It’s been about 12 years since I read Primal Wound by Nancy Verrier. What incited my interest was hearing about the book from other adopted people in the adoption community.
The Primal Wound theory doesn’t mean much to me because I’m clueless about the science of the infant brain. Although, separating a baby from its mother seems to me a pretty traumatic event for both mother and child.
I did not conclude the book’s content to be a life-sentence for feeling screwed up by adoption; rather some interesting pieces of insight that provided clarity to a continuous niggle I couldn’t seem to shake off on my own.
The Primal Wound book gave me the awareness that I have a real Mother; that the mother I was separated from for 32 years was a real person.
That would be a Mother that gave birth to me, not some biological whatchamacallit that needed to go to school so it had to give me away so it could have a better life. It hadn’t been possible to grasp that I’d been created the same way other humans were created. I was adopted. So a mother, a woman who had been pregnant--with me and from whom I received life, an identity and a tribal tie to generations of people living and those who came before me was an alien notion.
For me, growing up without the presence of genetic parents, family, or tribe meant no understanding of how it feels to ‘be like’ anyone. And even after reuniting with my mother and after her untimely death I still didn’t get that she was my mother, forget about the whole ancestry and relatives bit. That came much later, long after I’d processed having a real mother and father. Reading The Primal Wound, though, restored the acuity I’d had as a child—before the years of being fed mixed messages, myth and parental absence – the certainty that there was a real woman who was my mother.
After reading PW it was easier to learn more about adoption secrecy laws and adoption as a universal mess that has affected millions of people around the world. Betty Jean Lifton’s book, Journey of The Adopted Self came next and stayed near by for about 4 years. I was happy the day I was able to look at that book and think, Yuk. Self-help books are supposed to provide insight then retire to the second hand bookshop. Post these adoptee-centred books, though, adoption as a systemic legal issue and discriminatory institution became much clearer, therefore no need to revisit those particular perspectives.
I see people periodically accuse The Primal Wound book of being the source of some sort of interminable adoptee victimhood. I don’t get that. Anyone I know that’s read PW simply read the book took from it what they wanted and moved on. It’s never talked about now in my circles other than joking about the people who feel some bizarre compulsion to demonize it and the readers who found it useful. It’s just a book with a few antidotes to assist folks trying to figure out adoption crap. It seems opponents to PW are more victimized by it than those they allege are trapped in a PW void.
Nancy Verrier may thank those who fervently oppose her PW book, because it’s likely through that anti-Primal Wound pack she has received, inadvertently, much publicity and praise.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Saturday, August 21, 2010
SMAAC NEWS
SMAAC: Senior Mothers Adoption Activists Coalition
WATCH IT NOW, SMAAC IS GOIN’ TO TEXAS!
How fantabulous is that!
It’s high time American women (our sisters) of adoption loss started speaking out against the corrupt adoption industry that has, for the last century, forcibly and deceptively taken and sold women’s children, then legally withheld the whereabouts and identities’ of those women’s missing daughters and sons.
I’ve always been surprised by the adoption industry’s position that keeping identifying information (true records of birth) from the adopted-away daughters and sons of these women is a means of mother-self-protection. Why, then, doesn’t the industry advocate for these women to know who their daughters and sons became and where they are? If the industry is so concerned about the well being of these women, why deny them information about their own children?
We won’t be surprised one bit after Mothers start taking their voices to the advocacy arena, when the true motive for sealing records rears its ugly head. It doesn’t take much reading and listening to figure out that who these sealed records are supposed to protect, are those raising other parents’ children and the industry’s insidious and financially motivated baby/child scooping schemes.
Neither has it ever been written into law or included in any adoption contract that mothers and their daughters and sons be compelled to a lifetime of anonymity from each other.
