Sunday, April 10, 2011

Pissed Off And Proud


Yeah, I'm angry! What about it? You think it's "not nice?" Well, too freakin' bad for you. In many situations, anger is not only the appropriate response, it is the strong and righteous one! Do you agree? You might want to check out "One Million Pissed Off Women" on Face Book.

I have a good life. I have a wonderful husband, terrific children, raised and reunited, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, fantastic friends and family and two little terror..er, terriers to lighten my days. So, most of the time, things are copacetic and I am at peace. But then I turn on the news, read my Internet news feed or read on FB and I reach a state of fury in seconds.

Anyone who denies that the reactionaries and the theocrats are waging a political and cultural war against women, with women in their ranks for Crissakes, is in deep denial doo doo. The way to control a culture is to control the family and the way to control the family is to control women and their ability to determine their own reproductive choices. Women have been repressed for thousands of years because we can do something men can't..we bring forth life.

Now, one might wonder what this is doing on a page that centers on the injustices done to unmarried mothers in the last century. Well, isn't the right to keep one's infant and raise it also a reproductive choice? That is the alternative that is never mentioned in the old "abort/adopt" argument put forth by the anti-choice faction. I have NO doubt, whatsoever, that the adoption Industry is standing by and watching this, egging it on, greasing palms, doing a bit of creative directing, and rubbing its avaricious, stained hands in glee.

If we want justice, then we have to be aware that we are struggling, right now, against being taken back to square one where a woman's personal autonomy is concerned. Redefining rape, questioning culpability in miscarriages, defining "uterus" as a dirty word and cutting off access to birth control would send us back to the bad old days of housewives in pearls and heels, subjugated by hubby while Peyton Place seethes in the background.

For those who long for those "good old days" when things were simpler and they had cigarette ads on TV and twin beds in the movies and sitcoms, know that Grace Metalious wrote about the parts of life that no one acknowledged. It took me decades to see the hypocrisy of those days. We were taught lies in American History in school and Communism was Satan's tool and "Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance. Meanwhile, in those legendary, smoke-filled rooms, the witch hunters and the fat cats did their business. McCarthyism was in full bloom, generals advocated use of the Big One, paranoia and discrimination were rampant, but, yeah...those were the good old days, right?

Those were also the days when millions of young women, mostly middle-class, white teens, were shipped off to "stay with an aunt" and prepped to surrender their precious cargo. We were the object of scandalized whispers. No matter what goodness and decency resided in our makeup, we were seen as deviant and delinquent while the boys who were 50% of the conception process got off with a wink and a nudge. It truly sucked to be female, single and pregnant in those days.

There are those who would argue that it's not that much better, today. But, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, women DO have more choices available and less criticism if they choose to be single mothers. Those choices are precious! They are part of the awakening from the Victorian blindness of the early part of the 20th century. They are milestones in the progress of the rights of women that were denied for so long.

Bit by bit, state by state, we are being forced back into that old mold of the compliant wife, responsible for our virginity even if it's taken by force, and prized only for that little piece of tissue being intact when we reach the altar. And it is all because of that same old issue...FEAR. Men don't want women running any part of the show. We scare them because we bring compassion and social awareness to the arena. If they don't control us, I think they fear we will control them. I don't know what to say about the women they have enlisted in their fight that stand by them except that I know some of them, care deeply about a few of them and am appalled and confused by their actions.

I really wish that NOW weren't so laden with those who adopt. Perhaps, if they weren't, they could see our plight as a valid reproduction issue rather than concentrating on birth control and abortion rights. It is interesting that they list adoption as a reproductive right, which it isn't, and yet leave out the right of the single mother to keep and raise her child. NOW has disappointed me badly and I question their leadership in the light of what is going on now.

To me, it looks like we are going to have to roll up our sleeves and keep a sharp eye on what is happening. The only weapon we have is our voice. Speak up, speak out and don't let them get away with this horror. Write letters, emails, talk to people, discuss the issue and be careful with your vote.

Help stop the War On Women.

42 comments:

Sandy Young said...

