This young woman seems to have a depth of insight that many don't find for years. It also helps that her name is what I named my firstborn..even spelled the same. This is Kismet. I am enthralled by her words and her perceptions. Everyone who wants affirmation, especially the adopted person, should read at http://umbliclychallenged.blogspot.com/.
It was through reading her blog that I decided to start one of my own. Thank you, Sarah.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Ahhh, Divisiveness
I don't claim to be an expert or a sociologist, what I have written has received very narrow publication, and I am not a doctor and I don't play one on TV. BUT, I think I have seen into the muddled face of divisiveness within the adoption activism community and have gleaned an insight or two. What I have seen are human beings dealing with two of the most human failings there are, egocentricity and fear and the upshot of these things which is defensive anger.
Fear is the Big Nasty. It's what pushes us to compromise when we shouldn't, that tells us not to "rock the boat," that only speaks what the establishment wants to hear and clothes the fearful in a faux cloak of adoption-industry and adopter-approved "righteousness." It keeps us from facing the truth of our deepest inner pain and insecurities, letting us float in an activism limbo on a shallow barge in the river of Denial. It allows us to hold on to outmoded but AAC-approved ideas and ideology and causes us to attack when someone thinks outside the conventional adoption box. When emmeshed in this fear, the only "reform" that is possible is that which is approved by the very entity that we see as being in need of reformation.
Then there is the "I, Me" factor. Those, who often refer to themselves as "The Old Guard," who have coasted along on the, assumed, "top of the heap" don't want to give up the adulation of their so-called (self-annointed) "expertise" in the world of adoption. They might not get very many ego strokes from the mom or adopted person who is in favor of justice, redress and preservation of the original family, but boy, do they love the kudos of adopters, the industry and the timid and on those shaky foundations, they build their "kingdoms." The egocentric among us fear evolution and change because that is not the premise on which they based their superior standing. I have seen such people as these strike out with astonishing vitriol against anyone with a new idea or attitude and, by all means, don't confuse them with facts.
Back to fear. There are also many moms and adopted people who just don't want to have their house of cards fall down. They have built their self-validation on the myths of being "chosen," "making a decision/choice," and they don't want to have to face the fact that there is and was unnecessary pain. It's easier for a lot of adopted people to hate all moms. It's easier for some moms to "fear" contact with the children they say they "gave up" (God, I hate that term) for their own best interests and to keep their "shameful secret." Moms of this ilk have built a tenuous persona on the adoption industry's pallative of there being some form of heroics involved in surrender. Adopted people find it easier to think of their mothers as uncaring and rejecting rather than mothers who truly loved them and still do. It upsets the known quantities in their lives and causes them to question what is fearful to question.
I could go on and on, but I think you get my drift. As long as there are people who are immersed in the idea of their own importance, as long as there are people who react out of fear rather than facing the facts, we will have factions and disputes and the lack of cohesiveness that is just what the industry likes to see. When we can put aside our fears and self-interests, then we can get something done.
I see a lot of us, all over the world, embroiled in this divisiveness. The UK has a horrible feud going on right now, with vicious vendettas directed at both organizations and individuals, challenges and very annoying disruptions of many of the US-based adoption boards (it still boggles the mind about what just a few self-involved troublemakers can do). Two of the most visible organizations in the US are at odds over language and personalities. Ann Fessler's book, "The Girls Who Went Away" seems to be a major threat to some of the earlier published authors whose works did not receive the attention and positive reviews outside the adoption arena that Ms. Fessler's book has, deservedly, received.
Ego, fear and their side-kick, anger, can break us if we don't start thinking with the good brains that our maker gave us and face our demons in the company of our peers. We shouldn't fear positive evolution and we're never to old to learn new tricks.
Think About It.
Robin
Fear is the Big Nasty. It's what pushes us to compromise when we shouldn't, that tells us not to "rock the boat," that only speaks what the establishment wants to hear and clothes the fearful in a faux cloak of adoption-industry and adopter-approved "righteousness." It keeps us from facing the truth of our deepest inner pain and insecurities, letting us float in an activism limbo on a shallow barge in the river of Denial. It allows us to hold on to outmoded but AAC-approved ideas and ideology and causes us to attack when someone thinks outside the conventional adoption box. When emmeshed in this fear, the only "reform" that is possible is that which is approved by the very entity that we see as being in need of reformation.
