I found out I was adopted when I was 16 and was told alot of different
things about my birth mother. I've been told she was a schizophrenic, a
drug addict, a prostitute and most likely that my birth-father was one of
her clients.

I've been undecided as to whether I would search or not because I think I
just wanted to belong to the family I had and also I was told that I had no
chance of really knowing whether the woman they presented me with really was
my mother unless I undertook a costly DNA test.

I've moved on with my life but about 3 months ago, decided to start
searching for my Birth Mother. I'm happy with the famly I now have, but
want to know about my medical history, whether my parents were lying or
telling the truth and also if I have any siblings.

I'm getting married at the end of January next year and forced my father to
hand over a copy of my Certificate of Adoption because I needed it for
identification (I've misplaced my passport).

When I read the certificate, I was shocked to read that I was only adopted
with I was 2 years old - not 6 months old as my parents let me believe for
over 10 years.

I've read alot of literature about adoption and why parents say what they do
and I understand they were insecure and paranoid and worried I'd leave them
for my birth family but I know that won't happen. It doesn't matter how
much I've tried to explain it to them. I tried to tell Mum what I was
wanting to do - search for my birth parents and siblings but she became
really upset and didn't speak to me for months.

NOw that I'm getting married, this is the start of my new life and before it
begins, I want to get closure of some kind. I am aware that this may not
happen and things may in fact become worse but that's a risk I'm willing to
take.

I've been searching online now for 3 months and have gotten no result. All
of the e-mail addresses are non-existent and I've had so much e-mail sent
back to me, I'm starting to lose hope.

I even tried contacting the Sri Lankan newspapers to see if they could help
but I received no reply.

Is there anyone out there who's been through this and is from Sri Lanka or
can point me in the right direction.

Tonight I got 6 returned messages and it's really devastated me and I can't
stop crying. I've been through counselling over this previously and no
doubt will need more at some time but for now I just need answers.

Please help me.

Mala.

Mala,

I'm not from Sri Lanka, I'm from India and now living in America. If I
could help you, I'd be happy to.

I'm guessing you were adopted by a Sri Lankan family, but now live
elsewhere (Australia?). Do you speak Sinhala?

If Sri Lankan adoptions are like Indian ones, I'm afraid you m ay need
to think of this as a long haul. It could take years to find your
birth-mother, even if you manage to do so. A lot depends on what your
relinquishment story is.

For now, have you tried the agency where you were adopted, and can
they give you any information at all? Were you adopted from Colombo?

Internet is probably not quite as widespread in Sri Lanka as it is in
most developed countries.

I'm sorry it's been so upsetting. I hope things work out.

Best of luck,

Rupa

"Mala" <mala0303@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:<l1Mrb.5382$aT.4734@news-server.bigpond.net.au>... I found out I was adopted when I was 16 and was told alot of different things about my birth mother. I've been told she was a schizophrenic, a drug addict, a prostitute and most likely that my birth-father was one of her clients. I've been undecided as to whether I would search or not because I think I just wanted to belong to the family I had and also I was told that I had no chance of really knowing whether the woman they presented me with really was my mother unless I undertook a costly DNA test. I've moved on with my life but about 3 months ago, decided to start searching for my Birth Mother. I'm happy with the famly I now have, but want to know about my medical history, whether my parents were lying or telling the truth and also if I have any siblings. I'm getting married at the end of January next year and forced my father to hand over a copy of my Certificate of Adoption because I needed it for identification (I've misplaced my passport). When I read the certificate, I was shocked to read that I was only adopted with I was 2 years old - not 6 months old as my parents let me believe for over 10 years. I've read alot of literature about adoption and why parents say what they do and I understand they were insecure and paranoid and worried I'd leave them for my birth family but I know that won't happen. It doesn't matter how much I've tried to explain it to them. I tried to tell Mum what I was wanting to do - search for my birth parents and siblings but she became really upset and didn't speak to me for months. NOw that I'm getting married, this is the start of my new life and before it begins, I want to get closure of some kind. I am aware that this may not happen and things may in fact become worse but that's a risk I'm willing to take. I've been searching online now for 3 months and have gotten no result. All of the e-mail addresses are non-existent and I've had so much e-mail sent back to me, I'm starting to lose hope. I even tried contacting the Sri Lankan newspapers to see if they could help but I received no reply. Is there anyone out there who's been through this and is from Sri Lanka or can point me in the right direction. Tonight I got 6 returned messages and it's really devastated me and I can't stop crying. I've been through counselling over this previously and no doubt will need more at some time but for now I just need answers. Please help me. Mala.

In article <l1Mrb.5382$aT.4734@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Mala"
<mala0303@bigpond.com> writes:
I found out I was adopted when I was 16 and was told alot of differentthings about my birth mother. I've been told she was a schizophrenic, adrug addict, a prostitute and most likely that my birth-father was one ofher clients.I've been undecided as to whether I would search or not because I think Ijust wanted to belong to the family I had and also I was told that I had nochance of really knowing whether the woman they presented me with really wasmy mother unless I undertook a costly DNA test.I've moved on with my life but about 3 months ago, decided to startsearching for my Birth Mother. I'm happy with the famly I now have, butwant to know about my medical history, whether my parents were lying ortelling the truth and also if I have any siblings.I'm getting married at the end of January next year and forced my father tohand over a copy of my Certificate of Adoption because I needed it foridentification (I've misplaced my passport).When I read the certificate, I was shocked to read that I was only adoptedwith I was 2 years old - not 6 months old as my parents let me believe forover 10 years.I've read alot of literature about adoption and why parents say what they doand I understand they were insecure and paranoid and worried I'd leave themfor my birth family but I know that won't happen. It doesn't matter howmuch I've tried to explain it to them. I tried to tell Mum what I waswanting to do - search for my birth parents and siblings but she becamereally upset and didn't speak to me for months.NOw that I'm getting married, this is the start of my new life and before itbegins, I want to get closure of some kind. I am aware that this may nothappen and things may in fact become worse but that's a risk I'm willing totake.I've been searching online now for 3 months and have gotten no result. Allof the e-mail addresses are non-existent and I've had so much e-mail sentback to me, I'm starting to lose hope.I even tried contacting the Sri Lankan newspapers to see if they could helpbut I received no reply.Is there anyone out there who's been through this and is from Sri Lanka orcan point me in the right direction.Tonight I got 6 returned messages and it's really devastated me and I can'tstop crying. I've been through counselling over this previously and nodoubt will need more at some time but for now I just need answers.Please help me.Mala.

Mala,

Please don't give up hope. If you really want this (and you do seem earnest
about it), then I would encourage you to keep keeping on. It may take a very
long time. Sadly, that is a price that sometimes has to be paid in searches.
I can't offer you any help, I was adopted and reunited in the same area of the
US. I have no knowledge of other countries, and how they work. But I do wish
you well. And if you need to vent when it starts to get you down, please by
all means post here. If nothing else, I can offer you support.

KL

Dear Rupa & KL
Thank you both for your support. Apart from my brother (adopted and not
related), I don't know anyone else who is Sri Lankan or Indian who is
adopted.

I don't speak Sinhalese because my mum's Sinhalese and dad's Tamil so they
chose to teach us English - I also suspect that at the time it was a clever
ploy on my mum's part to cut ties between me and Sri Lanka. Despite this
ploy, she has taken my brother and I back to Sri Lanka dozens of times for
holidays etc.

The tragic thing is that there is actually someone in Sri Lanka who can help
me in a jiffy. An uncle of mine used to be the SP for the Colombo Police
(the area where I was adopted from) but I know that if I tell him, he'll
tell my parents and then it becomes so much more complicated.

I'm trying really hard not to be angry about it all but that's an emotion I
haven't really felt in a long time - I'm usually so laid back and casual
(too laid back so my friends and family tell me) and more than that, take
everything in my stride but this is a bad time at the moment and today I was
involved in a car accident.