I absolutely agree with every word of this. I have to wonder, as you say, why women would act in collusion with men against other women. I will never understand that or them. We are first and foremost Women...we can be superior women, and, if we work together, can make the world a better, more civilized place to live. But we will never be anything but second rate men if we allow ourselves to be forced to play on their playing field yet again. We need to woman up!

Lori said...

When is this march and how do you participate - there seems to be a lack of info there - I want to know.

Lizzzarde said...

Thanks for your comments, and for your mention of One Million Pissed Off Women. It never ceases to amaze me how people narrow their mind when it comes to areas of choice. It should ALL a choice. To have the baby or NOT have the baby. To adopt or not adopt. The thing they fail to consider when they (they being pretty much everyone) think of choice is that it encompasses ALL reproductive matters.

Liz Estabrooks - One of the 3 OMPOW founders.

Robin said...

I think it is still in the planning stages, Lori.

Lizzzarde said...

Lori - yes, it is in the planning stages. We just started this page about 4 days ago and it has exploded. We have a planning meeting today and will post a note and a stat
us message. Thanks for your interest!

Liz

Robin said...

I agree with so much, Lizzarde, EXCEPT "choosing" adoption. That is not a legit choice on this blog.

Robin said...

I want to suggest that anyone who wonders about the anti-adoption tone of the page to read "The Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood. This could be our future if things continue in the directions they are going. We're already part way there. The elite use fertile women as breeding stock for their numbers and the elite women are infertile. Sound familiar?

d28bob said...

I listen to "Christian radio" from time to time and note that women are NEVER allowed to discuss Scripture unless they play the "student" at the feet of wise male evangelists. If a denomination won't allow female ministers it is misogynistic in my book.

In the current conservative movement abortion is the new bogeyman, replacing "godless communism" as an emotional trigger.

As for virginity as a noble idea, culturally it is based upon the male anxiety over whether the man's DNA is in the child or whether he was cuckolded... thus the man's ideal is a seraglio with none but eunuchs having access. Primate studies confirm that this is hardwired into the male primate (and thus a genetic basis for warfare.)

Robin said...

Hard wired or not, we came down from the trees long ago. With DNA testing, the subjugation of women is no longer "necessary" for the purpose of discerning genetic heritage. It's been thousands of years. When are we going to mature as a species?

I know what you are saying, Bob. In the dark and middle ages, theologians argued that women didn't possess souls. It was all about the same thing. When all else failed, they turned to the chastity belt.

Linda said...

"Women have been repressed for thousands of years because we can do something men can't..we bring forth life."

BINGO!!!

But, Lizzzarde,adoption is not a right. It is an injustice to a child to lose their natural mother. It is an injustice to the child's natural Mother. Adoption should NEVER be in the same category as women's health.

And no woman should ever think they should have the right to purchase another woman's child.

Adoption is a billion dollar a year industry, run mostly by MEN. I want men (and anyone in government) to stay out of my uterus.

Lizzzarde said...

Hi Robin,

Thanks for the input on the adoption thing. What I was thinking was that it is a woman's right to give her child up for adoption if that is what they chooses.
I understand there are issues with that, and I have for years had a problem with the number of people in this country who buy their children from other countries. But from my position (that admittedly doesn't include education on your side of the issue), it does need to be a FREE choice allowed to women who are pregnant, don't want an abortion, and don't want to keep the baby. I know a woman who made the adoption choice because she knew she did not have the skills, money or ability to raise the child.

I'll do some more reading on your site to help understand your position further. :-)

Liz

Robin said...

Lizzarde, the kindest thing that could have been done for your friend would have been to mentor her, obtain social services support and allow her to learn what she needed to know. Agencies are good at convincing women with unplanned pregnancies that they are incapapble.

The kindest thing that could have been done for her child would have been to either keep the baby or see that a close family member took guardainship so that child could have been raised in his/her family of origin.

