Monday, April 24, 2006
Adoption Langauge and DisUnity
Response to “Why Birthmother means Breeder”
I am a mother who lost a child to adoption. I abhor pregnant women being called “birthmothers” before they are even mothers. I am appalled at those who speak for us and say that we want anonymity from our children. And most of all I abhor women being used as breeders. I have written extensively on all of these issues.
I have no objection, however, to identifying myself as a birthmother for clarity because it is part of the current lexicon used by the media and in legal documents. I do this not in resignation nor am I naïve or lacking an understanding and appreciation of the exploitation and corruption in adoption. Quite the contrary. I have been actively researching, and fighting for adoption reform for nearly 30 years, and co-founded Origins, a search and support group for women who lost children to adoption, and was on the board of the AAC. In 1988 I wrote “shedding light on…The Dark Side of Adoption” a ground-breaking expose on the adoption industry.
My second, even harder-hitting, book will be released, hopefully, within a year and expresses my vehement opposition to the exploitation of poor single women and the coercive techniques to get them to relinquish their babies, and the issuance of falsified birth certificates. I am vehemently opposed to the entrepreneurial aspect of adoption as a $2-3 billion a year industry that sells babies with virtually no regulations whatsoever.
When it comes to what we call ourselves, let me be clear. I am not saying that one name is better than any other, or trying to impose my preference on anyone else. Each person should be able to call themselves whatever they are personally comfortable with: first, natural or birth. I am not even saying that I totally disagree that birthmother is perhaps not the best term and might engender thoughts of a surrogate or Handmaid.
However, I do not agree with the thesis in Diane Turski’s article “Why Birthmother Means Breeder,” which is posted on both Exiled Mothers (a group which exclusively uses the term “Natural” mother) and Origins USA (which exclusively uses “First” mother). Turski argues that the word birth implies breeder and that the word ‘birthmother’ is the cause of us being exploited or used as breeders, or thought of as incubators, and she also relates it to the lies about us wanting anonymity, though nothing in her article proves such connections.
She states the obvious problems in the adoption industry that we all agree on, and then somehow, makes the preposterous cause and effect leap that it is all because of the word “birthmother.” The fact is that it is supply and demand and capitalists who see such situations as ripe for money making that causes exploitation of mothers for their babies, and would remain no matter what we are called! Her article did not convince me otherwise.
Turski mentions that in other countries the term natural mother is used, but offers no indication that they are any less exploited for their children because of it. The fact is that poor women are exploited for their babies both domestically and internationally. All over the world babies are seen as a product to be sold by flesh peddlers.
Turski is also incorrect on the history of the word birthmother. It was not “invented” by social workers or the adoption industry. It was coined by Lee Campbell, birthmother, founder and first president of Concerned United Birthparents in 1976. This history is recorded in the CUB archives, and documented in Rickie Solinger’s “Wake Up Little Susie.” Campbell created it as one word (though it often appears incorrectly as two words) just as the word grandmother or grandparent is used – all terms of respect. Children love their grandparents no matter if they choose to call them Nanna or Popop, gramps or grandma Rose. The love we feel for people in our loves is rooted in our relationship with, and respect for them, not in the name we call them. And while it is true that adoptive parents expressed objection to the term “natural” mother, I do not know that birthmother is any less a thorn in their side as it is a constant reminder of the connection they are incapable of having with their children.
For those who still just don’t like the word birthmother, and seek to change it, the civil rights movement offers a perfect model of oppressed and exploited people who fought for the self-determination to be called what they preferred, instead of “colored” or “Negro.” However, no attempts to change those terms were made until AFTER winning the basic rights they sought! This indicates two very important lessons: 1) it was not important to change what they were called in order to obtain the rights they were being denied; 2) they did first things first. They tackled the most serious problem first, and won those rights without the necessity of changing what they were called until after that was accomplished.
Further, the terms defining them were somewhat demeaning or had serious negative connotations, such as signs stating “No Colored Allowed.” Birthmother, however, is not an inherently derogatory term, at least not for many of us who use it, although, as I have said, I do see why it bothers many and can engendered misocnceptions. Many accept being called birthmother because they see birth is a joyous occasion, in both scientific and religious literature, and is defined as: 1. The set of characteristics or circumstances received from one's ancestors; inheritance: strong-willed by birth; acquired their wealth through birth. 2. Origin; extraction: of Swedish birth; of humble birth. Noble or high status: persons of birth.
Nothing at all mean or derogatory there. No condemnation, and nothing even close to being a “breeder.” I have no more shame that I gave birth to the daughter I surrendered than I do having given birth to any of my children. I am proud that I gave each of them life and that I have a unique biological connection with them that the word birth clearly reinforces. Birthfathers and other family members also share that special blood-related connection that is only accorded those related by birth. Being identified in the media and laws as birthmother or natural mother in no way changes who I am. They are two terms for the same thing, like woman or female; pregnant or expecting. Neither term is emotionally charged or carries any inherent negative image. First mother, the term preferred by Origins US, does not identify who I am as my daughter was first “mothered” by her foster mother. Whether I am first or second, my connection to my daughter and hers to me, is blood-related and genetic by virtue of my conceiving, carrying and giving birth to her.
This is how I feel. I do not object to other shaving their feelings expressed in what they call themselves. Liekwise, what any of my children choose to call me is their personal choice, as is how they talk about me to others, as long as it is clear in communicating with others. When I found my daughter I guess it would have been cool if, in time, she would have called me Mom. But it would not have changed our relationship one way if she didn’t, nor would I make no issue of it. If she preferred to call me by my first name, as many adoptees do, that would have been fine. If she referred to me when speaking with others as her mother, her first mother, her natural, or her birthmother would be of no consequence to me, either. None of those words are pejorative in any way, they just distinguish my unique role from the mother who raised her, just as the word mother and father describe different roles, with one inherently including the birth process.