I'm okay. Don't worry - my car is fine, actually more than fine considering
that there were three other cars involved (I'm not at fault) at the time and
two of them are big cars and nearly got written off whereas mine has a
couple of scratches (deep) on the rear bumper!!

This is the first time in over 24 hours that I've felt some kind of comfort.
I've felt like I was moving about in a dream-like zombie state and being a
teacher, it's not good. I was having to stand up in front of students and
talk about the themes in Romeo and Juliet (the film - Baz Lurmanh version)
and all the whilst I was about 1/2 a second from collapsing from grief or
just fainting and the last time I was like this, I found out I was adopted
and I fainted then.

My fiancé is trying to be supportive and understanding and I've e-mailed him
some literature that I think he could benefit from reading and he's started
reading it and now understands the abandonment issues a bit better, but it's
hard and because I now live in Geelong, I'm even more isolated than ever in
my search (my family live in Melbourne). So, I'm glad I've made two new
friends who are offering support.

I've tried going onto Yahoo Chat and to the Adoption Rooms but they're
pathetic and filled with men trying to get laid and that's not my scene.
Also, the advice they give me is useless - they've referred me to American
agencies, agencies that are dodgy and change sites all the time so they're
not caught, ones that ask you to spend money like there's no tomorrow....
and so on and so forth.

The only clues I've got are that I was adopted via a court proceeding which
I gather gives me a better than good chance of finding my parent/s. The
case was held in the Juvenile Courts at Bambalapitiya and I've got the name
of the Assistant-Registrar so that's a couple of leads.

The frustrating thing at the moment is that there's an agency in Melbourne -
VANISH (Victorian Adoption Network for Information and Self Help) but each
time I've called, no-one answers the phone and I went down there but it was
closed and they're not replying to their e-mail. I know a Sri Lankan lawyer
living in Australia (Melbourne) who might be able to help, but it's the same
thing - she'd tell my parents and my parents would be so upset they wouldn't
see that this is something I need to do for myself.

I was speaking to my Mum tonight and nearly came out and asked her if she
and Dad could help me find my medical history and details of any known
siblings and that if they do the search on my behalf that they can keep the
name of the mother to themselves and tell me only the things I need to know
and then have it all sealed until they pass away so it doesn't hurt them
whilst they're around, but then I chickened out.

It's a bad time for travelling at the moment but I guess, metaphorically
speaking, if you don't travel, you don't change your view and nor do you
have a chance of getting closer to your destination, so I'm going to keep
travelling and see what happens.

Thank you both again.

Sincerely,

Mala.


"Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:e5619372.0311101246.53c050be@posting.google.c om... Mala, I'm not from Sri Lanka, I'm from India and now living in America. If I could help you, I'd be happy to. I'm guessing you were adopted by a Sri Lankan family, but now live elsewhere (Australia?). Do you speak Sinhala? If Sri Lankan adoptions are like Indian ones, I'm afraid you m ay need to think of this as a long haul. It could take years to find your birth-mother, even if you manage to do so. A lot depends on what your relinquishment story is. For now, have you tried the agency where you were adopted, and can they give you any information at all? Were you adopted from Colombo? Internet is probably not quite as widespread in Sri Lanka as it is in most developed countries. I'm sorry it's been so upsetting. I hope things work out. Best of luck, Rupa "Mala" <mala0303@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:<l1Mrb.5382$aT.4734@news-server.bigpond.net.au>... I found out I was adopted when I was 16 and was told alot of different things about my birth mother. I've been told she was a schizophrenic, a drug addict, a prostitute and most likely that my birth-father was one
of her clients. I've been undecided as to whether I would search or not because I think
I just wanted to belong to the family I had and also I was told that I had
no chance of really knowing whether the woman they presented me with really
was my mother unless I undertook a costly DNA test. I've moved on with my life but about 3 months ago, decided to start searching for my Birth Mother. I'm happy with the famly I now have, but want to know about my medical history, whether my parents were lying or telling the truth and also if I have any siblings. I'm getting married at the end of January next year and forced my father
to hand over a copy of my Certificate of Adoption because I needed it for identification (I've misplaced my passport). When I read the certificate, I was shocked to read that I was only
adopted with I was 2 years old - not 6 months old as my parents let me believe
for over 10 years. I've read alot of literature about adoption and why parents say what
they do and I understand they were insecure and paranoid and worried I'd leave
them for my birth family but I know that won't happen. It doesn't matter how much I've tried to explain it to them. I tried to tell Mum what I was wanting to do - search for my birth parents and siblings but she became really upset and didn't speak to me for months. NOw that I'm getting married, this is the start of my new life and
before it begins, I want to get closure of some kind. I am aware that this may
not happen and things may in fact become worse but that's a risk I'm willing
to take. I've been searching online now for 3 months and have gotten no result.
All of the e-mail addresses are non-existent and I've had so much e-mail
sent back to me, I'm starting to lose hope. I even tried contacting the Sri Lankan newspapers to see if they could
help but I received no reply. Is there anyone out there who's been through this and is from Sri Lanka
or can point me in the right direction. Tonight I got 6 returned messages and it's really devastated me and I
can't stop crying. I've been through counselling over this previously and no doubt will need more at some time but for now I just need answers. Please help me. Mala.

"Mala" <mala03@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:Ox5sb.7024$aT.1797@news-server.bigpond.net.au... Dear Rupa & KL Thank you both for your support. Apart from my brother (adopted and not related), I don't know anyone else who is Sri Lankan or Indian who is adopted.
<snip>

I know a Sri Lankan lawyer living in Australia (Melbourne) who might be able to help, but it's the
same thing - she'd tell my parents and my parents would be so upset they
wouldn't see that this is something I need to do for myself.

You are wrong about this. If you employ a lawyer, you are the client.
Therefore your lawyer *cannot* reveal anything of what you tell her, without
your express permission, or risk being struck off.

Helen


<snip>
Mala.

Thanks for replying Helen.

If only that were true. My brother in law to be is a lawyer and although I
love him dearly, I know that even if we got him to sign a confidentiality
clause, he would still tell his parents what we were seeing him for and the
Sri Lankan lawyer wouldn't hesitate to tell everyone she knew what was going
on.

It's happened before and I guess the fact that I've received free legal
advice from her, gave her the impression that she was also entitled to
ignore the confidentiality issues.

I could try and approach her but I'm just so worried it'd get around.

Do you know of anyone who might be able to help me?

"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:Q06sb.5477$bD.20287@news.indigo.ie... "Mala" <mala03@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:Ox5sb.7024$aT.1797@news-server.bigpond.net.au... Dear Rupa & KL Thank you both for your support. Apart from my brother (adopted and not related), I don't know anyone else who is Sri Lankan or Indian who is adopted. <snip> I know a Sri Lankan lawyer living in Australia (Melbourne) who might be able to help, but it's the same thing - she'd tell my parents and my parents would be so upset they wouldn't see that this is something I need to do for myself. You are wrong about this. If you employ a lawyer, you are the client. Therefore your lawyer *cannot* reveal anything of what you tell her,
without your express permission, or risk being struck off. Helen <snip> Mala.

"Mala" <mala03@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:It6sb.7056$aT.6010@news-server.bigpond.net.au... Thanks for replying Helen. If only that were true. My brother in law to be is a lawyer and although
I love him dearly, I know that even if we got him to sign a confidentiality clause, he would still tell his parents what we were seeing him for and
the Sri Lankan lawyer wouldn't hesitate to tell everyone she knew what was
going on.

I don't think you should go *near* a family member, no matter how tenuous
the relationship is.
It's happened before and I guess the fact that I've received free legal advice from her, gave her the impression that she was also entitled to ignore the confidentiality issues.

That is why I said "employ a lawyer" rather than ask for free advice. Why
not get in touch with your embassy, and ask them for a list of Sri Lankan
lawyers?