Linda is an adoptee. I am a mother, (as is Sandy and Lori)exiled from my two oldest in the early 60's. Might I also suggest Ann Fessler's "The Girls Who Went Away," and Rickie Solinger's "Wake Up Little Suzie." In addition to my blog, go do some of the blogs on my "must read list." Musing Mother and Real Daughter are two excellent ones.

Lizzzarde said...

Thanks again Robin. But you see, it was her choice. No one talked her in to it. No agency. No man. No family member. She had no family member or friend that was prepared or willing to take the child. She carefully chose the family, interviewing them in advance. They gave her the decision-making lead on what kind of contact she wanted to have. These were HER choices. There was no money involved, and it was an open adoption.

I do appreciate what you ladies are doing and how you are educating people, but I also think that the reality is that sometimes a woman just doesn't want to keep the child and wants to give it up for adoption. And for those cases, we need to honor their personal choice.

But that's just my opinion, never having been in your position.

Peace,
Liz

Robin said...

Lizzarde, that is why we are such major supporters of birth control. If a woman decides to carry a pregnancy to term, then that baby is her responsibility. I have talked to enough adult adoptees to know that women are underinformed by society as a whole. No one is going to tell a mother that her child may, in all probability, suffer from image,self-esteem and abandonment issues. Adoption is a social myth that has been pushed on the public the way the tobacco companies used to push cigarettes. It took a while for people to learn how harmful smoking is. We are, mothers and adoptees, trying to educate a whole society that one of its favorite myths, the warm, fuzzy adoption, is a recipe for life-long pain, confusion and regret.

I can't agree with you that your friend was not, in some way, influenced if, in no other way, by lack of information. Keep reading.

Anonymous said...

I find it interesting how some people are so against international adoption but are o.k. with domestic adoption. It just shows how the average person is brainwashed to think that adoption is BEAUTIFUL and an equal choice.

There is nothing beautiful about losing your mother and being handed (sold) to strangers.

Not only does an adoptee lose her parents, she loses her original identity and equality as a United States' citizen.

This country needs to stop funding the adoption industry and needs to fund family-preservation and help women in "crisis pregnancies" to keep their babies.

Robin said...

I can only quote many of my peers.."Like suicide, surrender to adoption is a permanent solution to a temporary problem." Rather than becoming like men and not taking the responsibility for children we conceive, we need to show the way and take responsibility for our actions and our missteps, such as not using BC. I would have given my right arm to have that responsibility.

Lizzzarde said...

Well, thank you ladies for giving me something to consider. :-)

Peace,

Robin said...

Thank you, L, for taking the time to read what we have to say and considering it.

;o)
Robin

Linda said...

I am pro-choice.And that means INFORMED choice. Pregnant women are vulnerable, especially when they are young and are struggling financially.

The adoption industry coerces women today, just as they did during the baby scoop era. They do not tell them that surrendering their children to people who are deemed "better" parents because they have money the consequences of that "decision". They do not tell these women that they will be at a higher risk of depression, suicide, drug abuse, and SECONDARY INFERTILITY. They do not tell these women that there children will suffer life long consequences due to losing their natural mother and being raised by strangers.

They won't tell them the truth, because if they did, no one would surrender their children, and no money would be made. There is no "choice" when there is false information.

The adoption industry and their anti-choice supporters are anti-woman, and anti-child. Period.

I am very careful as to which women's organizations I support- especially financially.

I could never support an organization that supports a woman's right to choose adoption. It is anti-woman, and anti-child. Affordable and easy access to birth control and abortion is what women need. Not the life long ramifications to herself and her surrendered child from adoption. Adoption is NOT a loving choice- not for the mother, or her child.

Amyadoptee said...

I agree wholeheartedly on this post. Oh man, that is what is so disheartening about this whole mess. Women's groups have failed to support women's who want to be married and raise their child along with the women who want to raise their children. They also diss women like me who have suffered at the hands of their ex with parental alienation. That is not just a man's issue but a woman's issue now. As long as we ignore a whole subset of women, we will never move forward. I am just as concerned as you are on the attack of women's health issues as well.

Von said...