Returning to the civil rights analogy, there are those within the movement who prefer to be called Black and others who prefer the use of African-American. Such personal preferences are resolved by each person calling themselves what they prefer to be called with the national organization that supports them all, still, after all these years, and all the changes, remains The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Likewise the national birthparent organization, CUB, remains Concerned United Birthparents after investigating, in depth, the issue of what we are called (back issues of the newsletter in which it was debated are available). They considered all the options, and decided not to change their name, perhaps for the same reason the NAACP does not change its name: public recognition.
Clearly each of us needs to heal our personal pain and loss, first and foremost. (This is why CUB remains today, as it always has been first and foremost a support group.) The steps in healing a trauma and loss are many, including denial and anger and perhaps some final resolution. For myself, a great part of my healing process occurred when I was able to refocus my anger. I see many analogies for this process among mothers who have experienced loss: MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers is perhaps the most widely known example. These mothers determined to not just sit and cry over their lost kids. They organized and got legislation changed in order to prevent other mothers suffering similar unnecessary losses. Channeling our anger constructively is by far the most healing thing any of us can do!
I suggest that each of you ask yourselves, individually and as a group, what your major goal is in terms of your adoption loss. Ask yourself what you can do to make a change, to see to it that fewer mothers suffer the unnecessary loses we did. What can we do to fight the lies about “promises” made to us that keep our children second-class citizens denied their equal right? Based on my decades of work in this area I see no evidence whatsoever that what we are called is in any way the cause of thw rost aspects of adoption, or our most pressing issue. Whike I have na open mind, Turski's article did nothing to change opinion, becaus eit did ntoing to indicate that changing what we are called will in any way reduce future exploitation of women for their babies, which appears from the Exiled Mothers website to be a collective goal that unites all mothers who have lost children to adoption, nor will it stop lies being told about what was promised to us, another concern of Exiled Mothers.
I respect and support the right of those who do object strongly to the name to do what they can to change it. I would by no means be opposed to supporting such an effort.
But, none of us have unlimited time and energy, therfore it just seems prudent to use it toward its highest good. There are many ways of achieving our goals that seem more direct and therefore more worthwhile than working toward changing what we are called. And certainly, arguing amongst ourselves over it id a counterproductive watse of energy. I would much prefer see us all unite and work together in order to eliminate or reduce exploitation. There is much that needs to be done. There ar ereal enemies pout there that need fighting, not one another. Here is a tiny sampling of suggestions which will be outlined in detail in my forthcoming book, “Money, Myth and Adoption”:
- We need to work toward getting the money out of adoption.
- We need to ensure that open adoption agreements are legally enforceable and in states where they are not, that expectant mothers are clear about that.
- We need to get untrained adoption facilitators out of the adoption ‘business’
- We need to outlaw taking expectant mothers across state lines for the purpose of taking their children for adoption
- We need to stop the practice of “matching” expectant mothers with those seeking to adopt their child and allowing pre-adoptive parents in the delivery room, in labor classes at doctor cists etc. as these are inherently coercive practices
- We need to get tougher on screening adoptive parents to weed our pedophiles and other abusers
- We need to fight the lies of alleged “promises” made to us that keep our children from having the “better life” that was promised to us
Bottom line is if an expectant mother considers adoption and contacts an adoption agency, facilitator or broker of any sort, she is seen as a source of a very highly sought-after commodity and she will be pressured, coerced and exploited for her child, even if her name is Queen Mary, Mary Magdalen, or the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God! I say this with no offense to anyone but to illustrate that what we are named is not the cause of our problems and renaming ourselves will not change a thing. All arguing baout it does is to keep women who have experienced such loses divided, which does not help us reach any goal, nor is it healing or healthy for new mothers as they come online and see all the back and forth debates and angry name calling.
Self-imposed exile from the rest of the adoption reform community is a choice, as is joining with us to work together. There is strength in numbers and divided we fall. We have so many enemies who look to exploit us and deny our children their rights even when they are adults. It would behoove us to join forces and all work together toward putting and end to the exploitation of future women.
Elizabeth Samuels, discussing the pressures put to bear on expectant mothers because of the supply and demand of infants domestically states: “Mothers in the stressful situations that lead them to consider placing their infants for adoption are not an organized group and are relatively powerless and socially disadvantaged.”(1) If the civil rights movement allowed themselves to focus on what they were called, they would now – Coloreds, Negroes, Blacks and African-Americans – all be sitting on the back of the bus together. Instead they simply allowed one another to use whatever is comfortable for them, as I am proposing, as thay fought for what was importnat - equal rights.
We can choose to remain unorganized, powerless victims in exile, or we can choose to overcome petty differences and unite to make a difference.
Mirah Riben 4/19/06
COMMENTS WELOCOMED!!
(1) The to Decide? The laws Governing Mothers’ Consents to the Adoption of Their Newborn Infants. Tennessee Law Review, Vol. 72, Number 2, Winter 2005. Pages 509-572. By Elizabeth Samuels, Associate Professor, University of Baltimore School of Law.
I am a mother who lost a child to adoption. I abhor pregnant women being called “birthmothers” before they are even mothers. I am appalled at those who speak for us and say that we want anonymity from our children. And most of all I abhor women being used as breeders. I have written extensively on all of these issues.
I have no objection, however, to identifying myself as a birthmother for clarity because it is part of the current lexicon used by the media and in legal documents. I do this not in resignation nor am I naïve or lacking an understanding and appreciation of the exploitation and corruption in adoption. Quite the contrary. I have been actively researching, and fighting for adoption reform for nearly 30 years, and co-founded Origins, a search and support group for women who lost children to adoption, and was on the board of the AAC. In 1988 I wrote “shedding light on…The Dark Side of Adoption” a ground-breaking expose on the adoption industry.
My second, even harder-hitting, book will be released, hopefully, within a year and expresses my vehement opposition to the exploitation of poor single women and the coercive techniques to get them to relinquish their babies, and the issuance of falsified birth certificates. I am vehemently opposed to the entrepreneurial aspect of adoption as a $2-3 billion a year industry that sells babies with virtually no regulations whatsoever.