Try and calm down. Your nerves are in tatters and you sound shocked from the
accident. Be careful, and remember nothing will happen in a day. Take time
to breathe. :-)

Helen

I could try and approach her but I'm just so worried it'd get around. Do you know of anyone who might be able to help me? "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:Q06sb.5477$bD.20287@news.indigo.ie... "Mala" <mala03@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:Ox5sb.7024$aT.1797@news-server.bigpond.net.au... Dear Rupa & KL Thank you both for your support. Apart from my brother (adopted and
not related), I don't know anyone else who is Sri Lankan or Indian who is adopted. <snip> I know a Sri Lankan lawyer living in Australia (Melbourne) who might be able to help, but it's
the same thing - she'd tell my parents and my parents would be so upset they wouldn't see that this is something I need to do for myself. You are wrong about this. If you employ a lawyer, you are the client. Therefore your lawyer *cannot* reveal anything of what you tell her, without your express permission, or risk being struck off. Helen <snip> Mala.

Yeah... I'll have to do that. I've got a legal aid lawyer who might be
able to help - I'm flat broke at the moment with the wedding and only
working part time.. hopefully that'll change soon though.

Thanks for the advice!

"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:TD6sb.5486$bD.20247@news.indigo.ie... "Mala" <mala03@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:It6sb.7056$aT.6010@news-server.bigpond.net.au... Thanks for replying Helen. If only that were true. My brother in law to be is a lawyer and
although I love him dearly, I know that even if we got him to sign a
confidentiality clause, he would still tell his parents what we were seeing him for and the Sri Lankan lawyer wouldn't hesitate to tell everyone she knew what was going on. I don't think you should go *near* a family member, no matter how tenuous the relationship is. It's happened before and I guess the fact that I've received free legal advice from her, gave her the impression that she was also entitled to ignore the confidentiality issues. That is why I said "employ a lawyer" rather than ask for free advice. Why not get in touch with your embassy, and ask them for a list of Sri Lankan lawyers? Try and calm down. Your nerves are in tatters and you sound shocked from
the accident. Be careful, and remember nothing will happen in a day. Take time to breathe. :-) Helen I could try and approach her but I'm just so worried it'd get around. Do you know of anyone who might be able to help me? "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:Q06sb.5477$bD.20287@news.indigo.ie... "Mala" <mala03@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:Ox5sb.7024$aT.1797@news-server.bigpond.net.au... > Dear Rupa & KL > Thank you both for your support. Apart from my brother (adopted and not > related), I don't know anyone else who is Sri Lankan or Indian who
is > adopted. > <snip> I know a Sri Lankan lawyer > living in Australia (Melbourne) who might be able to help, but it's the same > thing - she'd tell my parents and my parents would be so upset they wouldn't > see that this is something I need to do for myself. You are wrong about this. If you employ a lawyer, you are the client. Therefore your lawyer *cannot* reveal anything of what you tell her, without your express permission, or risk being struck off. Helen <snip> > Mala. > >

"Mala" <mala03@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:<PR6sb.7060$aT.4881@news-server.bigpond.net.au>... Yeah... I'll have to do that. I've got a legal aid lawyer who might be able to help - I'm flat broke at the moment with the wedding and only working part time.. hopefully that'll change soon though. Thanks for the advice!

Mala,

I'm glad you weren't hurt.

If I were you, I'd focus on the wedding for now. That's a lot of
excitement in itself!

My guess is, once you're married, your parents will perceive you as
more autonomous. You might then feel more easy asking your parents the
questions you want to, and they might feel easier replying. In India I
know of several cases where an adoptee was told she was adopted at
the time of her marriage; it seems to be the point at which Indian
parents feel they've done their job and the kid is grown. I don't know
if there's a similar feeling in Sri Lankan culture.

Don't blame your mom about not teaching you Sinhala, BTW. We have a
similar situation -- my husband and I speak different languages, and
out kids, who grew up outside India, speak only English. It takes a
lot of determination to get kids to learn a language only one parent
uses.

I think you will be able to get more information, in time. Sri Lanka
is not that big of a country, everyone's literate, and it sounds as
though there is a trail. Is it possible yours was an in-family
adoption? It'll be a matter of making your parents comfortable with
the thought that finding your birth-family doesn't mean you're
abandoning them or that you don't love them.

Take your time.

Rupa

In article <TD6sb.5486$bD.20247@news.indigo.ie>, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>
writes:
"Mala" <mala03@bigpond.com> wrote in messagenews:It6sb.7056$aT.6010@news-server.bigpond.net.au... Thanks for replying Helen. If only that were true. My brother in law to be is a lawyer and althoughI love him dearly, I know that even if we got him to sign a confidentiality clause, he would still tell his parents what we were seeing him for andthe Sri Lankan lawyer wouldn't hesitate to tell everyone she knew what wasgoing on.I don't think you should go *near* a family member, no matter how tenuousthe relationship is. It's happened before and I guess the fact that I've received free legal advice from her, gave her the impression that she was also entitled to ignore the confidentiality issues.That is why I said "employ a lawyer" rather than ask for free advice. Whynot get in touch with your embassy, and ask them for a list of Sri Lankanlawyers?Try and calm down. Your nerves are in tatters and you sound shocked from theaccident. Be careful, and remember nothing will happen in a day. Take timeto breathe. :-)Helen

AHHH that I think is the BEST advice I have heard in a long time. Remember to
BREATHE! :)

KL

In article <Ox5sb.7024$aT.1797@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Mala"
<mala03@bigpond.com> writes:
Dear Rupa & KLThank you both for your support. Apart from my brother (adopted and notrelated), I don't know anyone else who is Sri Lankan or Indian who isadopted.I don't speak Sinhalese because my mum's Sinhalese and dad's Tamil so theychose to teach us English - I also suspect that at the time it was a cleverploy on my mum's part to cut ties between me and Sri Lanka. Despite thisploy, she has taken my brother and I back to Sri Lanka dozens of times forholidays etc.The tragic thing is that there is actually someone in Sri Lanka who can helpme in a jiffy. An uncle of mine used to be the SP for the Colombo Police(the area where I was adopted from) but I know that if I tell him, he'lltell my parents and then it becomes so much more complicated.

Well, you know your uncle better than us, but could it be if you asked him to
keep it to himself for now, would he respect that?
I'm trying really hard not to be angry about it all but that's an emotion Ihaven't really felt in a long time - I'm usually so laid back and casual(too laid back so my friends and family tell me) and more than that, takeeverything in my stride but this is a bad time at the moment and today I wasinvolved in a car accident.

Hope you are still ok from this...I know first-hand that it is often so much
worse the day after, pain-wise.
I'm okay. Don't worry - my car is fine, actually more than fine consideringthat there were three other cars involved (I'm not at fault) at the time andtwo of them are big cars and nearly got written off whereas mine has acouple of scratches (deep) on the rear bumper!!This is the first time in over 24 hours that I've felt some kind of comfort.I've felt like I was moving about in a dream-like zombie state and being ateacher, it's not good. I was having to stand up in front of students andtalk about the themes in Romeo and Juliet (the film - Baz Lurmanh version)and all the whilst I was about 1/2 a second from collapsing from grief orjust fainting and the last time I was like this, I found out I was adoptedand I fainted then.My fiancé is trying to be supportive and understanding and I've e-mailed himsome literature that I think he could benefit from reading and he's startedreading it and now understands the abandonment issues a bit better, but it'shard and because I now live in Geelong, I'm even more isolated than ever inmy search (my family live in Melbourne). So, I'm glad I've made two newfriends who are offering support.I've tried going onto Yahoo Chat and to the Adoption Rooms but they'repathetic and filled with men trying to get laid and that's not my scene.Also, the advice they give me is useless - they've referred me to Americanagencies, agencies that are dodgy and change sites all the time so they'renot caught, ones that ask you to spend money like there's no tomorrow....and so on and so forth.The only clues I've got are that I was adopted via a court proceeding whichI gather gives me a better than good chance of finding my parent/s. Thecase was held in the Juvenile Courts at Bambalapitiya and I've got the nameof the Assistant-Registrar so that's a couple of leads.The frustrating thing at the moment is that there's an agency in Melbourne -VANISH (Victorian Adoption Network for Information and Self Help) but eachtime I've called, no-one answers the phone and I went down there but it wasclosed and they're not replying to their e-mail. I know a Sri Lankan lawyerliving in Australia (Melbourne) who might be able to help, but it's the samething - she'd tell my parents and my parents would be so upset they wouldn'tsee that this is something I need to do for myself.