"the adoption Industry is standing by and watching this, egging it on, greasing palms, doing a bit of creative directing, and rubbing its avaricious, stained hands in glee" I personally find it hard to believe they are standing by, from this perspective it looks remarkably like driving it.

Robin said...

I see a lot of that, as well, Von. I think it is a symbiotic relationship between the religious right and the adoption industry. One hand washes the other.

Chris said...

I am a surrendering mother and very much pro-choice...in all areas of a woman's life. I do not believe a woman should be forced to keep her child, no more than she should be forced to remain pregnant. As sad and as awful as that sounds (fully informed,free choice to surrender)..yes there are women who feel that way, they have always lived amongst us, and they will continue into the future, though they are a very, very small percentage of expectant/delivered mothers. I want to see those type of women fully informed, all the way around..lengthen the time to surrender and if she still chooses to surrender, so be it. Then she should immediately get on birth control and if she has determined herself to never be a mother..do the right thing, do not make another child suffer..have herself sterilized.
I never want to live to see women fully made into Breeders again, so as to be the baby vessels for those who lust for newborn flesh. I'm sick to death of men discussing our collective Uteri, as if separate objects from our female bodies. I'm sick to death of men making laws as to what we shall or shall not do with our female bodies. I see it quite unequal when male's reproductive parts/organs are not part of a national discussion at the same time that ours is..they are just as much a part of the procreation process, as we women are. Yet women carry the full burden of procreation, even today..as recently witnessed by the current debacle over Planned Parenthood. Why are men untouchable, but we have every part of our bodies discussed, dissected, disrespected..from the hair on our heads, to the breasts on our chests..to include our vaginas and uteri and how many, how intense or non-existent our orgasms may be. Men have gotten away with this..because we women have allowed it..it's time to fight back, enough is enough. And any woman that stands alongside the man who would lust for/demand full control of all womens bodies...she is worse then the man/men..she is the enemy of free-thinking, free-willed women and should be treated as such..The Enemy. Time for politeness and nice words are over. As the men say "Nice guys finish last"..well I do believe the same for women.."Nice gals finish last". Time to take the gloves off, call an ace an ace and a spade a spade!! Ladies..next year will be the tell-all, better to be prepared and expect a fight for all women's lives. Not wait for the last minute..it will be too late.
I'm glad to see a group called "Pissed Off Women"..it's about time! I sincerely hope whether it is that group or various groups like this will make the change for women that is sorely needed today. The NOW organization, is as useless as tits on a bull. I for one did not hear one word from NOW in regards to the Planned Parenthood Assault recently. Maybe they did, but I didn't hear or see it. Their silence spoke volumes to me.

Robin said...

That's what I mean about responsibility, Chris and the ultimate effect on the adoptee. Either use birth control, abort or find a way for that child to remain close and loved by the family of origin. I feel so bad for the kids of the women who truly do not want their child. It also makes me doubly angry for those of us who DID want our child.

Robin said...

PS: and sterilization isn't a bad idea, either, if it is the woman's choice never to have children.

Children don't come on our time table because nature happens. Each child should be welcome, planned or unplanned.

Lizzzarde said...

Okay, I know it seemed like I was done, but I do have a few more things I would like to say. I've been following the comments...

I know your fear that we are being used as vessels, but how exactly does making a woman keep her baby when she decides to have it support a woman's right to choose motherhood or not. Maybe the woman just cannot make herself have an abortion, but she does not want to be mother. So she decides to give birth and then give the baby up for adoption. How is forcing her to keep that child, or keep it in the family of origin, better for HER? I'm sorry, but I've known plenty of people who have been adopted, and they are perfectly happy, healthy, adjusted folks.

When we settle on an extreme version of anything, people are harmed. And forcing a woman to keep a baby is no better than forcing a woman to HAVE a baby.

As for 'being responsible with birth control." Ladies, birth control FAILS. It fails. There is exactly ONE method of birth control that is 100%, and that is abstinence. You are judging women who are faced with unwanted pregnancies! Just because a woman ends up pregnant, please do not presume she was being irresponsible. From the time I was 17 I took birth control, and I was so fanatical about wanting to wait to become a parent I took it every single day at EXACTLY the same time. But it failed and I got pregnant! It happens.

