture's American Adoption system that stinks to high heaven. For those who use their religion or spirituality to justify adopting a young, poor women's child, I can say without doubt that this is NOT what Jesus would do. Predatory 'acts of kindness',in other words, "I'll just shepherd this poor girl until she has her baby", and of course she won't be able to say no now, she doesn't want to hurt those nice people.

      Please don't ever stop speaking out about the pain and trauma caused to Adoptees and First mothers!

      Delete
    5. POSTED ON SIDEBAR
      ATTN: CLARIFICATION ON FIRST MOTHER SURVEY

      Yesterday I placed a notice about a survey on the impact of giving up a child for adoption. Because I believe that any research on first mothers is a good thing, I posted a link to the survey without taking it myself. When I did, I found myself annoyed half way through and stopped, since many questions were aggravating and/or unanswerable for someone who did not relinquish recently. Some of the language was also offensive. I have contacted the researcher, and am awaiting a response, other than the acknowledgment she was figuring out how to address our concerns. Stay tuned.

      Delete
    6. Lorraine I didn't get any farther in the survey than the instructions. Saw no point in continuing. It's not so much a matter of being offensive as much as it does not pertain to my situation. I was forced, it was not voluntary and I will not reply to something that makes it look as if mine WAS a voluntary placement because that just waters down the numbers of the wretched truth and feeds into the "she made an adoption plan" narrative.

      I find the wording of the 'survey originator's' comment interesting. "She was not adopted nor a mother herself but that their was adoption in her family." That could leave open the possibility of this being an adoptive parent. I have a tendency not to trust these birth mother surveys to begin with. There are too many of the opposing camp out there and in control of the narrative to suit me and information of good and bad experiences is sometimes how the 'enemy' learns to morph so they can keep the upper hand and continue to acquire babies. And these are desperate times for those seeking to acquire babies to supply for adoption with the numbers of international adoptions greatly reduced.

      Walburga Hesse, What you say could very well be the case. If what you point out is in deed fact, then it shows how fully the poisonous propaganda has shut out the history and even current experiences of millions. Millions. Not a few hundred or even thousands. Millions. I suspect billions if you count the world over. Very sad indeed. It is said that "there is nothing new under the sun", taking babies /children from other women and families has been going on for thousands of years in many, if not most, parts of the world so those that have not can have.

      Yes Sandy, You're absolutely right and predatory is an accurate description. How many of these so-called "righteous" people "do unto others as you would have others do unto you"? Could they have someone take THEIR baby out of THEIR womb and walk off with it, with that someone looking back over their shoulder saying, "love you", "thanks for the baby" and say they truly wanted to be treated like that!? Doubt it seriously.

      That's some shepherd. Sounds and looks like a wolf in sheep's clothing to me. Beware of the wolves mothers to be.

      Delete
  16. I will not "shut up" just to make others comfortable with their one sided stance. There was nothing "voluntary" about the relinquishment of my baby. I will never forgive, I will never forget, and I will never stop fighting for change.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The Adoption Digger, You brought up the point of others speaking for mothers, here's another dandy from today. The whole thing turns my stomach. One paragraph in particular is ...well, it's either a 'totally lacking in understanding' issue, or a most manipulative, cruel, shameful attempt to shut (many) mothers up and take their voice. To me, most of that paragraph is waaaay wrong.

    It's in the ST. LOUIS REVIEW. Titled 'The journey to adoption' Submitted on February 23, 2017.
    The 4th paragraph of the section titled -A "holy experience" (that subheading in itself is sickening).
    Attempting to take our voice AGAIN...or should I say STILL.

    On another note, did you all know that "when adoptees enter adolescence they begin agitating for contact with the birth mom."? According to John Rosemond Guest columnist for the KOKOMO TRIBUNE. 'Rosemond: Adopted son now wants to live with birth mother'.
    He calls adoptees who want to spend time with their biological parent/s, agitators. What an unthinking, unfeeling (he condemns feelings too), clueless(as to how adoption effects the adopted), uneducated thing to say. This sounds like nothing but an attempt to shut up and shut down the adopted more than they already are and to condemn open adoption. Pfft.

    Why don't they just get out the duck tape and tape all of our mouths shut?

    Or, maybe, WE should have a day of duck taped adoptees and natural parents walk up and down in front of tv stations and newspaper offices. Do you think it could change the narrative in adoption?

    ReplyDelete
  18. To clarify further regarding the survey: The survey was worded "voluntarily" to weed out those whose children were taken by the state to remove them from a dangerous situation. I do not know the test taker personally but I believe that she is not an adoptive mother.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just found the wording somewhat evasive. The ",,but there was adoption in her family." Why not come out and say, my sibling, my cousin, whomever is adopted? Is it something to be ashamed of? Or is it a I have to hide this persons identity because.. they don't know they're adopted, or the parents don't want anyone to know? etc.

      Adoption loss, the way it was done, shattered my trust in ANY human being. I want to trust and to give people the benefit of the doubt but even 35 plus years later and counseling and effort have not made the kind of dent /improvement that I and surely others around me would like to see and benefit from..it just isn't happenin' Trusting and relying on others when I needed help and support, showed me from that day forward there is no human being or 'helping' organization (social, governmental, medical) on the planet to trust. I hope the surveyor can forgive or perhaps understand the cynical, skeptical ...wrongness on my part.