Well...there is still a possibility to do this without her telling your
parents. Go to see her and offer her some payment to retain her...even one
dollar (or whatever you use for money there...lol I don't even know, how
ignorant is that?) can be used to invoke attorney/client privelege. At least
here in America it can work that way. Then she wouldn't be able to discuss it
with your parents legally without your written consent. Just a thought.
I was speaking to my Mum tonight and nearly came out and asked her if sheand Dad could help me find my medical history and details of any knownsiblings and that if they do the search on my behalf that they can keep thename of the mother to themselves and tell me only the things I need to knowand then have it all sealed until they pass away so it doesn't hurt themwhilst they're around, but then I chickened out.It's a bad time for travelling at the moment but I guess, metaphoricallyspeaking, if you don't travel, you don't change your view and nor do youhave a chance of getting closer to your destination, so I'm going to keeptravelling and see what happens.Thank you both again.Sincerely,Mala.

Well...we are here for you if you need someone to lean on. :)

KL

In article <It6sb.7056$aT.6010@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Mala"
<mala03@bigpond.com> writes:
Thanks for replying Helen.If only that were true. My brother in law to be is a lawyer and although Ilove him dearly, I know that even if we got him to sign a confidentialityclause, he would still tell his parents what we were seeing him for and theSri Lankan lawyer wouldn't hesitate to tell everyone she knew what was goingon.It's happened before and I guess the fact that I've received free legaladvice from her, gave her the impression that she was also entitled toignore the confidentiality issues.I could try and approach her but I'm just so worried it'd get around.

Rightfully so, if your confidence has been breached before.

I don't know the code of ethics under which lawyers operate in Australia (I
hope I remember that correctly), but here in the States it doesn't matter
whether you are paid or not. A client's confidences are the clients, relative
or not. In fact, disclosure to fellow family members is far more likely to be
damaging to the client than is disclosure to some unknown third party.

Best of luck to you in whatever course you choose.

J.

"KL" <klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell> wrote in message
news:20031111233806.12501.00003902@mb-m04.aol.com... In article <TD6sb.5486$bD.20247@news.indigo.ie>, "helicon"
<helicon@eircom.net> writes:"Mala" <mala03@bigpond.com> wrote in messagenews:It6sb.7056$aT.6010@news-server.bigpond.net.au... Thanks for replying Helen. If only that were true. My brother in law to be is a lawyer and
althoughI love him dearly, I know that even if we got him to sign a
confidentiality clause, he would still tell his parents what we were seeing him for andthe Sri Lankan lawyer wouldn't hesitate to tell everyone she knew what wasgoing on.I don't think you should go *near* a family member, no matter how tenuousthe relationship is. It's happened before and I guess the fact that I've received free legal advice from her, gave her the impression that she was also entitled to ignore the confidentiality issues.That is why I said "employ a lawyer" rather than ask for free advice. Whynot get in touch with your embassy, and ask them for a list of Sri Lankanlawyers?Try and calm down. Your nerves are in tatters and you sound shocked from
theaccident. Be careful, and remember nothing will happen in a day. Take
timeto breathe. :-)Helen AHHH that I think is the BEST advice I have heard in a long time.
Remember to BREATHE! :)

LOL - I know! But when someone is uptight, or in shock, they often forget to
breathe properly, and then they have panic attacks. <g>

Helen
KL

Hi all.

Rupa,
I don't blame my parents at all for the lack of language. It's really hard
to be a parent (even though I didn't give birth to them, I was a foster mum
for a while of sorts - I was working with drug-addicted teens and disabled
young adults and mature adults) so I don't think that they should've taught
me sinhalese and Tamil plus English!

The wedding is truly going to be a wonderful day. I'm certain of that.

I know I keep saying it and perhaps it's a personality thing that's come
about because I'm adopted, but thankyou to everyone who's been supportive in
what was a really dark period for me.

I'll keep everyone updated on how I go with finding out details!

Mala.

"KL" <klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell> wrote in message
news:20031111015117.06226.00001460@mb-m19.aol.com... In article <l1Mrb.5382$aT.4734@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Mala" <mala0303@bigpond.com> writes:I found out I was adopted when I was 16 and was told alot of differentthings about my birth mother. I've been told she was a schizophrenic, adrug addict, a prostitute and most likely that my birth-father was one ofher clients.I've been undecided as to whether I would search or not because I think Ijust wanted to belong to the family I had and also I was told that I had
nochance of really knowing whether the woman they presented me with really
wasmy mother unless I undertook a costly DNA test.I've moved on with my life but about 3 months ago, decided to startsearching for my Birth Mother. I'm happy with the famly I now have, butwant to know about my medical history, whether my parents were lying ortelling the truth and also if I have any siblings.I'm getting married at the end of January next year and forced my father
tohand over a copy of my Certificate of Adoption because I needed it foridentification (I've misplaced my passport).When I read the certificate, I was shocked to read that I was only
adoptedwith I was 2 years old - not 6 months old as my parents let me believe
forover 10 years.I've read alot of literature about adoption and why parents say what they
doand I understand they were insecure and paranoid and worried I'd leave
themfor my birth family but I know that won't happen. It doesn't matter howmuch I've tried to explain it to them. I tried to tell Mum what I waswanting to do - search for my birth parents and siblings but she becamereally upset and didn't speak to me for months.NOw that I'm getting married, this is the start of my new life and before
itbegins, I want to get closure of some kind. I am aware that this may nothappen and things may in fact become worse but that's a risk I'm willing
totake.I've been searching online now for 3 months and have gotten no result.
Allof the e-mail addresses are non-existent and I've had so much e-mail sentback to me, I'm starting to lose hope.I even tried contacting the Sri Lankan newspapers to see if they could
helpbut I received no reply.Is there anyone out there who's been through this and is from Sri Lanka
orcan point me in the right direction.Tonight I got 6 returned messages and it's really devastated me and I
can'tstop crying. I've been through counselling over this previously and nodoubt will need more at some time but for now I just need answers.Please help me.Mala. Mala, Please don't give up hope. If you really want this (and you do seem
earnest about it), then I would encourage you to keep keeping on. It may take a
very long time. Sadly, that is a price that sometimes has to be paid in
searches. I can't offer you any help, I was adopted and reunited in the same area of
the US. I have no knowledge of other countries, and how they work. But I do
wish you well. And if you need to vent when it starts to get you down, please
by all means post here. If nothing else, I can offer you support. KL

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:32:30 GMT, "Mala" <mala03@bigpond.com> wrote:
I was speaking to my Mum tonight and nearly came out and asked her if sheand Dad could help me find my medical history and details of any knownsiblings and that if they do the search on my behalf that they can keep thename of the mother to themselves and tell me only the things I need to knowand then have it all sealed until they pass away so it doesn't hurt themwhilst they're around, but then I chickened out.


I think there comes a time when we stop protecting the parents and
take care of ourselves.