When it comes to what we call ourselves, let me be clear. I am not saying that one name is better than any other, or trying to impose my preference on anyone else. Each person should be able to call themselves whatever they are personally comfortable with: first, natural or birth. I am not even saying that I totally disagree that birthmother is perhaps not the best term and might engender thoughts of a surrogate or Handmaid.
However, I do not agree with the thesis in Diane Turski’s article “Why Birthmother Means Breeder,” which is posted on both Exiled Mothers (a group which exclusively uses the term “Natural” mother) and Origins USA (which exclusively uses “First” mother). Turski argues that the word birth implies breeder and that the word ‘birthmother’ is the cause of us being exploited or used as breeders, or thought of as incubators, and she also relates it to the lies about us wanting anonymity, though nothing in her article proves such connections.
She states the obvious problems in the adoption industry that we all agree on, and then somehow, makes the preposterous cause and effect leap that it is all because of the word “birthmother.” The fact is that it is supply and demand and capitalists who see such situations as ripe for money making that causes exploitation of mothers for their babies, and would remain no matter what we are called! Her article did not convince me otherwise.
Turski mentions that in other countries the term natural mother is used, but offers no indication that they are any less exploited for their children because of it. The fact is that poor women are exploited for their babies both domestically and internationally. All over the world babies are seen as a product to be sold by flesh peddlers.
Turski is also incorrect on the history of the word birthmother. It was not “invented” by social workers or the adoption industry. It was coined by Lee Campbell, birthmother, founder and first president of Concerned United Birthparents in 1976. This history is recorded in the CUB archives, and documented in Rickie Solinger’s “Wake Up Little Susie.” Campbell created it as one word (though it often appears incorrectly as two words) just as the word grandmother or grandparent is used – all terms of respect. Children love their grandparents no matter if they choose to call them Nanna or Popop, gramps or grandma Rose. The love we feel for people in our loves is rooted in our relationship with, and respect for them, not in the name we call them. And while it is true that adoptive parents expressed objection to the term “natural” mother, I do not know that birthmother is any less a thorn in their side as it is a constant reminder of the connection they are incapable of having with their children.
For those who still just don’t like the word birthmother, and seek to change it, the civil rights movement offers a perfect model of oppressed and exploited people who fought for the self-determination to be called what they preferred, instead of “colored” or “Negro.” However, no attempts to change those terms were made until AFTER winning the basic rights they sought! This indicates two very important lessons: 1) it was not important to change what they were called in order to obtain the rights they were being denied; 2) they did first things first. They tackled the most serious problem first, and won those rights without the necessity of changing what they were called until after that was accomplished.
Further, the terms defining them were somewhat demeaning or had serious negative connotations, such as signs stating “No Colored Allowed.” Birthmother, however, is not an inherently derogatory term, at least not for many of us who use it, although, as I have said, I do see why it bothers many and can engendered misocnceptions. Many accept being called birthmother because they see birth is a joyous occasion, in both scientific and religious literature, and is defined as: 1. The set of characteristics or circumstances received from one's ancestors; inheritance: strong-willed by birth; acquired their wealth through birth. 2. Origin; extraction: of Swedish birth; of humble birth. Noble or high status: persons of birth.
Nothing at all mean or derogatory there. No condemnation, and nothing even close to being a “breeder.” I have no more shame that I gave birth to the daughter I surrendered than I do having given birth to any of my children. I am proud that I gave each of them life and that I have a unique biological connection with them that the word birth clearly reinforces. Birthfathers and other family members also share that special blood-related connection that is only accorded those related by birth. Being identified in the media and laws as birthmother or natural mother in no way changes who I am. They are two terms for the same thing, like woman or female; pregnant or expecting. Neither term is emotionally charged or carries any inherent negative image. First mother, the term preferred by Origins US, does not identify who I am as my daughter was first “mothered” by her foster mother. Whether I am first or second, my connection to my daughter and hers to me, is blood-related and genetic by virtue of my conceiving, carrying and giving birth to her.
This is how I feel. I do not object to other shaving their feelings expressed in what they call themselves. Liekwise, what any of my children choose to call me is their personal choice, as is how they talk about me to others, as long as it is clear in communicating with others. When I found my daughter I guess it would have been cool if, in time, she would have called me Mom. But it would not have changed our relationship one way if she didn’t, nor would I make no issue of it. If she preferred to call me by my first name, as many adoptees do, that would have been fine. If she referred to me when speaking with others as her mother, her first mother, her natural, or her birthmother would be of no consequence to me, either. None of those words are pejorative in any way, they just distinguish my unique role from the mother who raised her, just as the word mother and father describe different roles, with one inherently including the birth process.
Returning to the civil rights analogy, there are those within the movement who prefer to be called Black and others who prefer the use of African-American. Such personal preferences are resolved by each person calling themselves what they prefer to be called with the national organization that supports them all, still, after all these years, and all the changes, remains The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Likewise the national birthparent organization, CUB, remains Concerned United Birthparents after investigating, in depth, the issue of what we are called (back issues of the newsletter in which it was debated are available). They considered all the options, and decided not to change their name, perhaps for the same reason the NAACP does not change its name: public recognition.
Clearly each of us needs to heal our personal pain and loss, first and foremost. (This is why CUB remains today, as it always has been first and foremost a support group.) The steps in healing a trauma and loss are many, including denial and anger and perhaps some final resolution. For myself, a great part of my healing process occurred when I was able to refocus my anger. I see many analogies for this process among mothers who have experienced loss: MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers is perhaps the most widely known example. These mothers determined to not just sit and cry over their lost kids. They organized and got legislation changed in order to prevent other mothers suffering similar unnecessary losses. Channeling our anger constructively is by far the most healing thing any of us can do!
