Friday, September 01, 2006
To "Illegit"
...
I am very interested in the 1991 quote by Carole Anderson regarding guardianship. Could you tell me if that was in a CUB Communicator? You states what it was in response to...but where exactly does the quote appear? I have seen it attributed to a Sept. 90 Communicator. Trying to track down the entire article. It is interesting to note that at that time CUB was called anti-adoption. It would really be helpful for me to know that. I would greatly appreciate it. I am NOT being sarcastic.
I am also very seriously struggling to understand the strong very militant focus on the use of one word. I would like to note that I seriously have no idea how many people are logging in as anonymous. It could all be just one person or many. And I have no idea who any of you are or what your "positions" are. You could be head of OUSA or Exiled Mothers, or just individuals with your own opinions, or some fringe lunatics. I don't know!
It is all very confusing to try and understand fully the issue of the "b" word. I know that it is offensive to some mothers and so I don't use it. Some say they use of the word causes them trauma. I merely commented that there are lots of words that have a negative effect on many of us. Some cannot stand the word adoption. Some get upset at the use of “adoptive mother.” I personally have issues around the word loss when not used together with "lost to adoption" and especially when used as "mother of loss." I was then slammed for using the death of my daughter to divert the subject and to gain sympathy. That was very cruel and also untrue as all I was doing is saying that I understood that words can hurt and I am using kindness in not using the word that offends anyone, and was asking for some mutual kindness back. I got the opposite.
Other mothers here, I believe it was you, Illgeit (but I may be wrong because I have not gone back and re-read, nor do I keep track of, exactly who said what) say it really doesn't bother them, but that they are opposed to it, I guess more politically.
Then when I brought up that the word itself is in no way responsible for an increase of infant adoption, instead of having what I define as an intelligent debate on the issues, I was accused of putting you down and acting like I thought you didn’t know that. That I was being “pompous” or some such. Well, I have no idea who you are, let alone what you know or don’t know. I can only respond to what you write here. And quite frankly, I am trying very hard to understand and having trouble. Is the issue with the word a matter of it being personally offensive, or is it political? If it is a political issue, in what way is effecting the current practice of adoption?
I am dead serious in asking these questions. I really want to learn and understand. Again, no sarcasm. When I said that many mothers, myself included, never were able to get acopies of oru surrdner papers ... instead of saying something like: "Yes, that's one of the problems." Or, "Isn't that awful"...instead you came back with a sarcastic answer about being from OZ. WHY? Why can't we discuss things - CIVILLY?
In response to your sarcasric OZ comment, responded “follow the yellow brick road.” I was FRUSTRATED and also very hurt by comments made about my loss, and just plain. Name-calling and sarcasm gets us nowhere. When I tried to have this conversation with Karen Butterbugh via email, she focused instead on my use of capitalization for emphasis. These diversions are very frustrating to someone who is eager to LEARN and understand. I am sorry, and do not say this to start a whole other tangent, but I can well understand why BJ said she had no idea what all the fuss was over. Everyone makes a big fuss but no is able to articulate WHY. No one has ever told me what either the "b" word, or the Inquirey into past treatment of mothers in the 50s to 70 has to do with changing adoption practices of today.
I will only respond to comments -- not angry or sarcastic arguments -- regarding one thing: In what way does the use of the "b" word (or the inquirey) effect current adoption practice. That is the issue.
I am not asking to argue or to put any person or group down, but to understand. If no one here can tell me themsleves, perhsps you could direct me to a link that has an explanation. I have not found this information anywhere. I ask for my edification and also for research for my book.
In searching for an explanation, I came across this OUSA Press release:
Adoption is big business
birthmoms day giftsBirthmother's Day Celebrations and Ceremonies - Why Not?
A natural mother is a mother, she is not an incubator to be used as the source of a baby for adoption. A mother should rightfully be called a "mother" - NEVER "birthmother" ("birth thing"); Likewise a mother should be honored on Mother's Day.
A Personal Response to Birthmother's Day by Bryony Lake
Honor Women as Mothers on Mother's Day - Not as Breeders on "Birthmother's Day"
Some people say they appreciate "birthmothers". These same people will tell you they appreciate toilet paper and tampons. The toilet paper has a purpose and the "birth thing" has a purpose as well. Even a turd has a purpose. Usually the tissue and the shit are discarded and flushed away....
Is this seriously a press release?
I am very interested in the 1991 quote by Carole Anderson regarding guardianship. Could you tell me if that was in a CUB Communicator? You states what it was in response to...but where exactly does the quote appear? I have seen it attributed to a Sept. 90 Communicator. Trying to track down the entire article. It is interesting to note that at that time CUB was called anti-adoption. It would really be helpful for me to know that. I would greatly appreciate it. I am NOT being sarcastic.