Jackie

In article <c7c4rvko2k7htu3cmlksb8cguag0p9cc72@4ax.com>, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:32:30 GMT, "Mala" <mala03@bigpond.com> wrote:I was speaking to my Mum tonight and nearly came out and asked her if sheand Dad could help me find my medical history and details of any knownsiblings and that if they do the search on my behalf that they can keep thename of the mother to themselves and tell me only the things I need to knowand then have it all sealed until they pass away so it doesn't hurt themwhilst they're around, but then I chickened out.I think there comes a time when we stop protecting the parents andtake care of ourselves.Jackie

Surely that doesn't apply to birthmoms......at least not in your book, right?

KL

In article <8Gosb.5711$bD.20939@news.indigo.ie>, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>
writes:
"KL" <klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell> wrote in messagenews:20031111233806.12501.00003902@mb-m04.aol.com... In article <TD6sb.5486$bD.20247@news.indigo.ie>, "helicon"<helicon@eircom.net> writes:"Mala" <mala03@bigpond.com> wrote in messagenews:It6sb.7056$aT.6010@news-server.bigpond.net.au...> Thanks for replying Helen.>> If only that were true. My brother in law to be is a lawyer andalthoughI> love him dearly, I know that even if we got him to sign aconfidentiality> clause, he would still tell his parents what we were seeing him for andthe> Sri Lankan lawyer wouldn't hesitate to tell everyone she knew what wasgoing> on.I don't think you should go *near* a family member, no matter how tenuousthe relationship is.>> It's happened before and I guess the fact that I've received free legal> advice from her, gave her the impression that she was also entitled to> ignore the confidentiality issues.That is why I said "employ a lawyer" rather than ask for free advice. Whynot get in touch with your embassy, and ask them for a list of Sri Lankanlawyers?Try and calm down. Your nerves are in tatters and you sound shocked fromtheaccident. Be careful, and remember nothing will happen in a day. Taketimeto breathe. :-)Helen AHHH that I think is the BEST advice I have heard in a long time.Remember to BREATHE! :)LOL - I know! But when someone is uptight, or in shock, they often forget tobreathe properly, and then they have panic attacks. <g>Helen KL

I have even learned of a technique that seems to be SOOOO helpful. Smell the
Flowers........Blow out the candles. Talk about a GREAT relaxer.

KL

>I think there comes a time when we stop protecting the parents andtake care of ourselves.Jackie


Exactly. Parents, whether bio or adoptive, eventually take a back seat, in my
opinion, to the needs of the adult adoptee. I'm so happy we agree on this,
Jackie.


P2P

In article <20031112165342.03399.00000088@mb-m29.aol.com>, Palms2pines says...I think there comes a time when we stop protecting the parents andtake care of ourselves.JackieExactly. Parents, whether bio or adoptive, eventually take a back seat, in myopinion, to the needs of the adult adoptee. I'm so happy we agree on this,Jackie.

D'oh! ;D

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:32:30 GMT, "Mala" <mala03@bigpond.com> wrote:
Dear Rupa & KLThank you both for your support. Apart from my brother (adopted and notrelated), I don't know anyone else who is Sri Lankan or Indian who isadopted.

Hi Mala,

I'm an Aussie mum of eight kids, six of them adopted from overseas
(Korea, Taiwan and India). I know several families who have adopted
children from Sri Lanka and successfully searched for birth family
years later. There are some people in Sri Lanka who have helped
adoptees search, and have helped with reunions.

When your adoption took place did your parents adopt you as Sri Lankan
citizens, or did they adopt you through the Victorian intercountry
adoption program? If they adopted you through the Australian system
then the state adoption department should have copies of your Sri
Lankan adoption information on file. The adoption always takes place
in Sri Lanka, but many Oz states required the child to be "re-adopted"
once the family returned to Australia, or at least would have filed a
copy of the child's paperwork from the court.

I'd strongly suggest you get in touch with ICASN - the Aussie support
group for intercountry adoptees. http://www.icasn.org/ Though you
were adopted by people from your birth country, the majority of Sri
Lankan adoptees in Oz would have been adopted transracially and they
would be your most likely source for information. ICASN may well be
able to give you some directions on accessing adoption information
from Sri Lanka.

Julia
I don't speak Sinhalese because my mum's Sinhalese and dad's Tamil so theychose to teach us English - I also suspect that at the time it was a cleverploy on my mum's part to cut ties between me and Sri Lanka. Despite thisploy, she has taken my brother and I back to Sri Lanka dozens of times forholidays etc.The tragic thing is that there is actually someone in Sri Lanka who can helpme in a jiffy. An uncle of mine used to be the SP for the Colombo Police(the area where I was adopted from) but I know that if I tell him, he'lltell my parents and then it becomes so much more complicated.I'm trying really hard not to be angry about it all but that's an emotion Ihaven't really felt in a long time - I'm usually so laid back and casual(too laid back so my friends and family tell me) and more than that, takeeverything in my stride but this is a bad time at the moment and today I wasinvolved in a car accident.I'm okay. Don't worry - my car is fine, actually more than fine consideringthat there were three other cars involved (I'm not at fault) at the time andtwo of them are big cars and nearly got written off whereas mine has acouple of scratches (deep) on the rear bumper!!This is the first time in over 24 hours that I've felt some kind of comfort.I've felt like I was moving about in a dream-like zombie state and being ateacher, it's not good. I was having to stand up in front of students andtalk about the themes in Romeo and Juliet (the film - Baz Lurmanh version)and all the whilst I was about 1/2 a second from collapsing from grief orjust fainting and the last time I was like this, I found out I was adoptedand I fainted then.My fiancé is trying to be supportive and understanding and I've e-mailed himsome literature that I think he could benefit from reading and he's startedreading it and now understands the abandonment issues a bit better, but it'shard and because I now live in Geelong, I'm even more isolated than ever inmy search (my family live in Melbourne). So, I'm glad I've made two newfriends who are offering support.I've tried going onto Yahoo Chat and to the Adoption Rooms but they'repathetic and filled with men trying to get laid and that's not my scene.Also, the advice they give me is useless - they've referred me to Americanagencies, agencies that are dodgy and change sites all the time so they'renot caught, ones that ask you to spend money like there's no tomorrow....and so on and so forth.The only clues I've got are that I was adopted via a court proceeding whichI gather gives me a better than good chance of finding my parent/s. Thecase was held in the Juvenile Courts at Bambalapitiya and I've got the nameof the Assistant-Registrar so that's a couple of leads.The frustrating thing at the moment is that there's an agency in Melbourne -VANISH (Victorian Adoption Network for Information and Self Help) but eachtime I've called, no-one answers the phone and I went down there but it wasclosed and they're not replying to their e-mail. I know a Sri Lankan lawyerliving in Australia (Melbourne) who might be able to help, but it's the samething - she'd tell my parents and my parents would be so upset they wouldn'tsee that this is something I need to do for myself.I was speaking to my Mum tonight and nearly came out and asked her if sheand Dad could help me find my medical history and details of any knownsiblings and that if they do the search on my behalf that they can keep thename of the mother to themselves and tell me only the things I need to knowand then have it all sealed until they pass away so it doesn't hurt themwhilst they're around, but then I chickened out.It's a bad time for travelling at the moment but I guess, metaphoricallyspeaking, if you don't travel, you don't change your view and nor do youhave a chance of getting closer to your destination, so I'm going to keeptravelling and see what happens.Thank you both again.Sincerely,Mala."Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in messagenews:e5619372.0311101246.53c050be@posting.g oogle.com... Mala, I'm not from Sri Lanka, I'm from India and now living in America. If I could help you, I'd be happy to. I'm guessing you were adopted by a Sri Lankan family, but now live elsewhere (Australia?). Do you speak Sinhala? If Sri Lankan adoptions are like Indian ones, I'm afraid you m ay need to think of this as a long haul. It could take years to find your birth-mother, even if you manage to do so. A lot depends on what your relinquishment story is. For now, have you tried the agency where you were adopted, and can they give you any information at all? Were you adopted from Colombo? Internet is probably not quite as widespread in Sri Lanka as it is in most developed countries. I'm sorry it's been so upsetting. I hope things work out. Best of luck, Rupa "Mala" <mala0303@bigpond.com> wrote in messagenews:<l1Mrb.5382$aT.4734@news-server.bigpond.net.au>... I found out I was adopted when I was 16 and was told alot of different things about my birth mother. I've been told she was a schizophrenic, a drug addict, a prostitute and most likely that my birth-father was oneof her clients. I've been undecided as to whether I would search or not because I thinkI just wanted to belong to the family I had and also I was told that I hadno chance of really knowing whether the woman they presented me with reallywas my mother unless I undertook a costly DNA test. I've moved on with my life but about 3 months ago, decided to start searching for my Birth Mother. I'm happy with the famly I now have, but want to know about my medical history, whether my parents were lying or telling the truth and also if I have any siblings. I'm getting married at the end of January next year and forced my fatherto hand over a copy of my Certificate of Adoption because I needed it for identification (I've misplaced my passport). When I read the certificate, I was shocked to read that I was onlyadopted with I was 2 years old - not 6 months old as my parents let me believefor over 10 years. I've read alot of literature about adoption and why parents say whatthey do and I understand they were insecure and paranoid and worried I'd leavethem for my birth family but I know that won't happen. It doesn't matter how much I've tried to explain it to them. I tried to tell Mum what I was wanting to do - search for my birth parents and siblings but she became really upset and didn't speak to me for months. NOw that I'm getting married, this is the start of my new life andbefore it begins, I want to get closure of some kind. I am aware that this maynot happen and things may in fact become worse but that's a risk I'm willingto take. I've been searching online now for 3 months and have gotten no result.All of the e-mail addresses are non-existent and I've had so much e-mailsent back to me, I'm starting to lose hope. I even tried contacting the Sri Lankan newspapers to see if they couldhelp but I received no reply. Is there anyone out there who's been through this and is from Sri Lankaor can point me in the right direction. Tonight I got 6 returned messages and it's really devastated me and Ican't stop crying. I've been through counselling over this previously and no doubt will need more at some time but for now I just need answers. Please help me. Mala.