I certainly appreciate it when Mothers of adoption loss speak out against sealed birth certificates, but what I’d really like to see is these women fighting for the right to obtain identifying information about their own children. What about their human rights? It’s not the surrendering Mothers who seal the information – it’s the industry and the government. This is not and never has been a battle of adoptees vs. mothers and who’s got the more justifiable right to information. The system sealed all of it – and it's against the system itself where all effected by these discriminatory secrecy laws should wage war - not each other, and not one or the other.
The first time I was in Nova Scotia meeting my relatives, one cousin said to me after I’d explained sealed birth certificates to her, “So, this means that it was against the law for us to know you?” I hadn’t given that angle much thought, as I was always focused on my rights and my information belonging to me. But, seriously - how accurate she was. The sealed records business discriminates not only against the adopted person, but also against parents, all immediate family members and all relatives.
Being a mother and not knowing the location and identity of your child is beyond my understanding. A law that seals information from you as a mother about the identity and whereabouts of your own child is a concept I simply cannot grasp.
Does it matter if your child is missing because of adoption? Does it make the confusion, grief and loss easier? My guess is No. A missing child is a missing child no matter the separation circumstances. What’s different, perhaps, is the coping methods and stories conjured up to explain away the absent child/ren and the approach in which a person receives ‘support’ from society and professionals. If you were told over and over by everyone around you that your loss isn’t important, well . . . wouldn’t you start believing it after a while? As an adopted person I certainly bought into all the adoption lies and myths, so why wouldn’t our Mothers have done the same?
Even a woman with the means to raise a child, but felt that surrendering her baby/child to the system of adoption was her best option, still would not know how that decision to surrender her child to strangers would impact her. She likely has no idea what the sealing of a birth document really means or the long-term implications of that legal process. With an adoption contract and procedure, the Devil is most definitely in the detail.
One reason why mothers don’t always search is because they don’t believe they have the right to contact and know their own children. Adoption laws and propaganda were deliberately created and implemented to program the brain to think like that. It is only after years and years of self-introspection and seeking out people with similar experiences does the truth and validation start trickling in.
Next August (2011) SMAAC will be working a booth at the National Convention for State Legislatures (NCSL) in San Antonio, Texas. There they will speak the truth – crack open the vault of adoption lies and demand justice from lawmakers.
Stay updated through the protest and NCSL booth organizing team, The Adoptee Rights Coalition and by visiting Sandy Young, Musing Mother and SMAAC executive.
WATCH IT NOW, SMAAC IS GOIN’ TO TEXAS!
How fantabulous is that!
It’s high time American women (our sisters) of adoption loss started speaking out against the corrupt adoption industry that has, for the last century, forcibly and deceptively taken and sold women’s children, then legally withheld the whereabouts and identities’ of those women’s missing daughters and sons.
I’ve always been surprised by the adoption industry’s position that keeping identifying information (true records of birth) from the adopted-away daughters and sons of these women is a means of mother-self-protection. Why, then, doesn’t the industry advocate for these women to know who their daughters and sons became and where they are? If the industry is so concerned about the well being of these women, why deny them information about their own children?
We won’t be surprised one bit after Mothers start taking their voices to the advocacy arena, when the true motive for sealing records rears its ugly head. It doesn’t take much reading and listening to figure out that who these sealed records are supposed to protect, are those raising other parents’ children and the industry’s insidious and financially motivated baby/child scooping schemes.
Neither has it ever been written into law or included in any adoption contract that mothers and their daughters and sons be compelled to a lifetime of anonymity from each other.
I certainly appreciate it when Mothers of adoption loss speak out against sealed birth certificates, but what I’d really like to see is these women fighting for the right to obtain identifying information about their own children. What about their human rights? It’s not the surrendering Mothers who seal the information – it’s the industry and the government. This is not and never has been a battle of adoptees vs. mothers and who’s got the more justifiable right to information. The system sealed all of it – and it's against the system itself where all effected by these discriminatory secrecy laws should wage war - not each other, and not one or the other.