Then there is the "I, Me" factor. Those, who often refer to themselves as "The Old Guard," who have coasted along on the, assumed, "top of the heap" don't want to give up the adulation of their so-called (self-annointed) "expertise" in the world of adoption. They might not get very many ego strokes from the mom or adopted person who is in favor of justice, redress and preservation of the original family, but boy, do they love the kudos of adopters, the industry and the timid and on those shaky foundations, they build their "kingdoms." The egocentric among us fear evolution and change because that is not the premise on which they based their superior standing. I have seen such people as these strike out with astonishing vitriol against anyone with a new idea or attitude and, by all means, don't confuse them with facts.
Back to fear. There are also many moms and adopted people who just don't want to have their house of cards fall down. They have built their self-validation on the myths of being "chosen," "making a decision/choice," and they don't want to have to face the fact that there is and was unnecessary pain. It's easier for a lot of adopted people to hate all moms. It's easier for some moms to "fear" contact with the children they say they "gave up" (God, I hate that term) for their own best interests and to keep their "shameful secret." Moms of this ilk have built a tenuous persona on the adoption industry's pallative of there being some form of heroics involved in surrender. Adopted people find it easier to think of their mothers as uncaring and rejecting rather than mothers who truly loved them and still do. It upsets the known quantities in their lives and causes them to question what is fearful to question.
I could go on and on, but I think you get my drift. As long as there are people who are immersed in the idea of their own importance, as long as there are people who react out of fear rather than facing the facts, we will have factions and disputes and the lack of cohesiveness that is just what the industry likes to see. When we can put aside our fears and self-interests, then we can get something done.
I see a lot of us, all over the world, embroiled in this divisiveness. The UK has a horrible feud going on right now, with vicious vendettas directed at both organizations and individuals, challenges and very annoying disruptions of many of the US-based adoption boards (it still boggles the mind about what just a few self-involved troublemakers can do). Two of the most visible organizations in the US are at odds over language and personalities. Ann Fessler's book, "The Girls Who Went Away" seems to be a major threat to some of the earlier published authors whose works did not receive the attention and positive reviews outside the adoption arena that Ms. Fessler's book has, deservedly, received.
Ego, fear and their side-kick, anger, can break us if we don't start thinking with the good brains that our maker gave us and face our demons in the company of our peers. We shouldn't fear positive evolution and we're never to old to learn new tricks.
Think About It.
Robin
Why Do I Object? (more on the "b" word)
"I prefer using birth mother as two words. It describes the specific type of mother, just as adoptive mother does. First mother, natural mother - if that is what other women choose to use, fine."
"Cookie" posted this and I had to speak to this point. I don't choose to use any term other than just "Mother," because that is what I am. It is not necessary or imperative for me to validate the assumed motherhood of adopters by qualifying and categorizing myself. I sometimes use the term "natural" when it seems to be useful, but any prefix is a qualifier and I am done with having my motherhood deleted or qualified to suit the needs of others, including adopters who are the ones that really like the "B" word. I choose NOT to use the term "mother" at all when referring to adopters. I figure when they stop calling us "Birth (non)"Mothers," I'll stop calling them adoptresses.
The fact of the matter is this. Whether you use all one word or separate the two, "birth mother" is still a title that was given to us by others to "keep us in our place." WE didn't choose it. If you want to understand why the term is demeaning and a use of language to keep us in a mode that puts us outside the realm of motherhood and the lives of our children, please read "Why 'Birthmother' Means 'Breeder'," by Diane Turski. Here is the link.
http://www.exiledmothers.com/adoption_facts/Why_Birthmother_Means_Breeder.html
Rejecting the "B" term is not just a matter of attempts to be "persnickety" (as my Grandmother used to say) or to cause devisiveness, but to cut through the smoke screen of language and get to the heart of the truth. Just like those involved in the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's, we have learned that language is powerful and important. What you call yourself is how you see yourself and how others see you.
So Cookie, you call yourself whatever you choose to call yourself, but let your sisters do the same for themselves. Just please remember that you didn't choose that name...it was chosen and first used by an adopter. And for Heaven's sake, don't think we are afraid of the term. It doesn't scare me...it pisses me off..BIG TIME, if someone tries to use it on me. 44 years ago, I was "deleted" from my children's lives and from the sure knowledge of my own heart. It won't happen again, by God. If it means taking a stand on the language I use to describe myself and my sister moms, then so be it.