"Mala" <mala03@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:<kgqsb.8525$aT.8096@news-server.bigpond.net.au>... Hi all. Rupa, I don't blame my parents at all for the lack of language. It's really hard to be a parent (even though I didn't give birth to them, I was a foster mum for a while of sorts - I was working with drug-addicted teens and disabled young adults and mature adults) so I don't think that they should've taught me sinhalese and Tamil plus English! The wedding is truly going to be a wonderful day. I'm certain of that. I know I keep saying it and perhaps it's a personality thing that's come about because I'm adopted, but thankyou to everyone who's been supportive in what was a really dark period for me. I'll keep everyone updated on how I go with finding out details! Mala.

Hope you have a wondeful wedding, Mala!

And hope the kids you're teaching are enjoying the Romeo and Juliet.

All the best to you.

Rupa

I agree in theory. As an adoptee, I feel that I have an obligation to
myself, if no other reason than to satisfy my curiosity, yet still do not
wish to cause distress within my adoptive family (ALL of whom have treated
me as one of thier own).

F.L.H.

"KL" <klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell> wrote in message
news:20031112130644.07578.00001598@mb-m25.aol.com... In article <c7c4rvko2k7htu3cmlksb8cguag0p9cc72@4ax.com>, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:32:30 GMT, "Mala" <mala03@bigpond.com> wrote:I was speaking to my Mum tonight and nearly came out and asked her if
sheand Dad could help me find my medical history and details of any knownsiblings and that if they do the search on my behalf that they can keep
thename of the mother to themselves and tell me only the things I need to
knowand then have it all sealed until they pass away so it doesn't hurt themwhilst they're around, but then I chickened out.I think there comes a time when we stop protecting the parents andtake care of ourselves.Jackie Surely that doesn't apply to birthmoms......at least not in your book,
right? KL

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:56:33 GMT, "Fred" <flhogan@earthlink.net>
wrote:
I agree in theory. As an adoptee, I feel that I have an obligation tomyself, if no other reason than to satisfy my curiosity, yet still do notwish to cause distress within my adoptive family (ALL of whom have treatedme as one of thier own).

I think Bob Dylan said it all in

THE TIMES THEY ARE A-CHANGIN'

Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.




I wrote..I think there comes a time when we stop protecting the parents andtake care of ourselves.

KL wrote.. Surely that doesn't apply to birthmoms......at least not in your book,right?

KL you must never read my posts..

I say records should be open.. I say that the birth parents should
meet the relinquished son or daughter and give them *their*
information..

What I object to is someone steamrolling someone else no matter who
they are or what side of the triangle they are on.

Steamrolling the person because they think they know best.. No one
knows what is best for someone else..

Jackie

In article <b6lsrvksln64aa3j6ceinh2hv2gpd3rik8@4ax.com>, Jackie says...
snipKL wrote.. Surely that doesn't apply to birthmoms......at least not in your book,right?KL you must never read my posts..

Oh dear ;)I say records should be open.. I say that the birth parents shouldmeet the relinquished son or daughter and give them *their*information..What I object to is someone steamrolling someone else no matter whothey are or what side of the triangle they are on.Steamrolling the person because they think they know best.. No oneknows what is best for someone else..

Steamrolling? No. However, I can speak from personal experience that sometimes
a little "push" can do wonders ;)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

bottom post
Re: Sri Lankan Adoptee Losing Hope.

Group: alt.adoption Date: Fri, Nov 21, 2003, 1:20pm (CST+1) From:
jdajda@newsguy.com (Jackie)
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:56:33 GMT, "Fred" <flhogan@earthlink.net> wrote:
I agree in theory. As an adoptee, I feel that I have an obligation to
myself, if no other reason than to satisfy my curiosity, yet still do
not wish to cause distress within my adoptive family (ALL of whom have
treated me as one of thier own).
I think Bob Dylan said it all in
THE TIMES THEY ARE A-CHANGIN'
Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.
Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.
Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.
The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.
I wrote..
I think there comes a time when we stop protecting the parents and take
care of ourselves.
KL wrote..
Surely that doesn't apply to birthmoms......at least not in your book,
right?
KL you must never read my posts..
I say records should be open.. I say that the birth parents should meet
the relinquished son or daughter and give them *their* information..
What I object to is someone steamrolling someone else no matter who they
are or what side of the triangle they are on.
Steamrolling the person because they think they know best.. No one knows
what is best for someone else..
Jackie


Hi Jackie,
I just wanted to tell you that I understand what you are saying. I have
read some of your other posts and while I cannot agree with everything
you have said, I do agree with what you said above. Pushing someone
into doing what one thinks is the right thing for that person many times
backfires. Gentle persuasion (very gentle)
gets much more results.


JMO,
It's me

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<b6lsrvksln64aa3j6ceinh2hv2gpd3rik8@4ax.com>... On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:56:33 GMT, "Fred" <flhogan@earthlink.net> wrote:I agree in theory. As an adoptee, I feel that I have an obligation tomyself, if no other reason than to satisfy my curiosity, yet still do notwish to cause distress within my adoptive family (ALL of whom have treatedme as one of thier own). I think Bob Dylan said it all in THE TIMES THEY ARE A-CHANGIN'


<Snip Dylan> I wrote.. >I think there comes a time when we stop protecting the parents and >take care of ourselves. KL wrote.. Surely that doesn't apply to birthmoms......at least not in your book,right? KL you must never read my posts.. I say records should be open.. I say that the birth parents should meet the relinquished son or daughter and give them *their* information.. What I object to is someone steamrolling someone else no matter who they are or what side of the triangle they are on. Steamrolling the person because they think they know best.. No one knows what is best for someone else..