The first time I was in Nova Scotia meeting my relatives, one cousin said to me after I’d explained sealed birth certificates to her, “So, this means that it was against the law for us to know you?” I hadn’t given that angle much thought, as I was always focused on my rights and my information belonging to me. But, seriously - how accurate she was. The sealed records business discriminates not only against the adopted person, but also against parents, all immediate family members and all relatives.
Being a mother and not knowing the location and identity of your child is beyond my understanding. A law that seals information from you as a mother about the identity and whereabouts of your own child is a concept I simply cannot grasp.
Does it matter if your child is missing because of adoption? Does it make the confusion, grief and loss easier? My guess is No. A missing child is a missing child no matter the separation circumstances. What’s different, perhaps, is the coping methods and stories conjured up to explain away the absent child/ren and the approach in which a person receives ‘support’ from society and professionals. If you were told over and over by everyone around you that your loss isn’t important, well . . . wouldn’t you start believing it after a while? As an adopted person I certainly bought into all the adoption lies and myths, so why wouldn’t our Mothers have done the same?
Even a woman with the means to raise a child, but felt that surrendering her baby/child to the system of adoption was her best option, still would not know how that decision to surrender her child to strangers would impact her. She likely has no idea what the sealing of a birth document really means or the long-term implications of that legal process. With an adoption contract and procedure, the Devil is most definitely in the detail.
One reason why mothers don’t always search is because they don’t believe they have the right to contact and know their own children. Adoption laws and propaganda were deliberately created and implemented to program the brain to think like that. It is only after years and years of self-introspection and seeking out people with similar experiences does the truth and validation start trickling in.
Next August (2011) SMAAC will be working a booth at the National Convention for State Legislatures (NCSL) in San Antonio, Texas. There they will speak the truth – crack open the vault of adoption lies and demand justice from lawmakers.
Stay updated through the protest and NCSL booth organizing team, The Adoptee Rights Coalition and by visiting Sandy Young, Musing Mother and SMAAC executive.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Looking over some of the posts from last year on Grannie's blog, I re-read her diatribe on free speech.
Grannie Annie writes a bunch of insidious and inaccurate posts about an adoptee rights protest held at the National Convention of State Legislatures. Proponents of the protest respond to it.
Suddenly, in response to being challenged, Grannie Annie says it's her democratic right to say whatever she wants. No one said that it wasn't. Someone, please correct me if I'm off base here, but free speech was not granted solely to Grannie Annie, was it?
I can't imagine what a debate with this woman would be like. Would she start screaming, “Damn you! – I have the right to free speech!”
Marley says on Grannie Annie's blog (responding to my blog posts here) and some anonymous comments there:
"As for "anonymous," there may be more than one, but go here to read what at least one of them is saying: http://nsbloodline.blogspot.com/ Putting together various posts on that blog, and comments on BGA and Bastardette,"
Sorry to disappoint you, honey, but those Anon comments are not from me.
Though the surreptitious insinuation that I was one of the Anonymous commenters is typical Marley-tribe.
Marley also says about me on Grannie's blog:
"On her radio show front page Edmonds links to Illinois Open. http://www.theadoptionshow.com/home2.php Isn't that interesting. Edmonds says she supported full access in Illinois, yet she attacks those very organizations which carried that banner."
Yes, I do have the Illinois Open link on my home page. Yes, I do support full access in Illinois. I also have Bastard Nation on the links page.
The adoptee rights vision of these two organizations: Becoming.
The conduct of a few of these organization's members: Un-becoming.
Grannie Annie writes a bunch of insidious and inaccurate posts about an adoptee rights protest held at the National Convention of State Legislatures. Proponents of the protest respond to it.
Suddenly, in response to being challenged, Grannie Annie says it's her democratic right to say whatever she wants. No one said that it wasn't. Someone, please correct me if I'm off base here, but free speech was not granted solely to Grannie Annie, was it?
I can't imagine what a debate with this woman would be like. Would she start screaming, “Damn you! – I have the right to free speech!”