Robin Westbrook
True Mother of Four
http://www.originsusa.org
http://www.keepyourbaby.com/
http://groups.msn.com/Anti-AdoptionTruth
Reformers who are always compromising, have not yet grasped the idea that truth is the only safe ground to stand upon.
- Elizabeth Cady Stanton
"Cookie" posted this and I had to speak to this point. I don't choose to use any term other than just "Mother," because that is what I am. It is not necessary or imperative for me to validate the assumed motherhood of adopters by qualifying and categorizing myself. I sometimes use the term "natural" when it seems to be useful, but any prefix is a qualifier and I am done with having my motherhood deleted or qualified to suit the needs of others, including adopters who are the ones that really like the "B" word. I choose NOT to use the term "mother" at all when referring to adopters. I figure when they stop calling us "Birth (non)"Mothers," I'll stop calling them adoptresses.
The fact of the matter is this. Whether you use all one word or separate the two, "birth mother" is still a title that was given to us by others to "keep us in our place." WE didn't choose it. If you want to understand why the term is demeaning and a use of language to keep us in a mode that puts us outside the realm of motherhood and the lives of our children, please read "Why 'Birthmother' Means 'Breeder'," by Diane Turski. Here is the link.
http://www.exiledmothers.com/adoption_facts/Why_Birthmother_Means_Breeder.html
Rejecting the "B" term is not just a matter of attempts to be "persnickety" (as my Grandmother used to say) or to cause devisiveness, but to cut through the smoke screen of language and get to the heart of the truth. Just like those involved in the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's, we have learned that language is powerful and important. What you call yourself is how you see yourself and how others see you.
So Cookie, you call yourself whatever you choose to call yourself, but let your sisters do the same for themselves. Just please remember that you didn't choose that name...it was chosen and first used by an adopter. And for Heaven's sake, don't think we are afraid of the term. It doesn't scare me...it pisses me off..BIG TIME, if someone tries to use it on me. 44 years ago, I was "deleted" from my children's lives and from the sure knowledge of my own heart. It won't happen again, by God. If it means taking a stand on the language I use to describe myself and my sister moms, then so be it.
Robin Westbrook
True Mother of Four
http://www.originsusa.org
http://www.keepyourbaby.com/
http://groups.msn.com/Anti-AdoptionTruth
Reformers who are always compromising, have not yet grasped the idea that truth is the only safe ground to stand upon.
- Elizabeth Cady Stanton
Saturday, September 02, 2006
About The "B" Word
God knows there has been enough controversy on this subject, what to call the mother of children lost to adoption, to fill a few blogs. It can cause such rage in those who cling to the "status quo" when they come up against someone like me who refuses to be a "good birfmudder."
I want to say to them, "Honey, you can call YOURSELF whatever you like, but I am a MOTHER, not a disposable incubator or a walking uterus." To me, that is what the title means and how it feels. Contrary to some specious and unresearched claims, this word was first used by author and adopter, Pearl S. Buck. It was used to "differentiate" between the adopter and the mother of the adopted child.
The title of this blog is "Motherhood Deleted" and that is, essentially, what the legal lies of adoption and the relegation of the mother of loss to the realm of a birth-thing have attempted to do to us. However, we have learned, through our grief and our awakenings, that you can put any appellation or expectation you want out there, but Ma Nature, God/dess, The Cosmos, whatever you believe is in charge of life, made us mothers and all the legal paperwork and judicial mumbo-jumbo and tweaking of our title cannot take the motherhood that is firmly entrenched in every cell and atom of our bodies and minds by that power.
So, to the good, little beemommies, who "know their place," knock yourself out diminishing yourself and pleasing the adopters and adoption establishment. But there is no need to be so threatened if there are those of us who have outgrown that kind of thing. I mean, is it any skin off your tush if we ask not be be called a "b-thing?" Of what are you afraid? Why the rants and the attacks? Where is the adult ability to "agree to disagree?" How can it hurt you NOT to call us all "b-things?"
I'd really like to understand why and so would a lot of other people.
Robin Westbrook
True Mother of Four
http://www.originsusa.org
http://www.keepyourbaby.com/
http://groups.msn.com/Anti-AdoptionTruth
Reformers who are always compromising, have not yet grasped the idea that truth is the only safe ground to stand upon.