I am also very seriously struggling to understand the strong very militant focus on the use of one word. I would like to note that I seriously have no idea how many people are logging in as anonymous. It could all be just one person or many. And I have no idea who any of you are or what your "positions" are. You could be head of OUSA or Exiled Mothers, or just individuals with your own opinions, or some fringe lunatics. I don't know!
It is all very confusing to try and understand fully the issue of the "b" word. I know that it is offensive to some mothers and so I don't use it. Some say they use of the word causes them trauma. I merely commented that there are lots of words that have a negative effect on many of us. Some cannot stand the word adoption. Some get upset at the use of “adoptive mother.” I personally have issues around the word loss when not used together with "lost to adoption" and especially when used as "mother of loss." I was then slammed for using the death of my daughter to divert the subject and to gain sympathy. That was very cruel and also untrue as all I was doing is saying that I understood that words can hurt and I am using kindness in not using the word that offends anyone, and was asking for some mutual kindness back. I got the opposite.
Other mothers here, I believe it was you, Illgeit (but I may be wrong because I have not gone back and re-read, nor do I keep track of, exactly who said what) say it really doesn't bother them, but that they are opposed to it, I guess more politically.
Then when I brought up that the word itself is in no way responsible for an increase of infant adoption, instead of having what I define as an intelligent debate on the issues, I was accused of putting you down and acting like I thought you didn’t know that. That I was being “pompous” or some such. Well, I have no idea who you are, let alone what you know or don’t know. I can only respond to what you write here. And quite frankly, I am trying very hard to understand and having trouble. Is the issue with the word a matter of it being personally offensive, or is it political? If it is a political issue, in what way is effecting the current practice of adoption?
I am dead serious in asking these questions. I really want to learn and understand. Again, no sarcasm. When I said that many mothers, myself included, never were able to get acopies of oru surrdner papers ... instead of saying something like: "Yes, that's one of the problems." Or, "Isn't that awful"...instead you came back with a sarcastic answer about being from OZ. WHY? Why can't we discuss things - CIVILLY?
In response to your sarcasric OZ comment, responded “follow the yellow brick road.” I was FRUSTRATED and also very hurt by comments made about my loss, and just plain. Name-calling and sarcasm gets us nowhere. When I tried to have this conversation with Karen Butterbugh via email, she focused instead on my use of capitalization for emphasis. These diversions are very frustrating to someone who is eager to LEARN and understand. I am sorry, and do not say this to start a whole other tangent, but I can well understand why BJ said she had no idea what all the fuss was over. Everyone makes a big fuss but no is able to articulate WHY. No one has ever told me what either the "b" word, or the Inquirey into past treatment of mothers in the 50s to 70 has to do with changing adoption practices of today.
I will only respond to comments -- not angry or sarcastic arguments -- regarding one thing: In what way does the use of the "b" word (or the inquirey) effect current adoption practice. That is the issue.
I am not asking to argue or to put any person or group down, but to understand. If no one here can tell me themsleves, perhsps you could direct me to a link that has an explanation. I have not found this information anywhere. I ask for my edification and also for research for my book.
In searching for an explanation, I came across this OUSA Press release:
Adoption is big business
birthmoms day giftsBirthmother's Day Celebrations and Ceremonies - Why Not?
A natural mother is a mother, she is not an incubator to be used as the source of a baby for adoption. A mother should rightfully be called a "mother" - NEVER "birthmother" ("birth thing"); Likewise a mother should be honored on Mother's Day.
A Personal Response to Birthmother's Day by Bryony Lake
Honor Women as Mothers on Mother's Day - Not as Breeders on "Birthmother's Day"
Some people say they appreciate "birthmothers". These same people will tell you they appreciate toilet paper and tampons. The toilet paper has a purpose and the "birth thing" has a purpose as well. Even a turd has a purpose. Usually the tissue and the shit are discarded and flushed away....
Is this seriously a press release?
# posted by Senior Mom @ 10:04 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Magic Words
The debate about what we call ourselves, birthmother, first mother, natural mother etc got me thinking about words as magic, black magic and white magic. I just finished the last Harry Potter book which may have contributed to this train of thought as well. Among groups (not individuals) who forbid the use of the term birthmother, the word itself has acquired huge amounts of malevolent power....it is not to be spoken or written for fear of terrible unspecified consequences, like saying the name of the evil wizard Voldemort, "He Who Must Not Be Named". Or on the other side, like the prohibition against saying or writing out the name of God among Orthodox Jews, or the secret names in many indigenous cultures that must not be revealed or spoken because they are too powerful. Words as curses, words as protection from curses, and from harsh reality. "In the Beginning was the Word......" But words only have the power we give them, and I am truly puzzled why this neutral term has been given so much power by some people.