I suggest that each of you ask yourselves, individually and as a group, what your major goal is in terms of your adoption loss. Ask yourself what you can do to make a change, to see to it that fewer mothers suffer the unnecessary loses we did. What can we do to fight the lies about “promises” made to us that keep our children second-class citizens denied their equal right? Based on my decades of work in this area I see no evidence whatsoever that what we are called is in any way the cause of thw rost aspects of adoption, or our most pressing issue. Whike I have na open mind, Turski's article did nothing to change opinion, becaus eit did ntoing to indicate that changing what we are called will in any way reduce future exploitation of women for their babies, which appears from the Exiled Mothers website to be a collective goal that unites all mothers who have lost children to adoption, nor will it stop lies being told about what was promised to us, another concern of Exiled Mothers.
I respect and support the right of those who do object strongly to the name to do what they can to change it. I would by no means be opposed to supporting such an effort.
But, none of us have unlimited time and energy, therfore it just seems prudent to use it toward its highest good. There are many ways of achieving our goals that seem more direct and therefore more worthwhile than working toward changing what we are called. And certainly, arguing amongst ourselves over it id a counterproductive watse of energy. I would much prefer see us all unite and work together in order to eliminate or reduce exploitation. There is much that needs to be done. There ar ereal enemies pout there that need fighting, not one another. Here is a tiny sampling of suggestions which will be outlined in detail in my forthcoming book, “Money, Myth and Adoption”:
- We need to work toward getting the money out of adoption.
- We need to ensure that open adoption agreements are legally enforceable and in states where they are not, that expectant mothers are clear about that.
- We need to get untrained adoption facilitators out of the adoption ‘business’
- We need to outlaw taking expectant mothers across state lines for the purpose of taking their children for adoption
- We need to stop the practice of “matching” expectant mothers with those seeking to adopt their child and allowing pre-adoptive parents in the delivery room, in labor classes at doctor cists etc. as these are inherently coercive practices
- We need to get tougher on screening adoptive parents to weed our pedophiles and other abusers
- We need to fight the lies of alleged “promises” made to us that keep our children from having the “better life” that was promised to us
Bottom line is if an expectant mother considers adoption and contacts an adoption agency, facilitator or broker of any sort, she is seen as a source of a very highly sought-after commodity and she will be pressured, coerced and exploited for her child, even if her name is Queen Mary, Mary Magdalen, or the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God! I say this with no offense to anyone but to illustrate that what we are named is not the cause of our problems and renaming ourselves will not change a thing. All arguing baout it does is to keep women who have experienced such loses divided, which does not help us reach any goal, nor is it healing or healthy for new mothers as they come online and see all the back and forth debates and angry name calling.
Self-imposed exile from the rest of the adoption reform community is a choice, as is joining with us to work together. There is strength in numbers and divided we fall. We have so many enemies who look to exploit us and deny our children their rights even when they are adults. It would behoove us to join forces and all work together toward putting and end to the exploitation of future women.
Elizabeth Samuels, discussing the pressures put to bear on expectant mothers because of the supply and demand of infants domestically states: “Mothers in the stressful situations that lead them to consider placing their infants for adoption are not an organized group and are relatively powerless and socially disadvantaged.”(1) If the civil rights movement allowed themselves to focus on what they were called, they would now – Coloreds, Negroes, Blacks and African-Americans – all be sitting on the back of the bus together. Instead they simply allowed one another to use whatever is comfortable for them, as I am proposing, as thay fought for what was importnat - equal rights.
We can choose to remain unorganized, powerless victims in exile, or we can choose to overcome petty differences and unite to make a difference.
Mirah Riben 4/19/06
COMMENTS WELOCOMED!!
(1) The to Decide? The laws Governing Mothers’ Consents to the Adoption of Their Newborn Infants. Tennessee Law Review, Vol. 72, Number 2, Winter 2005. Pages 509-572. By Elizabeth Samuels, Associate Professor, University of Baltimore School of Law.
# posted by Senior Mom @ 5:20 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Honestly, I am a mother. Mother first, everything else falls second in life. I refuse to be called anything that crowns the "birth" term.
They may have managed to steal my child, but it didn't last forever. They managed to make me feel like I wasn't good enough to have my child. I know better now.
They threatened me with money, but no amount of money will repair the damage they have caused to her, or me. They threatened my life, but here I am. Still breathing and kicking.
The only real DisUnity I see is when people hold themselves so high above another that they don't feel the need to show the simple day to day respect any person is due.
When my once stolen daughter calls me, she doesn't say, hey Birthmom how are you. When we end the call she doesn't say I love you Birthmom. She calls me mom. That is what I have always been and always will.
After all the hoops I was made to jump through, all the pain in waiting for contact, not to mention the PTSD why not just let me have the peace and respect I wish? Why not allow this same grace to others that too have been run through the adoption mill?
If you wish to be seen as a birthmother that is for you to chose. I will respect that in the same fashion I do my other sister-mothers.
I do thank you for all the work you have put into this. I just think fighting among ourselves is pointless. Why does it have to be an issue if I don't want to be called a birthing tool?
They may have managed to steal my child, but it didn't last forever. They managed to make me feel like I wasn't good enough to have my child. I know better now.
They threatened me with money, but no amount of money will repair the damage they have caused to her, or me. They threatened my life, but here I am. Still breathing and kicking.
The only real DisUnity I see is when people hold themselves so high above another that they don't feel the need to show the simple day to day respect any person is due.
When my once stolen daughter calls me, she doesn't say, hey Birthmom how are you. When we end the call she doesn't say I love you Birthmom. She calls me mom. That is what I have always been and always will.
After all the hoops I was made to jump through, all the pain in waiting for contact, not to mention the PTSD why not just let me have the peace and respect I wish? Why not allow this same grace to others that too have been run through the adoption mill?
If you wish to be seen as a birthmother that is for you to chose. I will respect that in the same fashion I do my other sister-mothers.
I do thank you for all the work you have put into this. I just think fighting among ourselves is pointless. Why does it have to be an issue if I don't want to be called a birthing tool?
((AdopTalk))
I feel like I understand your point. Simply said, you respect the name becoming something different, but we all have issues we are striving for in our lives, and many are around our losses. To fight each other (over names thereby needing to spend time educating ourselves) means to take us away from our fight Against the *System* and keeps our focus off of changing the actual policies.
Thank you for this post.