- Elizabeth Cady Stanton
I want to say to them, "Honey, you can call YOURSELF whatever you like, but I am a MOTHER, not a disposable incubator or a walking uterus." To me, that is what the title means and how it feels. Contrary to some specious and unresearched claims, this word was first used by author and adopter, Pearl S. Buck. It was used to "differentiate" between the adopter and the mother of the adopted child.
The title of this blog is "Motherhood Deleted" and that is, essentially, what the legal lies of adoption and the relegation of the mother of loss to the realm of a birth-thing have attempted to do to us. However, we have learned, through our grief and our awakenings, that you can put any appellation or expectation you want out there, but Ma Nature, God/dess, The Cosmos, whatever you believe is in charge of life, made us mothers and all the legal paperwork and judicial mumbo-jumbo and tweaking of our title cannot take the motherhood that is firmly entrenched in every cell and atom of our bodies and minds by that power.
So, to the good, little beemommies, who "know their place," knock yourself out diminishing yourself and pleasing the adopters and adoption establishment. But there is no need to be so threatened if there are those of us who have outgrown that kind of thing. I mean, is it any skin off your tush if we ask not be be called a "b-thing?" Of what are you afraid? Why the rants and the attacks? Where is the adult ability to "agree to disagree?" How can it hurt you NOT to call us all "b-things?"
I'd really like to understand why and so would a lot of other people.
Robin Westbrook
True Mother of Four
http://www.originsusa.org
http://www.keepyourbaby.com/
http://groups.msn.com/Anti-AdoptionTruth
Reformers who are always compromising, have not yet grasped the idea that truth is the only safe ground to stand upon.
- Elizabeth Cady Stanton
How To Begin??
This is my first try at a blog. I am not sure what it should say or how it should say it. I am sure that I will learn as I go on.
Suffice it to say, I do have a message and that message is not a popular or welcome one for a large number of my fellow citizens of this country. That message is that adoption and the adoption industry have hurt a large number of people, mothers and their lost children, unnecessarily and without apology or reason. The institution of adoption needs a hard and honest assessment that includes the realities rather than the warm and fuzzy mythologies.
Why did this happen? Why is the idea of motherhood still seen as without value if the mother is single? Why has money entered the picture so prominently? What makes people feel they are entitled to the infants of other women just because they want them or cannot have their own? Why are children and their mothers seen as interchangable entities and what can be done to change that? What can be done for the mothers still in unresolved grief and the adopted people suffering from the Primal Wound?
Is adoption an attempt by the powers-that-be to alter the social structure? Can we be involved in eugenics, just as Hitler and his henchmen were in WWII? Is the entire idea of adoption a result of the patriarchial ideas of what constitutes the right to rear children? You tell me.
I know that, as a teenager who was deserted by her first love, forced by her parents to surrender, raped by a "friend" and forced, again, to surrender, I operated in a fog of pain and ignorance of the ramifications of my loss. Coming out of that fog, 13 years ago in 1993 when I reunited with my two oldest children, seeing all that had happened to me and to my children in the light of reality, was one of the most frightening experiences of my life...and I wouldn't take a million dollars for it.
No longer numb to the grief I had supressed for 33 years, I opened my mind and my heart to the lessons to be learned and, boy, did I ever learn a lot! I'm still learning and I'll be adding more as I go on, but this should be a good start.
Love Your Children And Keep them Close,
Robin, Mother of Four
http://www.keepyourbaby.com/
http://www.originsusa.org/
http://groups.msn.com/Anti-AdoptionTruth
"Neither society nor the (adopter) who holds the child in Her arms wants to confront the agony of the mother From whose arms that same child was taken." (Margaret McDonald Lawrence)
Suffice it to say, I do have a message and that message is not a popular or welcome one for a large number of my fellow citizens of this country. That message is that adoption and the adoption industry have hurt a large number of people, mothers and their lost children, unnecessarily and without apology or reason. The institution of adoption needs a hard and honest assessment that includes the realities rather than the warm and fuzzy mythologies.
Why did this happen? Why is the idea of motherhood still seen as without value if the mother is single? Why has money entered the picture so prominently? What makes people feel they are entitled to the infants of other women just because they want them or cannot have their own? Why are children and their mothers seen as interchangable entities and what can be done to change that? What can be done for the mothers still in unresolved grief and the adopted people suffering from the Primal Wound?