I very much doubt if anybody would disagree.
Most people at least *try* to be sensitive to the needs of others.
Sometimes they fail.
But the important thing is to try.





Rh. Jackie

Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<Lmtvb.31005$cJ5.4935@www.newsranger.com>... In article <b6lsrvksln64aa3j6ceinh2hv2gpd3rik8@4ax.com>, Jackie says... snipKL wrote..> Surely that doesn't apply to birthmoms......at least not in your book,right?KL you must never read my posts.. Oh dear ;)I say records should be open.. I say that the birth parents shouldmeet the relinquished son or daughter and give them *their*information..What I object to is someone steamrolling someone else no matter whothey are or what side of the triangle they are on.Steamrolling the person because they think they know best.. No oneknows what is best for someone else.. Steamrolling? No. However, I can speak from personal experience that sometimes a little "push" can do wonders ;)


Personally, I'd prefer 'nudge' . . . and I wouldn't disagree,
especially when the groundwork has been done.
It's all about 'exquisite timing, effendi.'
That, and the force and the direction of the nudge.
And even then . . .


Rh.



Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

On 21 Nov 2003 16:17:10 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
What I object to is someone steamrolling someone else no matter who they are or what side of the triangle they are on. Steamrolling the person because they think they know best.. No one knows what is best for someone else..
I very much doubt if anybody would disagree.Most people at least *try* to be sensitive to the needs of others.Sometimes they fail.But the important thing is to try.


Then we are in agreement..

What started this IMO was someone saying that the adoptee had more
rights than the birth parent in reunion.


Jackie who is still singing that Dylan song..

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:15:35 -0600 (CST),
curiousmindswanttoknow@webtv.net (Its Me) wrote:
Hi Jackie,I just wanted to tell you that I understand what you are saying. I haveread some of your other posts and while I cannot agree with everythingyou have said, I do agree with what you said above. Pushing someoneinto doing what one thinks is the right thing for that person many timesbackfires. Gentle persuasion (very gentle)gets much more results.

It also honors the life of the other person.


Jackie

>Subject: Re: Sri Lankan Adoptee Losing Hope./for JackieFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comcuriousmindswanttoknow@webtv.net (Its Me) wrote: Pushing someoneinto doing what one thinks is the right thing for that person many timesbackfires. Gentle persuasion (very gentle)gets much more results.
It also honors the life of the other person.Jackie

"Pushing" vs "gentle persuasion" are both forms of manipulation however you
want to name it. Forcefully or gently, neither has to do with honor, it is the
intent behind it, not how it is done, that makes the difference IMO.
Kathy J

"Honor isn't about making the right choices. It's about dealing with the
consequences."
-Midori Koto

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<itnurvcjoafjcj8ri7mrc1kejfrsl32re3@4ax.com>... On 21 Nov 2003 16:17:10 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote: What I object to is someone steamrolling someone else no matter who they are or what side of the triangle they are on. Steamrolling the person because they think they know best.. No one knows what is best for someone else..I very much doubt if anybody would disagree.Most people at least *try* to be sensitive to the needs of others.Sometimes they fail.But the important thing is to try. Then we are in agreement.. What started this IMO was someone saying that the adoptee had more rights than the birth parent in reunion.


I don't know who actually *said* that, or even if anybody did.
It may have been implied rather than overt.
I guess much depends on who's thinking in terms of rights and who in
terms of obligations.


Rh.

..

Jackie

In article <b6lsrvksln64aa3j6ceinh2hv2gpd3rik8@4ax.com>, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:
No oneknows what is best for someone else..Jackie

No one but you, right Jackie?

KL

On 22 Nov 2003 10:46:11 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<itnurvcjoafjcj8ri7mrc1kejfrsl32re3@4ax.com>... On 21 Nov 2003 16:17:10 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:> What I object to is someone steamrolling someone else no matter who> they are or what side of the triangle they are on.>> Steamrolling the person because they think they know best.. No one> knows what is best for someone else..I very much doubt if anybody would disagree.Most people at least *try* to be sensitive to the needs of others.Sometimes they fail.But the important thing is to try. Then we are in agreement.. What started this IMO was someone saying that the adoptee had more rights than the birth parent in reunion.I don't know who actually *said* that, or even if anybody did.

It was stated very clearly IMO.
It may have been implied rather than overt.

Overt.
I guess much depends on who's thinking in terms of rights and who interms of obligations.

The right to know the siblings.. The obligation of the birth parent to
open the doors and tell all...

Right?

Jackie

On 22 Nov 2003 14:31:11 GMT, tmnkat@aol.com (Tm n Kat) wrote:
Subject: Re: Sri Lankan Adoptee Losing Hope./for JackieFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comcuriousmindswanttoknow@webtv.net (Its Me) wrote: Pushing someoneinto doing what one thinks is the right thing for that person many timesbackfires. Gentle persuasion (very gentle)gets much more results.It also honors the life of the other person.Jackie"Pushing" vs "gentle persuasion" are both forms of manipulation however youwant to name it.

Actually seeing the person in their map of the world and then acting
accordingly is what I call honoring the other person..
The one wanting 'more' is the one who makes the decision to push or
gently persuade.. IMO as always..
Forcefully or gently, neither has to do with honor,

The honoring part is actually sitting back and seeing the person as
they are.. Not as who they want them to be..
it is theintent behind it, not how it is done, that makes the difference IMO.Kathy J

I do not judge that.. I do not know what is right or wrong in this
kind of situation.. Maybe it is best the woman is forced.. For her
sake.. Or maybe it is best the adoptee walks away..
Who knows..
Just like me not knowing if I did the right thing on terms of my son
all those years ago..The right thing being to fight for my human
rights as a mother.
"Honor isn't about making the right choices. It's about dealing with theconsequences."-Midori Koto

And if you have a woman who is still in secrecy and will have an
awfully hard time coming out of that secrecy IMO one must realize that
there will be consequences to the action of persuading or forcing
reunion with siblings.. The woman meeting the adoptee in secrecy is
easy IMO. Outing oneself to the people now considered family is very
different.

Jackie

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<b6lsrvksln64aa3j6ceinh2hv2gpd3rik8@4ax.com>... On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:56:33 GMT, "Fred" <flhogan@earthlink.net> wrote:I agree in theory. As an adoptee, I feel that I have an obligation tomyself, if no other reason than to satisfy my curiosity, yet still do notwish to cause distress within my adoptive family (ALL of whom have treatedme as one of thier own). I think Bob Dylan said it all in THE TIMES THEY ARE A-CHANGIN' Come gather 'round people Wherever you roam And admit that the waters Around you have grown And accept it that soon You'll be drenched to the bone. If your time to you Is worth savin' Then you better start swimmin' Or you'll sink like a stone For the times they are a-changin'. Come writers and critics Who prophesize with your pen And keep your eyes wide The chance won't come again And don't speak too soon For the wheel's still in spin And there's no tellin' who That it's namin'. For the loser now Will be later to win For the times they are a-changin'. Come senators, congressmen Please heed the call Don't stand in the doorway Don't block up the hall For he that gets hurt Will be he who has stalled There's a battle outside And it is ragin'. It'll soon shake your windows And rattle your walls For the times they are a-changin'. Come mothers and fathers Throughout the land And don't criticize What you can't understand Your sons and your daughters Are beyond your command Your old road is Rapidly agin'. Please get out of the new one If you can't lend your hand For the times they are a-changin'. The line it is drawn The curse it is cast The slow one now Will later be fast As the present now Will later be past The order is Rapidly fadin'. And the first one now Will later be last For the times they are a-changin'.