I feel like I understand your point. Simply said, you respect the name becoming something different, but we all have issues we are striving for in our lives, and many are around our losses. To fight each other (over names thereby needing to spend time educating ourselves) means to take us away from our fight Against the *System* and keeps our focus off of changing the actual policies.
Thank you for this post.
FDT, et al - Pleas read "A Plea For Unity"
I think it is wonderful that your daughter chooses to call you mom. I think we should all get to chose what we call ourslves and our kids have the right to call us what THEY choose to.
I am asking for patience and sensitivity and consciousness raising on everyone's parts as to why we use the terms we do.
NO ONE ASKS THEIR KIDS TO CALL THEM BITRHMOTHER AND NO ONE CALLS THEIR KIDS THEIR BIRTHSON OR BIRTHDAUGHTER!! (excpet in rare cases to distinguish between a kept/raised child) WE ARE ALL MOTHERS!!!
I think it is wonderful that your daughter chooses to call you mom. I think we should all get to chose what we call ourslves and our kids have the right to call us what THEY choose to.
I am asking for patience and sensitivity and consciousness raising on everyone's parts as to why we use the terms we do.
NO ONE ASKS THEIR KIDS TO CALL THEM BITRHMOTHER AND NO ONE CALLS THEIR KIDS THEIR BIRTHSON OR BIRTHDAUGHTER!! (excpet in rare cases to distinguish between a kept/raised child) WE ARE ALL MOTHERS!!!
Lamecherry - care to elaborate? is that scarcasm or serious? can't tell. Are you connected to adoption in any way?
FYI - mothers who loose a child to adoption NEVER FORGET!
FYI - mothers who loose a child to adoption NEVER FORGET!
Lamecherry - if that means that you have lost three to adoption, I grieve with you for your loss and then take it to mean that your first comment was scarcastic?
I would love to hear from you, less cryptically.
I would love to hear from you, less cryptically.
YOU CAN CALL YOURSELF WHAT EVER YOU CHOSE
I AM A MOTHER
I AM HIS MOTHER
I AM THE ONLY MOTHER HE WILL EVER HAVE
I CARRIED HIM FOR NINE MONTHS
I GAVE BIRTH TO HIM
I AM HIS MOTHER
I AM A MOTHER
I AM HIS MOTHER
I AM THE ONLY MOTHER HE WILL EVER HAVE
I CARRIED HIM FOR NINE MONTHS
I GAVE BIRTH TO HIM
I AM HIS MOTHER
# posted by 
: 1:45 PM
: 1:45 PM
I respect that! In my heart, and in the heart of ever mother who lost a child to adoption that i know of - we are all MOTHERS. BUT their needs to be a way to make a distinction when a child has two mother figures.
Further - my point is that I honor your choices and would like us to work together toward making changes so others don't suffer losses. surely there are more imporant to you than arguing amonsgt ourslves over what we call ourslves?
do you agree?
Further - my point is that I honor your choices and would like us to work together toward making changes so others don't suffer losses. surely there are more imporant to you than arguing amonsgt ourslves over what we call ourslves?
do you agree?
Mirah, It is not important to distinguish mothers from adoptive mothers. It is important for adoptors to distinguish themselves to fit into the as if born to them life they so desperatly want.
In the process of stealing a child-the term mother is hyjacked!
In the process of stealing a child-the term mother is hyjacked!
# posted by : 10:42 AM
: 10:42 AM
I was alerted to your blog entry on Adoption Language and DisUnity" by Origins Canada, an adoption support group I get email posts from. Although I am confused by their variety of views in response to your point of view, for the most part I agree with you. I am not as informed as you appear to be about the actual "industry" of women for their babies sort of thing - that's horrific, no matter where it is occurring, but if you mean in North America, it is clearly a poor thing and surprising to me, given the numbers of children already living in need and poverty or with less than two parents. But the whole labelling arguments you make seem common sense to me, and I agree, as an adoptee that I cringe when I hear the terms "natural" - they make me magine something "UN natural" and I abhor being emotionally manipulated about the subject. I had two mothers and two fathers - two were bioligical, one of whom was present at my birth (the only person at that "birth" other than me, in my mind), and two who raised me all my life in safety and love. I am grateful to all four of them for making me who I am. Thank you.
suzuki - thanks for sharing your thoughts. THIS is the kind of discussion I was hoping for...a place where we could all openly and honestly express our feelings pro or con.
I can't see how mothers who have lost a child to adoption through coercion, i.e. not because the child was unwanted and they wanted to get rid of it, can accept being called "birthmothers." This word means someone who is NO LONGER a mother. A former mother. A mother for birthing purposes only.
"Birth mother" or "Birthmother" is part of "Positive/Respectful Adoption Language" ("RAL") and reading any article at all about RAL, it's plain in ALL of them that birthmothers are NOT mothers.
If a mother who has lost a child to adoption really does want to promote the industry as it stands, if she truly loves it for taking her child, then i can see how she'd want to call herself a "birthmother" as she'd be glad to not be a mother any longer. If however she still considers herself to be a mother, she is NOT a "birthmother" as her motherhood did NOT end at birth.
I am NOT a birthmother as I am STILL a mother to the child I lost to adoption. She even calls me "Mom" and says that I am her mother. Thus, I am her mother, her natural mother, her first mother, but NOT her birthmother as I am NOT a former mother. And i do NOT support "Positive Adoption Language" that states that the only mother she has was the one who bought her, gave her to nannies to raise her, and violently abused and emotionally neglected her. She has cut her abusive adopters out of her life. But according to "Positive Adoption Language," i am only a "birthmother" and not a mother. In fact, I have been the only truly loving mother she has ever known.
That is why I do'nt accept CUB's position on the name and why I wish they would change their names, because I feel that we are still mothers, not just incubators or breeders which is what "birthmother" means as it is a Positive Adoption Language term that denotes a mtoherhood that began and ended with the act of giving birth.
"Exiled Mothers Mobilizing Actively" (EMMA) would be a good alternative name for CUB, if you ask me.