Marley says on Grannie Annie's blog (responding to my blog posts here) and some anonymous comments there:
"As for "anonymous," there may be more than one, but go here to read what at least one of them is saying: http://nsbloodline.blogspot.com/ Putting together various posts on that blog, and comments on BGA and Bastardette,"
Sorry to disappoint you, honey, but those Anon comments are not from me.
Though the surreptitious insinuation that I was one of the Anonymous commenters is typical Marley-tribe.
Marley also says about me on Grannie's blog:
"On her radio show front page Edmonds links to Illinois Open. http://www.theadoptionshow.com/home2.php Isn't that interesting. Edmonds says she supported full access in Illinois, yet she attacks those very organizations which carried that banner."
Yes, I do have the Illinois Open link on my home page. Yes, I do support full access in Illinois. I also have Bastard Nation on the links page.
The adoptee rights vision of these two organizations: Becoming.
The conduct of a few of these organization's members: Un-becoming.
Friday, July 2, 2010
DOUBLING UP ON THE DOUBLETHINK
After posting the last piece on Mary Lynn Fuller and Anita Field (Bastard Grannie Annie) and their opposition to the Adoptee Rights protests for unconditional access for all adopted persons in the US, a friend reminded me of the below email we received last year from Mary Lynn and Anita (IllinoisOpen):
"Many of us do contact legislators and that is important. But coming out in numbers, in our own communities, in peaceful demonstrations certainly can't do any harm. We are working at a grassroots level right now. A cause does get attention when there are a number of people who publicly demonstrate their belief. Just think about some of the signs and floats that you have seen in different parades. We often see on the news or read in the newspapers about different rallies that have been held in various neighborhoods.
In our last eNewsletter we said that we would like for people to particpate in 4th of July parades that are held in their own communities. That holds true yet but we are open to any ideas regarding it or any other demonstration that you can think of that could help educate our neighbors and eventually lead Illinois to becoming one of the open records states.
Those willing to participate in 4th of July parades can coordinate them in their own cities. We will help out by posting your plans in our newsletter. The larger number of people participating in different parades the better. However even a small number of people will help to spread the word that adopted adults in IL are denied access to their OBC. We must start somewhere with demonstrations. Even if participants would be small in number this year, it could lead to having more next year. Family, friends, and other interested parties are welcome to join in!
The more people who participate in the fight for open records the better chance of success! Please forward as far and as wide as possible!"
_____________
Whoa, Nellie! This is the same person that wrote:
“Adoptees don’t belong to one huge fraternity. We have not taken an oath of allegiance to each other. We have never sworn to uphold the “party line.” We are individuals who happen to have been adopted.”
“Do you think that I should support your protest march or other events just because I am an adoptee? Are we going back to the days when all adoptees were supposed “to stick together” if we wanted to “get anything done?” Not on your life.”
Goodness, this paradigm of doublethink could make a hypocrite seem like a loyalist.
"Many of us do contact legislators and that is important. But coming out in numbers, in our own communities, in peaceful demonstrations certainly can't do any harm. We are working at a grassroots level right now. A cause does get attention when there are a number of people who publicly demonstrate their belief. Just think about some of the signs and floats that you have seen in different parades. We often see on the news or read in the newspapers about different rallies that have been held in various neighborhoods.
In our last eNewsletter we said that we would like for people to particpate in 4th of July parades that are held in their own communities. That holds true yet but we are open to any ideas regarding it or any other demonstration that you can think of that could help educate our neighbors and eventually lead Illinois to becoming one of the open records states.
Those willing to participate in 4th of July parades can coordinate them in their own cities. We will help out by posting your plans in our newsletter. The larger number of people participating in different parades the better. However even a small number of people will help to spread the word that adopted adults in IL are denied access to their OBC. We must start somewhere with demonstrations. Even if participants would be small in number this year, it could lead to having more next year. Family, friends, and other interested parties are welcome to join in!