And as for sterilization - a woman cannot get sterilized until she is 25. Yes ladies, that IS the reality. No, it is not a law, but try to find a doctor who will do it. I live in a small town in rural Oregon and I know two young ladies under 25, both of whom have 2 children. They CANNNOT find a doctor to sterilize them!

I get your position, and I agree that we do have to be careful. But Robin, it isn't adoption that is going to bring Handmaid's Tale scenario to life. It is the irresponsible and reckless voting of the masses of people who continue to elect people who don't support women's issues, and the fact that our government continues to make our reproductive choices their business. THAT's a bigger concern.

Peace
Liz

Robin said...

Liz...Adoption is a $1.6 billion a year industry. It discriminates and is elitist and has caused more pain and suffering than anyone knows. I works, hand in glove, with its biggest proponents, the religious right and the ultra-conservative, and yes, the adoption industry can bring about that kind of society. They have one of the most powerful lobbies in DC, the National Council For Adoption.

I really wish that more people would listen to those of us who have lived this, adopted adults and mothers of loss. Our position isn't extreme...what was done to us was. We were and are part of a social engineering project that began many decades ago. Hitler would have been proud at the way we were coerced and kicked to the curb.

Usually, I do not allow any pro-adoption comments here, but have allowed yours because your cause fits ours better than you know. You are also very new to our truth.

This society has been brainwashed to see our infants as "blank slates" that will not be affected by surrender. But they are part of us, we carry THEIR DNA inside us long after they are born. They carry more than our eye color or shape of the nose. They carry our talents, our personalities (for good or for ill), our likes and our dislikes. Even after separations of decades, the synchronicity in our lives is amazing. They grow up feeling like square pegs trying to force themselves into a round hole.

If a mother MUST exercise her right not to parent and there are no family members to take the child, then there should be legal guardianships with no legalized lies, altered birth certificates and fantasy "as if born to" families. They don't work.

To me, we need to, as Sandy says, "Woman up," and stop trying to be like men. Birth Control, used correctly, is still 99% effective. It is not unrealistic to consider abstinence until one is "ready" to parent. Oh, and babies happen whether anyone is ready or not. Even planned pregnancies are met with fears and insecurities. That's real life.

Perhaps, if a woman is not wanting to abort, she might want to talk to some adult adoptees. She might reconsider.

Being an adult means being fully responsible for ALL your actions. And when an innocent life is involved, that of a full-term infant, then your responsibility is doubled. There is also the consideration of allowing the father or his family the opportunity to take the child. He is still a part of the equation.

It is hard for me to get my head around the idea of any woman feeling "forced" to love, keep and care for her own child. I guess there are some, as Chris said, but I cannot identify.

Robin said...

That should have read "IT works, hand in glove....."

joy said...

Yes, birth control fails and some people are even allergic to spermicide. I do believe that *some* women really don't want their children, I have seen it too. I do think they should be encouraged to abort. It is so cruel to the child.

Robin said...

That's the point I was trying to make, Joy. No one educates the surrendering mother on the probable damage to her child. They all think that "a loving family" will be enough. We know better..especially those of you who were adopted.

Cassi said...

Robin,

I hope it's okay, I linked to this post. I just really believe that its impossible to support both women's rights and adoption together. Which, I know, of course, you don't do, but I'm worried that the supporters of this new group, which I did join, will be supporting adoption while trying to fight for women's rights, and I just can't see how that works in any siutation.

Robin said...

Hi Cassi...it's OK and I understand your concern. But women's rights are a part of it for us and there are those who understand and those who don't. Maybe we can educate, but I still have to carry their message too, because, for the most part, it is mine.

Cassi said...

Robin,

Thank you.

Educating is all I'm trying to do in the best way I can. As I said on Facebook, I'm not trying to convince anyone to support or not support the page, I just want them to think hard about women's rights and adoption.