      Delete
    2. not to forget, church and family as well. Every single aspect of society. I can be going only 10 feet from my vehicle and still have to have to lock the door. Pathetic ain't it.

      Delete
    3. Well...maybe there is more than one person involved in "adoption in my family." She is doing a survey for her doctoral dissertation in psychology. I didn't find that comment troubling or suspect.

      Delete
  19. Telling mothers of loss to shut up/keep quiet? That is the norm for adoption. It has never been any different in my experience and it comes from all parties - including other mothers and adopted persons. What can one say? People suck and as long as people want a mother's child for their own selfish desires, this will continue. Truth is unwelcome - in fact anything that shows a good character like compassion, empathy, integrity etc is not welcome in adoption. The last 19 years have illuminated that for me quite nicely. Mothers are only viewed as trash, belonging in the gutter. Its easier that way to feel ok about committing a cardinal sin - ie taking a child and playing families. When mothers have the audacity to speak up and tell the truth, it is the last thing anyone wants to hear because then they have to face the truth and consequences of their evil and they are simply to cowardly for that.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Let's assume the "picture perfect" scenario that society at large would like to believe, that Hoda's "adopted" (can't be finalized already?!) baby's mother freely and willingly made the choice to place her baby "out of love for her baby," the usual. Regardless, this is a tragedy for the mother and the baby, this breaking of a family. It is ridiculous to pretend otherwise. I really don't think newborn babies should be adopted at all, not without at least a six month window to: (a) see if the natural parent(s) can keep the baby; or (b) if not, is there a biological family member who can adopt the baby. Personally I think even providing a year of time is fine - after all, don't we give the parents of children who are in foster care a year to rehabilitate / reunify with their children?

    It is horrific to allow a mother who has just given birth to make this huge decision to sever her child from her roots - and to sever herself from her child. I understand Japan is very strict about this - no child can be adopted out of a family without input from extended family members. Adoption hardly ever happens in Japan. So why are we so nonchalant?

    Keep speaking up, Lorraine!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder whether it has anything to do with the birthright citizenship thing. Yes, the 14th was a response to the Civil War, but the way it is understood, to know: ius soli INSTEAD of ius sanguinis, rather than a combination of both, an alternate rather than a double claim to citizenship by birth, suggests that in "modern" US culture a complete disregard of ancestry, of roots is normal, which may be understood from a "It does not matter where you are from, you are now an American/ damn'Yankee." attitude towards new immigrants and their children, provided they were "white"... Something Japan did not experience...

      Delete
    2. Good thought, Theodore, your point makes sense to me.

      Delete
    3. Jay I agree with the first part of your comment. Our daughter's parents had 30 days to sign the termination paperwork. They signed on day 26 or 27 (forget now which). Our situation was slightly unique and not the norm in CA, where we are and adopted. I would like it to be the norm and agree with you that even longer would be better.

      I want to comment on: "I understand Japan is very strict about this - no child can be adopted out of a family without input from extended family members. Adoption hardly ever happens in Japan. So why are we so nonchalant?"
      Japanese culture is very complicated. Any Japanese person reading here? I’m an amateur, but we visited Japan two years ago and fell in love, so I have spent a lot of time studying it just out of interest. I have a coworker who is Japanese, and we chat quite a bit. I have talked with him about adoption. But again, I am not Japanese and do not claim to be an expert, so take what I say with a grain of salt, and I would encourage further research.

      The Japanese actually have a very high rate of ADULT adoptions. They use it to solidify business lineages, mostly, and also inheritance. But there are hardly any child adoptions. That doesn't mean all is rosy, though. There is a high rate of Japanese children in orphanages, despite the troubling fact that the Japanese birth rate is actually declining. It isn't the extended family members are taking in these children- they are not in all cases. The state is reluctant to sever biological ties, even if the parents do not for years make any attempt to reunite with their children. Even documented physical abuse by the biological parent is not consistently seen as a reason to terminate rights because of the complicated views in Japanese society regarding what is and is not child abuse and what right the state has to be involved in familial matters.

      It isn't technically just because the Japanese positively value familial ties that results in low adoption rates in Japan; their belief in the importance of blood connections also means they view adopted children negatively. It also gets complicated because children are registered to women, and if they give a child up for adoption, that shows up in the registry somehow and can cause discrimination at jobs and such. I'm not entirely clear how that works, only that it exists. There are black market adoptions as a result of this registry issue and complicated laws of inheritance.

      I have read and heard that the orphanages are not pleasant places, and many are private institutions that are treated like businesses and pass down through a family, so issues are not caught and can go on generations. Many “orphans” (most are not technically) are ostracized from Japanese society because of their lack of familial connections, which are highly valued in their society. Because of the structure of Japanese education, these children mostly do not attend high school , which is necessary for almost all jobs. In the spring of this year, a new act is scheduled to take effect which will start to place many of these children in adoptive homes.