It goes far beyond just not liking or not using the word. Strangely, the word "biological mother" that many of us objected to back in the day does not seem to have the impact of the dreaded "B Word", Birthmother. ( sound of heads exploding from reading that fearsome
and awful word:-) If one reads certain websites or posts it is amazing to note the mental and semantic gymnastics required NOT to actually write out the evil word while referring to why one should not use it. The euphemism "B Word" itself is pretty funny, as if it were an extremely vulgar term like motherfucker; the most dire of curses in a scary VooDoo tale or in a Harry Potter story,; not a harmless term for a woman who has surrendered a child, one of several from which we might choose to express that idea and to differentiate the mother who gave birth from the mother who adopted, when that is needed to make matters clear in writing or speech.
From this, we have people thinking they are performing a revolutionary act just by calling themselves first mothers, or insisting that they are just mothers, and people who so fear the word that they say it triggers some awful psychological reaction in them just to see it in print of hear it spoken. We also have groups determined to "protect" their members from the evil magical consequences of just seeing or hearing the "B Word", as if this were vital to their recovery and mental stability. The ultimate "Big Brother" censorship mentality.
How did this ever get started, or reach such a fever pitch of hysteria?
I think the root of all this is the desire of many surrendering mothers to change the past, to somehow magically make the surrender and adoption to have never happened. The aversion to this word is usually accompanied by protests that one's child was "stolen", or "lost", not surrendered, and a complete lack of any responsibility at all on the part of the surrendering mother for any aspect of the surrender. "It never happened, I didn't do it, and I am just a mother of loss, not a mother who surrendered, not, God Forbid, a Birthmother!"
If someone truly cannot bear to see or hear the words "birth" or "birthmother" they need counseling and help to deal with that phobia, and the root causes of it, not to demand that world tiptoe around them and their wishes to never be reminded or upset. I do not like the words "adopter" and "adoptress", but certainly am not thrown into an emotional tailspin just because others use those words. They are just terms I find distasteful, just as others find the word birthmother distasteful. "Birthmother" is not a magic evil word that causes mothers to surrender, or that "retraumatizes" anyone in the clinical sense. It may upset some, to which I say again, don't use it. But anyone in so fragile a state that a mere word "retraumatizes" or "triggers" a severe emotional reaction does not belong on an email list, they should be under professional care. Real therapy for trauma victims helps them to become desensitized and to deal with their "triggers", which often cannot be avoided in everyday life, not in trying to shield them from certain words, sounds, and images that may be emotionally charged for them but are not so for most people.
If only getting rid of the word birthmother would have all the wonderful magical consequences those who hate and fear it proclaim, I would join them and call myself whatever the magic word of the day was that would produce these wonderful results. But alas, we live in the real world, not the magic world of Harry Potter or Lord Of The Rings, and a word is just a word, no more, no less, and nothing to fear or to censor other's use of it.
maryanne
The debate about what we call ourselves, birthmother, first mother, natural mother etc got me thinking about words as magic, black magic and white magic. I just finished the last Harry Potter book which may have contributed to this train of thought as well. Among groups (not individuals) who forbid the use of the term birthmother, the word itself has acquired huge amounts of malevolent power....it is not to be spoken or written for fear of terrible unspecified consequences, like saying the name of the evil wizard Voldemort, "He Who Must Not Be Named". Or on the other side, like the prohibition against saying or writing out the name of God among Orthodox Jews, or the secret names in many indigenous cultures that must not be revealed or spoken because they are too powerful. Words as curses, words as protection from curses, and from harsh reality. "In the Beginning was the Word......" But words only have the power we give them, and I am truly puzzled why this neutral term has been given so much power by some people.
It goes far beyond just not liking or not using the word. Strangely, the word "biological mother" that many of us objected to back in the day does not seem to have the impact of the dreaded "B Word", Birthmother. ( sound of heads exploding from reading that fearsome
and awful word:-) If one reads certain websites or posts it is amazing to note the mental and semantic gymnastics required NOT to actually write out the evil word while referring to why one should not use it. The euphemism "B Word" itself is pretty funny, as if it were an extremely vulgar term like motherfucker; the most dire of curses in a scary VooDoo tale or in a Harry Potter story,; not a harmless term for a woman who has surrendered a child, one of several from which we might choose to express that idea and to differentiate the mother who gave birth from the mother who adopted, when that is needed to make matters clear in writing or speech.