The more people who participate in the fight for open records the better chance of success! Please forward as far and as wide as possible!"
_____________
Whoa, Nellie! This is the same person that wrote:
“Adoptees don’t belong to one huge fraternity. We have not taken an oath of allegiance to each other. We have never sworn to uphold the “party line.” We are individuals who happen to have been adopted.”
“Do you think that I should support your protest march or other events just because I am an adoptee? Are we going back to the days when all adoptees were supposed “to stick together” if we wanted to “get anything done?” Not on your life.”
Goodness, this paradigm of doublethink could make a hypocrite seem like a loyalist.
Do you want adoptees to fight in solidarity or not?
Mary Lynn and Anita wrote the plea for Adoptee Rights demonstrations shortly before the Philly Adoptee Rights Protest in July 2009. The comments about the Philly protest by Bastard Grannie Annie (who is also on the exec. committee of Bastard Nation) were written within one week after the Philly protest.
Surprisingly, I don't see a warning that 'deformers' not participate in their state-wide request for demonstrations.
One can only hope that these folk eventually get their act together.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
KNOCK, KNOCK - YOUR STRATEGY ISN'T WORKING
Ok, so here’s the kill the deformer strategy masterminded by Mary Lynn Fuller:
“We now have another group to fight - the deformers. We have got to come out in nigher numbers than they and educate the public that it is simply wrong to leave one adult adoptee behind. We will win so the sooner the deformers join us, the better for the adoption reform movement. They are currently a big hinderance and we must knock them down, lift them back up and educate them as to why it is so important to be a reformer.”
Last year Mary Lynn Fuller wrote a post about the Philadelphia Adoptee Rights protest saying she did not support it and she would write legislators assuring them that what the protesters were fighting for (unconditional access to birth records for all adopted persons in the US) was not her goal. Now that’s some priceless education on adoptee rights activism.
How on earth can Mary Lynn Fuller expect people to take her or her cause for open records seriously? Who would want to join her battle after she wrote that! The Adoptee Rights protests are indisputably about access for all.
And after Mary Lynn has knocked down a few people, then picked them up for educating – where exactly will this so-called education be available? A blog?
And from Marley responding to Mary Lynn:
“The "experienced" people who DO know the difference and don't care are a lost cause. They need to be shamed and ridicule and dismissed from relevancy. They are no better than NCFA, RTL, and the ACLU.”
Er, more priceless education. Hasn’t the above shaming and ridiculing strategy been used for the last decade? How’s that worked out? A really bad law in Illinois is one of many examples of how this strategy is completely ineffective. I’d suggest y’all put your wee heads together and sketch up a new plan. Maybe the strategy to dismiss people from relevancy hasn’t worked out so well.
Bastard Grannie Annie is right behind Mary Lynn in the race to shame, blame, and ridicule:
Last year, around the same time as Mary Lynn Fuller’s post about the Philly protest, BGA wrote a post on her blog declaring: “Your Goal is Not My Goal!” Aiming her words at the near 100 people fighting for unconditional birth record access at the National Convention of State Legislatures.
Here’s what BGA wrote:
“But the reason is so simple. It’s so basic! YOUR GOAL IS NOT MY GOAL."
"Why on earth would I march in any protest when my ideas of an adoptee equal rights bill do not agree with your ideas?!. Do you think that I should support your protest march or other events just because I am an adoptee? Are we going back to the days when all adoptees were supposed “to stick together” if we wanted to “get anything done?” Not on your life.”
Your goal isn’t to have all birth records unsealed for adopted people in the US? After some people gently directed BGA to the Adoptee Rights protest web site, she did manage to push out an apology for not knowing that the protest goals and her goals are actually aligned. However, what I’d like to know is on what premise did she base her initial assessment of the protest’s goals if she hadn’t read any material, not even the web site, which clearly states the access for all mission of the protests.