Myst said...

To put it very simply, if a woman decides to go full term then she is that child's mother and is therefore responsible for that child. I have known many women who were "not ready" and "didn't want to be mothers" but went on to be fantastic mothers. Sure they needed a firm word at the beginning but had they been encouraged to place for adoption, they would never have been given that chance, which personally I feel would have been criminal.

By making excuses for them and waving adoption in front of them as an out for them is encouraging them to NOT be responsible for their choices. How is giving up a child for adoption helping her be a woman? In fact I would say she is betraying herself and her child and going against, in some respects the core of being a woman! Adoption was made by men for their own purposes all the way back to ancient Roman times when adoption was used to progress political careers of MEN; to advance wealth of MEN; to ensure there was someone to look after the elderly in their old age. To learn the skills of... MEN. Adoption was never created with the child and mother in mind so for a woman to encourage adoption she is in fact betraying her own kind by supporting something that is starkly ANTI nature.

I love how feminist movements like to use certain issues to further their gain but they never shake the shackles of being bound by MEN. My mother was a faminist in her day and has raised three strong women not afraid to speak out. I come from a country which was the first in the world to give women the vote...I know true feminism when I see it. But the watered down movements of today make me want to remove myself from being known as a feminist and women's rights, its embarrassing! There is too much focus on the small issues when there are so many larger issues at hand to be dealt with.

As far as adoption goes, making a woman take resposnibility for her child by becoming a mother is a human thing. It has NOTHING to do with reproductive choice. Reproductive choice happens before one covceives or in the early stages of pregnancy. After that, it is all about life and the natural stages of life. Anyone encouraging adoption or persuading a mother to give up on her child is not fighting for women's rights but the rights of individuals who want something they have NO RIGHT to.

Robin said...

Well put, Myst. That is what I was getting at. I would have given anything to have taken the responsibility, but I was not allowed to do so. It's using adoption as birth control and that is really wrong on so many levels.

An exploited mother said...

Lizzzarde, you are wrong on one point: Adoption is NOT an alternative to abortion. The decisions can only be made MONTHS APART. When a mother is pregnant, her choices are to have an abortion or become a mother. ONLY after she has recovered from birth can she make an informed decision about adoption.

I wonder, did your friend recover from birth first? Or, did she form an attachment to people hoping to adopt, while she was still pregnant, thus allowing them to emotionally influence her decision. This is called emotional coercion. It is wrong, and it is unethical, and there are laws against it in more-enlightened nations such as Australia which protects expectant mothers against coercion.

"I know a woman who made the adoption choice because she knew she did not have the skills, money or ability to raise the child."

And why didn't someone provide her with those skllls, money, and ability? Why wasn't she given the chance to recover from birth first (at least 6 weeks) with a doula and mother-mentor, to learn about motherhood before she threw away her child forever? The other thing to note: there is no such legal thing as an "open adoption," only the informal promise of such: her "open adoption" could close at any moment and she would have no recourse, because adoption - closed or open - is still adoption. Legally, she is still "dead to" her baby in the eyes of the law, and her baby "born to" the people who adopted.

Adoption is a war against young, poor, and vulnerable mothers. The same lobby groups which fight against abortion rights also fight to enact laws which permit practices leading to coerced surrenders. There is NO protection against coercion for an expectant mother.

I hope you spend some time here, and on other sites, to learn more about the adoption industry. We have a term for what they do to women: Reproductive Exploitation.

Cedar said...

Lizzzarde, may i contact you via FB or email and suggest you to some recommended articles on the adoption industry and how it exploits women?

maybe said...

The arugment that some women truly don't want their children and that adoption is the solution for this situation only diverts attention from the fact that most women DO want their children. When you talk to women who say they have no choice but adoption and you carefully examine the underlying issues you will typically find someone who lacks adequate financial and social supports. This is what needs to be corrected - we need a safety net to empower these women to keep their children.