"Birth mother" or "Birthmother" is part of "Positive/Respectful Adoption Language" ("RAL") and reading any article at all about RAL, it's plain in ALL of them that birthmothers are NOT mothers.
If a mother who has lost a child to adoption really does want to promote the industry as it stands, if she truly loves it for taking her child, then i can see how she'd want to call herself a "birthmother" as she'd be glad to not be a mother any longer. If however she still considers herself to be a mother, she is NOT a "birthmother" as her motherhood did NOT end at birth.
I am NOT a birthmother as I am STILL a mother to the child I lost to adoption. She even calls me "Mom" and says that I am her mother. Thus, I am her mother, her natural mother, her first mother, but NOT her birthmother as I am NOT a former mother. And i do NOT support "Positive Adoption Language" that states that the only mother she has was the one who bought her, gave her to nannies to raise her, and violently abused and emotionally neglected her. She has cut her abusive adopters out of her life. But according to "Positive Adoption Language," i am only a "birthmother" and not a mother. In fact, I have been the only truly loving mother she has ever known.
That is why I do'nt accept CUB's position on the name and why I wish they would change their names, because I feel that we are still mothers, not just incubators or breeders which is what "birthmother" means as it is a Positive Adoption Language term that denotes a mtoherhood that began and ended with the act of giving birth.
"Exiled Mothers Mobilizing Actively" (EMMA) would be a good alternative name for CUB, if you ask me.
# posted by : 10:56 PM
: 10:56 PM
another article on the topic, at http://www.nebula.on.ca/canbmothers/English/articles/adoption-friendly.htm
The CCBM changed its name to the CCNM. To recognize that we are all still mothers and not just mothers for birthing purposes only.
The CCBM changed its name to the CCNM. To recognize that we are all still mothers and not just mothers for birthing purposes only.
# posted by : 11:01 PM
: 11:01 PM
Can't we just agree to disagree on the name thing and move on? Are we going to argue the name thing while the adoption industry moves on and running over younger women? This is about fighting for the rights of those involved in the adoption triad. This fight is about remembering the child and the mother. This fight is about honoring that bond. Are we going to allow the adoption industry to make money off all of us? Adoption is a necessary function in our society. I for one wish that every woman and child to be loved and respected. Our society on the other hand still runs us over daily. Lets get over this and fight to reform adoption law where it is not about profit.
Illegit asks: "How did one woman, a mother, decide what ALL mothers who lost a child to adoption would be called?....CUB 'took' the responsibilty of speaking for all ADULT mothers without their informed consent."
While I am glad to see that I have corrected the historical inaccuracy about the origins of the word, the answer to your question is: She didn’t decide anything for everyone. She decided the name of the group she co-founded. No one forces you to be a member of that group or to use a term you don’t want to.
Illegit then asks: "Did CUB take a vote on it…"
I do not officially represent CUB, but as far as I know, the name CUB was voted on by the founding members or board, or at least discussed at length and decided upon by consensus, if not an official vote. I am sorry that you were not there at the time, or you could have ALL shared your views. But just like is said in the “real world” of politics – don’t complain about candidates if you didn’t go to the polls to vote!
Illgegit says: "There are 2 mothers in adoption..mother and adoptive mother, that's all.. I think it is quite simple."
That's how it is for YOU. For many adoptees it is quite the reverse. MANY adoptees - children lovingly relinquished by mothers who have never forgtten them - think of their one true mother as the person who raised them. Others, like Suziki, feels they have two mothers. Did you read her sya that she "cringes at the term natural mother?"
Illegit says: "Do not chastize or condemn those ADULT Mothers who do not agree with the usage of the term birthmother.."
I chastise no one. Nor do I, or anyone else who uses the term birthmother, ask that anyone who doesn't want to does so. Nor do any of us ask that you not to use whatever term you ARE comfortable with. It is you have done othing but CRTICIZE the use the term birthmother and chastise those who chose it and use it.
ILLEGIT: What year did you relinquish, Illegit? How old is your surrendered daughter?
As for your last question about "name recognition" I do not know what you are asking. Do you mean when was the name of the group made official? I THINK that would be 1976 when it was officialy formed. Or did you mean to ask when the term became widely accepted? That would be gradual. I still use th eterm biological mother used. Depends who is doing the reporting/writing.
-----
In Illeget's second comment here - you comment on my ststing that birth is a joyous occassion. The birth itself - not what followed. That sentence taken out of context is unclear. I equate having given birth to ALL of my children as having been a blessing. Had I not wanted to birth them, I would have aborted them. I have no "source" other than how I myself feel and what other birthmoms have told me. I know of precious few birthmotherd who regret having their child, though they regret not having been able to mother them.
While I am glad to see that I have corrected the historical inaccuracy about the origins of the word, the answer to your question is: She didn’t decide anything for everyone. She decided the name of the group she co-founded. No one forces you to be a member of that group or to use a term you don’t want to.
Illegit then asks: "Did CUB take a vote on it…"
I do not officially represent CUB, but as far as I know, the name CUB was voted on by the founding members or board, or at least discussed at length and decided upon by consensus, if not an official vote. I am sorry that you were not there at the time, or you could have ALL shared your views. But just like is said in the “real world” of politics – don’t complain about candidates if you didn’t go to the polls to vote!
Illgegit says: "There are 2 mothers in adoption..mother and adoptive mother, that's all.. I think it is quite simple."
That's how it is for YOU. For many adoptees it is quite the reverse. MANY adoptees - children lovingly relinquished by mothers who have never forgtten them - think of their one true mother as the person who raised them. Others, like Suziki, feels they have two mothers. Did you read her sya that she "cringes at the term natural mother?"
Illegit says: "Do not chastize or condemn those ADULT Mothers who do not agree with the usage of the term birthmother.."
I chastise no one. Nor do I, or anyone else who uses the term birthmother, ask that anyone who doesn't want to does so. Nor do any of us ask that you not to use whatever term you ARE comfortable with. It is you have done othing but CRTICIZE the use the term birthmother and chastise those who chose it and use it.