Is adoption an attempt by the powers-that-be to alter the social structure? Can we be involved in eugenics, just as Hitler and his henchmen were in WWII? Is the entire idea of adoption a result of the patriarchial ideas of what constitutes the right to rear children? You tell me.
I know that, as a teenager who was deserted by her first love, forced by her parents to surrender, raped by a "friend" and forced, again, to surrender, I operated in a fog of pain and ignorance of the ramifications of my loss. Coming out of that fog, 13 years ago in 1993 when I reunited with my two oldest children, seeing all that had happened to me and to my children in the light of reality, was one of the most frightening experiences of my life...and I wouldn't take a million dollars for it.
No longer numb to the grief I had supressed for 33 years, I opened my mind and my heart to the lessons to be learned and, boy, did I ever learn a lot! I'm still learning and I'll be adding more as I go on, but this should be a good start.
Love Your Children And Keep them Close,
Robin, Mother of Four
http://www.keepyourbaby.com/
http://www.originsusa.org/
http://groups.msn.com/Anti-AdoptionTruth
"Neither society nor the (adopter) who holds the child in Her arms wants to confront the agony of the mother From whose arms that same child was taken." (Margaret McDonald Lawrence)
Who Am I
Story of the 'Unwed' Mother: "Who Am I?"
by Robin Westbrook
Look at me,
Look closely at my face and truly see me.
I am the face of the housewife, the store clerk, the doctor, the teacher, the doting grandmother, the "childless" business executive, the judge, the florist, the drycleaner on the corner, the crossing guard...all these and more.
Behind my face, lies the truth you deny. Behind the wall I have built for self-protection, is the pain you refuse to see.
My face does not reveal the open wound in my heart, but it is there.
I am the forgotten face, the face that fades into the crowd, that re-invents itself in order to fit in with all the rest of you.
I am the face that many wish would remain forever anonymous, the face that many long to see yet the face that others fear.
I am the face of denial and repression. Behind my silent, sealed lips, there are cries of grief and screams of rage. Behind my dry eyes, is a lifetime of unshed tears.
I am the face of long-ago shame and yesterday's scandal. I am the face of an imprisoned soul, punished for breaking obsolete and unloving rules.
I am the face of one-half of a whole. I am a missing piece longing for completion. I am the face of a traumatic and unnatural separation and a primal wound.
I am the face of grief without a grave, questions without answers and secrets unknown.
I am the face of an unfinished story, a life in limbo and a victim of the needs and desires of others.
I am the face of remorse and betrayal and a singular brand of loneliness. I am the face of unique tragedy.
I am the face that, now, emerges from obscurity and calls out to be seen. You can call me the birthmother, the first mother, the natural mother or whatever term meets your comfort level, but it won't change the fact at hand.
That fact is that I am a MOTHER without her child.
* * * *
Robin Westbrook Copyright © 2000
by Robin Westbrook
Look at me,
Look closely at my face and truly see me.
I am the face of the housewife, the store clerk, the doctor, the teacher, the doting grandmother, the "childless" business executive, the judge, the florist, the drycleaner on the corner, the crossing guard...all these and more.
Behind my face, lies the truth you deny. Behind the wall I have built for self-protection, is the pain you refuse to see.
My face does not reveal the open wound in my heart, but it is there.
I am the forgotten face, the face that fades into the crowd, that re-invents itself in order to fit in with all the rest of you.
I am the face that many wish would remain forever anonymous, the face that many long to see yet the face that others fear.
I am the face of denial and repression. Behind my silent, sealed lips, there are cries of grief and screams of rage. Behind my dry eyes, is a lifetime of unshed tears.
I am the face of long-ago shame and yesterday's scandal. I am the face of an imprisoned soul, punished for breaking obsolete and unloving rules.
I am the face of one-half of a whole. I am a missing piece longing for completion. I am the face of a traumatic and unnatural separation and a primal wound.
I am the face of grief without a grave, questions without answers and secrets unknown.
I am the face of an unfinished story, a life in limbo and a victim of the needs and desires of others.
I am the face of remorse and betrayal and a singular brand of loneliness. I am the face of unique tragedy.
I am the face that, now, emerges from obscurity and calls out to be seen. You can call me the birthmother, the first mother, the natural mother or whatever term meets your comfort level, but it won't change the fact at hand.
That fact is that I am a MOTHER without her child.
* * * *
Robin Westbrook Copyright © 2000
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)