From this, we have people thinking they are performing a revolutionary act just by calling themselves first mothers, or insisting that they are just mothers, and people who so fear the word that they say it triggers some awful psychological reaction in them just to see it in print of hear it spoken. We also have groups determined to "protect" their members from the evil magical consequences of just seeing or hearing the "B Word", as if this were vital to their recovery and mental stability. The ultimate "Big Brother" censorship mentality.
How did this ever get started, or reach such a fever pitch of hysteria?
I think the root of all this is the desire of many surrendering mothers to change the past, to somehow magically make the surrender and adoption to have never happened. The aversion to this word is usually accompanied by protests that one's child was "stolen", or "lost", not surrendered, and a complete lack of any responsibility at all on the part of the surrendering mother for any aspect of the surrender. "It never happened, I didn't do it, and I am just a mother of loss, not a mother who surrendered, not, God Forbid, a Birthmother!"
If someone truly cannot bear to see or hear the words "birth" or "birthmother" they need counseling and help to deal with that phobia, and the root causes of it, not to demand that world tiptoe around them and their wishes to never be reminded or upset. I do not like the words "adopter" and "adoptress", but certainly am not thrown into an emotional tailspin just because others use those words. They are just terms I find distasteful, just as others find the word birthmother distasteful. "Birthmother" is not a magic evil word that causes mothers to surrender, or that "retraumatizes" anyone in the clinical sense. It may upset some, to which I say again, don't use it. But anyone in so fragile a state that a mere word "retraumatizes" or "triggers" a severe emotional reaction does not belong on an email list, they should be under professional care. Real therapy for trauma victims helps them to become desensitized and to deal with their "triggers", which often cannot be avoided in everyday life, not in trying to shield them from certain words, sounds, and images that may be emotionally charged for them but are not so for most people.
If only getting rid of the word birthmother would have all the wonderful magical consequences those who hate and fear it proclaim, I would join them and call myself whatever the magic word of the day was that would produce these wonderful results. But alas, we live in the real world, not the magic world of Harry Potter or Lord Of The Rings, and a word is just a word, no more, no less, and nothing to fear or to censor other's use of it.
maryanne
# posted by 
: 4:42 AM
: 4:42 AM
I published MaryAnne's comment, with hesitance.
I do not agree with its content or its tone. I think anger on both sides is wrong. I think we need to respect anyone who says a word bothers them I do. I wish others would grant me the same in kind. They don't for the same reason MaryAnne expresses so much anger. We are all filled with anger and lashing our at one another instead of focusing our anger on the PROCESS of adoption. This is very, very sad. It divides us and is totally counterproductive.
There is no need for meanness between us. There is a need to understand that we have all been hurt very deeply.
We have been described collectively to have Post Traumatic Shock Syndrome similar to veterans of war. I think this is a very valid diagnosis. And I do not think that all war vets are "triggered" by the same things. Some are triggered by loud sounds, others by babies' crying. I do not think they would argue like this amongst one another over who's trigger is real.
The strong emphasis on the use of the word may in fact not be the most important thing in the big picture. But certainly neither is aruging against it.
I do not agree with its content or its tone. I think anger on both sides is wrong. I think we need to respect anyone who says a word bothers them I do. I wish others would grant me the same in kind. They don't for the same reason MaryAnne expresses so much anger. We are all filled with anger and lashing our at one another instead of focusing our anger on the PROCESS of adoption. This is very, very sad. It divides us and is totally counterproductive.
There is no need for meanness between us. There is a need to understand that we have all been hurt very deeply.
We have been described collectively to have Post Traumatic Shock Syndrome similar to veterans of war. I think this is a very valid diagnosis. And I do not think that all war vets are "triggered" by the same things. Some are triggered by loud sounds, others by babies' crying. I do not think they would argue like this amongst one another over who's trigger is real.
The strong emphasis on the use of the word may in fact not be the most important thing in the big picture. But certainly neither is aruging against it.
Your said: instead of saying something like: "Yes, that's one of the problems." Or, "Isn't that awful"...instead you came back with a sarcastic answer about being from OZ. WHY?
I live in Australia. That's why. Australia has been euphamistically referred to as Oz for decades. No sarcasm implied.
Anon 1
I live in Australia. That's why. Australia has been euphamistically referred to as Oz for decades. No sarcasm implied.
Anon 1
# posted by : 1:52 PM
: 1:52 PM
Australia has been euphamistically referred to as Oz for decades.
Thanks for claryfying. I have never heard of that that before.
Post a Comment
Thanks for claryfying. I have never heard of that that before.
<< Home