BGA also pulled another hissy when the suggestion that people fighting for adoptee rights work together. She didn’t seem to like that idea – apparently, BGA believes that just because some folks have the same vision for adoptee rights, doesn’t mean she has to work with them.
BGA’s bit on free speech and adoptees working together:
“I’ve been told that this is name-calling, ignorance, sabotage. But it’s not – it’s debate, dissent, disagreement.
“Adoptees don’t belong to one huge fraternity. We have not taken an oath of allegiance to each other. We have never sworn to uphold the “party line.” We are individuals who happen to have been adopted.”
With adoptee rights 'advocates' like these, why would anybody be surprised that birth certificates are still sealed and partial legislation has become acceptable.
“We now have another group to fight - the deformers. We have got to come out in nigher numbers than they and educate the public that it is simply wrong to leave one adult adoptee behind. We will win so the sooner the deformers join us, the better for the adoption reform movement. They are currently a big hinderance and we must knock them down, lift them back up and educate them as to why it is so important to be a reformer.”
Last year Mary Lynn Fuller wrote a post about the Philadelphia Adoptee Rights protest saying she did not support it and she would write legislators assuring them that what the protesters were fighting for (unconditional access to birth records for all adopted persons in the US) was not her goal. Now that’s some priceless education on adoptee rights activism.
How on earth can Mary Lynn Fuller expect people to take her or her cause for open records seriously? Who would want to join her battle after she wrote that! The Adoptee Rights protests are indisputably about access for all.
And after Mary Lynn has knocked down a few people, then picked them up for educating – where exactly will this so-called education be available? A blog?
And from Marley responding to Mary Lynn:
“The "experienced" people who DO know the difference and don't care are a lost cause. They need to be shamed and ridicule and dismissed from relevancy. They are no better than NCFA, RTL, and the ACLU.”
Er, more priceless education. Hasn’t the above shaming and ridiculing strategy been used for the last decade? How’s that worked out? A really bad law in Illinois is one of many examples of how this strategy is completely ineffective. I’d suggest y’all put your wee heads together and sketch up a new plan. Maybe the strategy to dismiss people from relevancy hasn’t worked out so well.
Bastard Grannie Annie is right behind Mary Lynn in the race to shame, blame, and ridicule:
Last year, around the same time as Mary Lynn Fuller’s post about the Philly protest, BGA wrote a post on her blog declaring: “Your Goal is Not My Goal!” Aiming her words at the near 100 people fighting for unconditional birth record access at the National Convention of State Legislatures.
Here’s what BGA wrote:
“But the reason is so simple. It’s so basic! YOUR GOAL IS NOT MY GOAL."
"Why on earth would I march in any protest when my ideas of an adoptee equal rights bill do not agree with your ideas?!. Do you think that I should support your protest march or other events just because I am an adoptee? Are we going back to the days when all adoptees were supposed “to stick together” if we wanted to “get anything done?” Not on your life.”
Your goal isn’t to have all birth records unsealed for adopted people in the US? After some people gently directed BGA to the Adoptee Rights protest web site, she did manage to push out an apology for not knowing that the protest goals and her goals are actually aligned. However, what I’d like to know is on what premise did she base her initial assessment of the protest’s goals if she hadn’t read any material, not even the web site, which clearly states the access for all mission of the protests.
BGA also pulled another hissy when the suggestion that people fighting for adoptee rights work together. She didn’t seem to like that idea – apparently, BGA believes that just because some folks have the same vision for adoptee rights, doesn’t mean she has to work with them.
BGA’s bit on free speech and adoptees working together:
“I’ve been told that this is name-calling, ignorance, sabotage. But it’s not – it’s debate, dissent, disagreement.
“Adoptees don’t belong to one huge fraternity. We have not taken an oath of allegiance to each other. We have never sworn to uphold the “party line.” We are individuals who happen to have been adopted.”
With adoptee rights 'advocates' like these, why would anybody be surprised that birth certificates are still sealed and partial legislation has become acceptable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)