ILLEGIT: What year did you relinquish, Illegit? How old is your surrendered daughter?
As for your last question about "name recognition" I do not know what you are asking. Do you mean when was the name of the group made official? I THINK that would be 1976 when it was officialy formed. Or did you mean to ask when the term became widely accepted? That would be gradual. I still use th eterm biological mother used. Depends who is doing the reporting/writing.
-----
In Illeget's second comment here - you comment on my ststing that birth is a joyous occassion. The birth itself - not what followed. That sentence taken out of context is unclear. I equate having given birth to ALL of my children as having been a blessing. Had I not wanted to birth them, I would have aborted them. I have no "source" other than how I myself feel and what other birthmoms have told me. I know of precious few birthmotherd who regret having their child, though they regret not having been able to mother them.
Anonymouse said:
"Exiled Mothers Mobilizing Actively" (EMMA) would be a good alternative name for CUB, if you ask me.
CUB may not be as radical as you – or even I - might like, it is established and known. It’s name and history documented by many adoptions experts (including those cited on Origins USA and Exiled Mothers), It has some “clout” as representing the collective position as women who lost children to adoption, such as denying the lies that we were promised anonymity and our desire for open records.
Therefore, in order to even THINK about changing its name, would take a very convincing argument, Not telling us we’re stupid and di it all wrong. That is NOT a way to influence anyone! The onus is on those wishing to make the change to provide some indication – let alone proof – that it causes harm…. not just because it bothers some of you personally and you FEEL it is harmful. While I and others may sympathize and empathize with your emotional pain, it is not sufficient to make the change.
QUESTION: Who voted on the name “Exiled Mothers”? Or OriginsUSA? Were these names not selected by those who started each group? Several of us HATE the name Exiled Mothers. Perhaps we’ll start a group called Anti-Exiles and spend all our time and energy writing all the things that are wrong with that name – starting with the fact that what kind of empowerment is that? How does labeling yourself as lepers help your self esteem or anything??? I for one am NOT in EXILE (either self-exile or any other). Quite the opposite! I’ve been speaking out publicly against the exploitation of mothers since almost the day my daughter was relinquished. And, I was invited to speak as a birthmother – not shunned or demeaned, but welcomed!
"Exiled Mothers Mobilizing Actively" (EMMA) would be a good alternative name for CUB, if you ask me.
CUB may not be as radical as you – or even I - might like, it is established and known. It’s name and history documented by many adoptions experts (including those cited on Origins USA and Exiled Mothers), It has some “clout” as representing the collective position as women who lost children to adoption, such as denying the lies that we were promised anonymity and our desire for open records.
Therefore, in order to even THINK about changing its name, would take a very convincing argument, Not telling us we’re stupid and di it all wrong. That is NOT a way to influence anyone! The onus is on those wishing to make the change to provide some indication – let alone proof – that it causes harm…. not just because it bothers some of you personally and you FEEL it is harmful. While I and others may sympathize and empathize with your emotional pain, it is not sufficient to make the change.
QUESTION: Who voted on the name “Exiled Mothers”? Or OriginsUSA? Were these names not selected by those who started each group? Several of us HATE the name Exiled Mothers. Perhaps we’ll start a group called Anti-Exiles and spend all our time and energy writing all the things that are wrong with that name – starting with the fact that what kind of empowerment is that? How does labeling yourself as lepers help your self esteem or anything??? I for one am NOT in EXILE (either self-exile or any other). Quite the opposite! I’ve been speaking out publicly against the exploitation of mothers since almost the day my daughter was relinquished. And, I was invited to speak as a birthmother – not shunned or demeaned, but welcomed!
Illegit said: "Thirdly...Did CUB think about all the Mothers of Loss that were out there in the real world that had absolutely no knowledge of CUB"
We thought about NOTHING BUT and still do! Everything that we do we do to support those who have lost children to adoption and to humanize adoption and make it less exploitive for future women faced with the possibility of loosing a child to adoption. Women like myself, MaryAnne and Lee Campbell (a conservative bank president’s wife!) and others exposed ourselves publicly – we were on TV, we organized marches, we wrote letters, we learned how to get bills introduced and to see them through committee, over 500 of us signed a full page newspaper ad in Oregon to get records open there…while you were…in the closet? Asleep? In Denial? If you did not see these things, or saw them and it didn’t register (as one mother just wrote on the CUB list recently, she had seen Carol Schaefer’s “The Other Mother” movie and it didn’t even ”register”)… that’s not our fault! Many. Many DID see our efforts and have been helped by us since 1976.
QUESTION: WHAT HAVE YOU (personally or any others who object to the term Birthmother) DONE OVER THE PAST 30 YEARS FOR WOMEN WHO HAVE LOST CHILDREN TO ADOPTON??
We thought about NOTHING BUT and still do! Everything that we do we do to support those who have lost children to adoption and to humanize adoption and make it less exploitive for future women faced with the possibility of loosing a child to adoption. Women like myself, MaryAnne and Lee Campbell (a conservative bank president’s wife!) and others exposed ourselves publicly – we were on TV, we organized marches, we wrote letters, we learned how to get bills introduced and to see them through committee, over 500 of us signed a full page newspaper ad in Oregon to get records open there…while you were…in the closet? Asleep? In Denial? If you did not see these things, or saw them and it didn’t register (as one mother just wrote on the CUB list recently, she had seen Carol Schaefer’s “The Other Mother” movie and it didn’t even ”register”)… that’s not our fault! Many. Many DID see our efforts and have been helped by us since 1976.
QUESTION: WHAT HAVE YOU (personally or any others who object to the term Birthmother) DONE OVER THE PAST 30 YEARS FOR WOMEN WHO HAVE LOST CHILDREN TO ADOPTON??
Anony wrote: “ I can't see how mothers who have lost a child to adoption through coercion, i.e. not because the child was unwanted and they wanted to get rid of it, can accept being called "birthmothers."
Simple answer: DON’T! No one is forcing anyone to! And in fact I have stated many times, if you don’t like it – change it! But change is not going to come the way you are going about – by arguing with those of us who are comfortable with it – and making illogical arguments.