      I absolutely agree that children remaining in their family of birth when possible should happen, but there is such a thing as taking that too far, and it seems Japan has swung the pendulum too far in the wrong direction. It's also a cultural problem for unwed mothers who absolutely may be amazing moms but are not supported based on some very complicated inheritance and familial issues- this should also be addressed similar to how we need to provide support in the US to moms in crisis. And don't get me wrong- I absolutely love Japan and the people there. It's one of my favorite countries in the world. But every culture has their challenges.

      I do want to be clear that I am not saying babies do not belong with their original family of birth, and I am also not endorsing adoption, whole sale. I'm just saying Japan is not a model we should follow because it has a lot of dark complications for the children.

      Delete
    4. Very enlightening, Tiffany, thanks for sharing - and, I am jealous, Japan is a country I want to visit :)

      In India, where I am from, many orphanages will only permit the children to be adopted by parents where at least one is of Indian ethnicity. And my parents support (through regular donations) an orphanage that will not allow international adoptions, only placements within India. I agree with that philosophy. It does seem as though you might be right, that Japan's rigid social structure may have swung the pendulum too far in a direction that does a disservice to some of their children.

      Delete
  21. Jay--a few days ago I chatted with a librarian, who is an adoptive mother who read Hole in my Heart and gave me space to have a reading/talk at the local library. I had just heard of an adoptive mother who was refused to read it after a friend--neither adopted or a birth mother--suggested she read it. The adoptive mother didn't want to, my friend said. In contrast, the librarian said to me: Your book was raw to read, but real. For us it is at least comforting to you that not all adoptive parents want to stick their heads in the proverbial sand and hear nothing of the reality of adoption for the others involved--including their own children....who probably "never wanted to search." As I said before, the next time anyone says that to me I am going to say: Isn't that weird? Why do you think they don't want to search?! And let them figure out how to answer. Whether they admit it or not, anyone perceptive will be thinking: Was it something I did? Some message I conveyed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is interesting to me, Lorraine, that on TV shows I am seeing more and more portrayals of how adoption is not as beautiful as people might think (and not just on "This is Us," lots of shows seem to have episodes in which adoption somehow is featured, it seems) - yet in real life, we seem to see a lot of wholehearted support and delight when adoption happens (like when Hoda Kotb showed off her baby). It is amazing to me that, to this day, there are adoptive parents out there who don't want to hear that there is pain and loss associated with adoption. Not sure how long people can continue to live in that black hole! I am curious why this adoptive mother wouldn't want to read your book - other than to continue to live a life of denial.

      I do think the educational efforts of pioneers like Jane and you are working, though. I mean, look at me now! (I didn't start out being illuminated about these aspects). So, Lorraine, keep on keepin'

      Delete
    2. "Isn't that weird? Why do you think they don't want to search?"
      @Lo,
      I was still a child when I first heard about sealed OBCs and adoptees searching. My father had a client, a man who had been adopted as an infant in NY state. The man was trying to get information about his true identity and, of course, could not.
      When I was a college student in NY state I met some adoptees who were already searching. This was around 1966.
      So, I am wondering now: how long does it take before people will admit that there is nothing weird about wanting to know one's identity and there is nothing weird about mothers who want to know what has happened to their children.
      It is normal for relatives to know each other. This is what the tribal system was based on.
      Separating relatives and hiding them from each other and acting like they shouldn't care is what is weird.

      Delete
    3. Wow--Searching in 1966--that was the year my daughter was born and I was putting up a big commotion about sealed records FOREVER as I knew I had to give up my daughter.

      Wanting to know who and where you came from is a natural; anything else is unusual, off the norm, the result of suffocating child rearing.

      Delete
    4. @Lo,
      separated relatives have always searched....at least if they had information. The Big Lie is the pretense that somehow "Those Who Search" are weird...or crazy, disloyal, or immoral, weak,needy, etc.

      My mother admitted to me, one day, that her uncle had a brother who had been separated from the family "for some reason" and grew up in an orphanage, far away, but when the brother reached adulthood, he found his family. This would have been in the 1920s-30s.
      The brother came back to the family home in NY state and knocked on the door. He was welcomed home.
      My mother said the two brothers remained close until death.

      Delete
  22. Adoption Ruins the child's life, the child's real-mother's life and is an abomination of lies that the United states adoption industry must keep perpetuating to procure 15 billion in 2017. We the scorned know and live the truth that adopter's deny and continue to deny by attacking truth and reality, as truth and reality do not exist in adoption.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome comments from all, and appreciate letting us know how you relate to adoption when you leave your first comment.

COMMENTS ARE MODERATED. Our blog, our decision whether to publish or not. Anonymous comments from the same individual are more likely to be NOT POSTED. Select the NAME/URL selection, add a name. You do not need a URL. Fine to use a nom de plume.

COMMENTS AT POSTS OVER 30 DAYS OLD LESS LIKELY TO BE PUBLISHED.

We aim to be timely but we do have other lives.

For those coming here from Networked Blogs on Facebook, if it does not allow you to make a comment, click the "x" on the gray "Networked Blogs" tool bar to exit out of that frame and it should then let you comment.

We are unlikely to post comments that consist of nothing more than a link and the admonition to go there.