Are their women who truly don't have any connection to their baby, either during pregnancy or after birth? Yes. Are their familes that are broken beyond repair by mental health and substance abuse problems? Yes. But I think they are the exception and not the rule. For them some type of adoption or guardianship may be the solution. However, we shouldn't use outliers as the basis for proping up the domestic infant adoption industry.

I hope feminists can sit back and take a more careful look at the social engieering system known as "adoption." It truly is a bizarre system that endorses the falsifaction of public records in the form of amended birth certificates and encourages women to hide in shame from the children to whom they give birth. The industry-promoted idea of confidentiality and sealed records locks women into a prison of shame. Sadly, some women are never able to escape.

Lizzzarde, please keep an open mind and keep reading here and on the blogs of mothers and adoptees. You may be suprised to hear what people really have to say about adoption when they are able to speak freely and without regard to the generally accepted adoption mythology that permeates the U.S.

Jeanine said...

This so touches on my firm belief that adoption is a feminist issue. The only reason I can think of for NOW to continue to turn their head on this is because the leadership are either adopters or want-to-be adopters. I know that’s probably not fair but it’s the best rationalization I can come up with for their silence.

Adoption is about those who have coveting something of those who don’t, a child. Economics is the key and those that have go to great lengths to covertly and overtly influence mothers who don’t have. You can continue your education, your child can have things you may not be able to provide, etc.

Sure. Many groups like to call adoption a choice but it’s not a choice when money is the driver, when expectant mothers aren’t ensured independent legal counsel, aren’t ensured independent mental health counseling, aren’t ensured undirected counseling about choices, aren’t ensured counseling about social programs that may help them over the ‘need’ hump after delivery, etc.

Choice sounds and looks good in sound bites and on paper but is a fallacy in reality.

heatherrainbow said...

Liz:

A mother doesn't have the Right to choose adoption, she gives up all her rights of her rights to her child for adoption.

People do not have the right to adopt, they have the privilege (money, power, etc) to adopt.

Re: women who choose adoption: If they are given the support they need to make another decision (ie. parent) I have yet to find a mother who would still "choose" adoption. Mothers don't even have their own lawyer. Mothers who choose adoption don't have a right to an open adoption. They have nothing but broken promises.

Controlling tactics used by agencies and some prospective adopters: http://reformadoption.com/Advocacy/advocacy.shtml

You stated: They gave her the decision-making lead on what kind of contact she wanted to have.

This is not legally enforceable, unless she wanted a closed adoption. No adoption is legally enforceable, because there are too few lawyers willing to enforce voluntary open adoptions.

Anonymous said...

Lizzzarde said: ..."but I've known plenty of people who have been adopted, and they are perfectly happy, healthy, adjusted folks."

You have NO idea what you are talking about. Most adopted people do NOT discuss their attachment/abandonment issues. We are taught very young that nobody really wants to hear it and we keep it to ourselves. By adulthood we have the "happy well-adjusted adoptee" act down pat. It's a facade for many of us. We've learned it's not safe to share and that we will be labled the "bad adoptee" or the "bitter adoptee", etc., etc.

I'm so sick of the non-adopted speaking for the adopted.

-Mara

Anonymous said...

This reminds me of an article I read years ago along the lines of "feminism and adoption". The author (who had an excellent job with a progressive women's magazine)had suffered from low self esteem beginning from when she began to struggle with infirtility. She felt like a failure as a woman due to her inability to get pregnent... (hello? human resources? does she read your magazine?) Long story short, she adopted a baby and her self esteem problems were resolved. And apparently that was all that mattered and she didn't want other women with low self esteem to continue to feel worthless because adoption is so, so complicated and expensive. To her, THAT was the women's rights issue. It was very ego centric... no real mention of the baby (who I guess will have low self esteem until she's a legal parent) and certainly no mention of the baby's natural mother.... just "me, me, me" as if the whole story took place in a vaccum with no one else affected but the writer. Also there was no recognition of the fact that the "adoption" article was being written by the ONLY person (possibly other than her husband) for whom the adoption was an absolute gain with no losses as all. (sorry anon... google trouble) Clare