Change comes first with doing your homework and knowing your facts. Furthermore, CUB exists to serve ALL birthparents: Those who felt pressured to relinquish as well as those who do not, and those whose children were removed involuntarily.
Simple answer: DON’T! No one is forcing anyone to! And in fact I have stated many times, if you don’t like it – change it! But change is not going to come the way you are going about – by arguing with those of us who are comfortable with it – and making illogical arguments.
Change comes first with doing your homework and knowing your facts. Furthermore, CUB exists to serve ALL birthparents: Those who felt pressured to relinquish as well as those who do not, and those whose children were removed involuntarily.
I make the point again. While you are arguing this topic, how many women lost their children to adoption through coercion, lies, and shame? Speaking of mothers of any kind, my own BIRTHmother, refuses contact with me. She refuses to call me her daughter instead she calls me that GIRL or THAT baby. I don't even have a name for her. She has my name though. She thinks her sons now are more important than her DAUGHTER. What would you say to her? You are fiercely arguing over something that is a waste of time. Illegitkid please lets fight the system not with others that believe in the same thing as you do. Adoptive parents are also not the enemy. In many ways they too are victims here. Look at what society tells women about being a mother. Look at all the costs inflicted on adoptive families. Adoption agencies charge a fortune for children. Have you checked out those that advertise to birthmothers? Some of these agencies even offer credit card services, suggest that you mortgage your home and your 401K plan. I have many many adoptive parents as friends who believe in our cause. I was a disease to my birthmother. My adoptive mother worships her daughter though. Is that so bad really? I have her transcripts on my blog. Read them. It is a far cry from what you, MaryAnn, and Adoptalk have to say but I don't want your pity either. I just want her information out there since she is into keeping her image. I so appreciate the fact that you are fiercely protecting yours and others' children. Keep fighting the adoption system, not the natural parents, children, or the adoptive parents. We are all one. Lets join together and fight this monster called adoption.
Illegit - you are perfectly right, I do not know you. I can only comment and reply to what you post here. I am sorry if some of it had been unclear and was misundertsood.
"I totally respect her love and affection for the only mother she remembers explicitly, that being her adoptive mother."
That's GREAT!
Thank you for clarifying that.
But you also say: "Her calling me by my first name, is fine by me. I simply will not be called birthmother, not even by my own child. Period!"
So, it was probably statments like this, without your final clarlification here today, that led me to my confusion in your attitude about what you want to be called, by whom etc. I do not know of anyone who uses the term birthmother in everyday personal speac....like: "Birthmother, would you please pass the milk." It's just awkward. It's more a legal term.
But where some birthmothers have a problem in reunion is how they are introduced to others. The adoptee might need to differentiate and clarify lest there be confusion.
I see all those issues as personal.
If someone wants to set dogmatic demands on a relationship as to what they want to be called, that's their business. From my perepective I think any of us should be damn glad our kids even talk to us and want anything to do with us, let alone worry that they call us...but that's just my personal opinion.
Where I differ from you politically is twofold:
First, on your inistance that CUB wronged you and needs to change their name. How did a name they chose a decade AFTER you lost your daughter cause you - or any of the women of the era you are most concerned with, harm??? I don't get it.
..and, secondly, you now say:
"My main concern and interest is in regards to those women who lost children Post WWII thru the early 1970s."
My main concern is children because they are the most vulnerable and need the most protecting in adoption and anything to do with child welfare. Adoption should be in the best interest of the child first and foremost. When it comes to bithmothers, I do not make any distinctions based on what year they lost a chld to adoption. Whether it was 70, 40 or 4 years ago they have ALL suffered the loss of a child.
I am curious why you see more concern for one particular time period of birthmothers over any others. Women are currently being epxloited for the babies every day, here and overseas. Since there is little we can do to undo the past, I personally focus my energies on preventing future loss and harm.
The support I, and CUB, offer to those who have exprienced the loss of child goes out to all and any, no matter when it took place.
Did you search for your daughter, or did she find you?
2:12 PM
Delete
Post a Comment
"I totally respect her love and affection for the only mother she remembers explicitly, that being her adoptive mother."
That's GREAT!
Thank you for clarifying that.
But you also say: "Her calling me by my first name, is fine by me. I simply will not be called birthmother, not even by my own child. Period!"
So, it was probably statments like this, without your final clarlification here today, that led me to my confusion in your attitude about what you want to be called, by whom etc. I do not know of anyone who uses the term birthmother in everyday personal speac....like: "Birthmother, would you please pass the milk." It's just awkward. It's more a legal term.
But where some birthmothers have a problem in reunion is how they are introduced to others. The adoptee might need to differentiate and clarify lest there be confusion.
I see all those issues as personal.
If someone wants to set dogmatic demands on a relationship as to what they want to be called, that's their business. From my perepective I think any of us should be damn glad our kids even talk to us and want anything to do with us, let alone worry that they call us...but that's just my personal opinion.
Where I differ from you politically is twofold:
First, on your inistance that CUB wronged you and needs to change their name. How did a name they chose a decade AFTER you lost your daughter cause you - or any of the women of the era you are most concerned with, harm??? I don't get it.
..and, secondly, you now say:
"My main concern and interest is in regards to those women who lost children Post WWII thru the early 1970s."
My main concern is children because they are the most vulnerable and need the most protecting in adoption and anything to do with child welfare. Adoption should be in the best interest of the child first and foremost. When it comes to bithmothers, I do not make any distinctions based on what year they lost a chld to adoption. Whether it was 70, 40 or 4 years ago they have ALL suffered the loss of a child.
I am curious why you see more concern for one particular time period of birthmothers over any others. Women are currently being epxloited for the babies every day, here and overseas. Since there is little we can do to undo the past, I personally focus my energies on preventing future loss and harm.
The support I, and CUB, offer to those who have exprienced the loss of child goes out to all and any, no matter when it took place.
Did you search for your daughter, or did she find you?
2:12 PM
Delete
<< Home