Oh for the good old days. Where have all the wonderful protest songs gone? They
had such meaning. <sigh>

Di


I wrote.. >I think there comes a time when we stop protecting the parents and >take care of ourselves. KL wrote.. Surely that doesn't apply to birthmoms......at least not in your book,right? KL you must never read my posts.. I say records should be open.. I say that the birth parents should meet the relinquished son or daughter and give them *their* information.. What I object to is someone steamrolling someone else no matter who they are or what side of the triangle they are on. Steamrolling the person because they think they know best.. No one knows what is best for someone else.. Jackie

in article mub1svsqf2sbcm6gdaoi052q4dttt73bpf@4ax.com, Jackie at
jdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 23/11/03 1:16 pm:
On 22 Nov 2003 14:31:11 GMT, tmnkat@aol.com (Tm n Kat) wrote: Subject: Re: Sri Lankan Adoptee Losing Hope./for Jackie From: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.com curiousmindswanttoknow@webtv.net (Its Me) wrote: Pushing someone into doing what one thinks is the right thing for that person many times backfires. Gentle persuasion (very gentle) gets much more results. It also honors the life of the other person. Jackie "Pushing" vs "gentle persuasion" are both forms of manipulation however you want to name it. Actually seeing the person in their map of the world and then acting accordingly is what I call honoring the other person.. The one wanting 'more' is the one who makes the decision to push or gently persuade.. IMO as always.. Forcefully or gently, neither has to do with honor, The honoring part is actually sitting back and seeing the person as they are.. Not as who they want them to be.. it is the intent behind it, not how it is done, that makes the difference IMO. Kathy J I do not judge that.. I do not know what is right or wrong in this kind of situation.. Maybe it is best the woman is forced.. For her sake.. Or maybe it is best the adoptee walks away.. Who knows.. Just like me not knowing if I did the right thing on terms of my son all those years ago..The right thing being to fight for my human rights as a mother. "Honor isn't about making the right choices. It's about dealing with the consequences." -Midori Koto And if you have a woman who is still in secrecy and will have an awfully hard time coming out of that secrecy IMO one must realize that there will be consequences to the action of persuading or forcing reunion with siblings.. The woman meeting the adoptee in secrecy is easy IMO. Outing oneself to the people now considered family is very different. Jackie

Umm...let's all just give up searching for our birth families, just in case
the birthmother is inconvenienced in any way. After all she's the only one
that matters, the only one that's ever been hurt in anyway by adoption, the
only one that really understands separation and loss, the only one that ever
suffers at all as the result of an adoption. It's the obvious solution to
the problem isn't it, let's tighten up the records so tight that no adoptee,
no PI, no CI, no search angel can ever dishonour that universal legally
binding guaranteed promise of secrecy that was given to every birth mother
that ever existed everywhere since the human race first set foot on the
earth. Let's now put full control of reunion firmly in the hands of
birthmothers and no one else, never mind natural fathers, siblings,
grandparents etc, they really just don't matter one iota, they're simply of
no importance whatsoever compared to great. Damaged, hurt, birthmother,
whose hurt is beyond all human understanding apart from that of other
birthmothers. Let's honour her alone.

Robin

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 15:07:19 +0000, Robin
<nospam@harritt.net> wrote:
in article mub1svsqf2sbcm6gdaoi052q4dttt73bpf@4ax.com, Jackie atjdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 23/11/03 1:16 pm: On 22 Nov 2003 14:31:11 GMT, tmnkat@aol.com (Tm n Kat) wrote:> Subject: Re: Sri Lankan Adoptee Losing Hope./for Jackie From: Jackie> jdajda@newsguy.com>> curiousmindswanttoknow@webtv.net (Its Me) wrote:>> Pushing someone into doing what one thinks is the right thing for that> person many times backfires. Gentle persuasion (very gentle) gets much more> results.>> It also honors the life of the other person.>>> Jackie>> "Pushing" vs "gentle persuasion" are both forms of manipulation however you want to name it. Actually seeing the person in their map of the world and then acting accordingly is what I call honoring the other person.. The one wanting 'more' is the one who makes the decision to push or gently persuade.. IMO as always.. Forcefully or gently, neither has to do with honor, The honoring part is actually sitting back and seeing the person as they are.. Not as who they want them to be.. it is the intent behind it, not how it is done, that makes the difference IMO. Kathy J I do not judge that.. I do not know what is right or wrong in this kind of situation.. Maybe it is best the woman is forced.. For her sake.. Or maybe it is best the adoptee walks away.. Who knows.. Just like me not knowing if I did the right thing on terms of my son all those years ago..The right thing being to fight for my human rights as a mother. "Honor isn't about making the right choices. It's about dealing with the consequences." -Midori Koto And if you have a woman who is still in secrecy and will have an awfully hard time coming out of that secrecy IMO one must realize that there will be consequences to the action of persuading or forcing reunion with siblings.. The woman meeting the adoptee in secrecy is easy IMO. Outing oneself to the people now considered family is very different. JackieUmm...let's all just give up searching for our birth families, just in casethe birthmother is inconvenienced in any way. After all she's the only onethat matters, the only one that's ever been hurt in anyway by adoption, theonly one that really understands separation and loss, the only one that eversuffers at all as the result of an adoption. It's the obvious solution tothe problem isn't it, let's tighten up the records so tight that no adoptee,no PI, no CI, no search angel can ever dishonour that universal legallybinding guaranteed promise of secrecy that was given to every birth motherthat ever existed everywhere since the human race first set foot on theearth. Let's now put full control of reunion firmly in the hands ofbirthmothers and no one else, never mind natural fathers, siblings,grandparents etc, they really just don't matter one iota, they're simply ofno importance whatsoever compared to great. Damaged, hurt, birthmother,whose hurt is beyond all human understanding apart from that of otherbirthmothers. Let's honour her alone.Robin

You're absolutely right! If the adoptees don't like it,
well, that's just too damn bad. They're just insignificant
bastards who should have had the good sense to not get
themselves adopted anyway. If they were worth their salt
they would have just glommed onto their mother's teat and
refused to leave in the first place. Why should anyone
honor their dirty little map of the world?

Nancy

In article <itnurvcjoafjcj8ri7mrc1kejfrsl32re3@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On 21 Nov 2003 16:17:10 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)wrote: What I object to is someone steamrolling someone else no matter who they are or what side of the triangle they are on. Steamrolling the person because they think they know best.. No one knows what is best for someone else..I very much doubt if anybody would disagree.Most people at least *try* to be sensitive to the needs of others.Sometimes they fail.But the important thing is to try.Then we are in agreement..What started this IMO was someone saying that the adoptee had morerights than the birth parent in reunion.

Who said that?

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

Jackie writes:
No oneknows what is best for someone else..Jackie

Amen.


P2P

Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<2F5wb.31316$cJ5.4991@www.newsranger.com>... In article <itnurvcjoafjcj8ri7mrc1kejfrsl32re3@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On 21 Nov 2003 16:17:10 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)wrote:> What I object to is someone steamrolling someone else no matter who> they are or what side of the triangle they are on.>> Steamrolling the person because they think they know best.. No one> knows what is best for someone else..I very much doubt if anybody would disagree.Most people at least *try* to be sensitive to the needs of others.Sometimes they fail.But the important thing is to try.Then we are in agreement..What started this IMO was someone saying that the adoptee had morerights than the birth parent in reunion. Who said that?


Beats me.
Nobody, I suspect.
Someone *might* have implied it, though it's equally possible Jackie inferred it.
Personally, I don't have neither the time nor the inclination to google.


Rh.


Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

On 23 Nov 2003 07:05:55 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:
For the times they are a-changin'.Oh for the good old days. Where have all the wonderful protest songs gone? Theyhad such meaning. <sigh>Di


They are what helped it along.. I love to listen to Dylan.


Jackie

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 16:56:30 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
In article <itnurvcjoafjcj8ri7mrc1kejfrsl32re3@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On 21 Nov 2003 16:17:10 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)wrote:> What I object to is someone steamrolling someone else no matter who> they are or what side of the triangle they are on.>> Steamrolling the person because they think they know best.. No one> knows what is best for someone else..I very much doubt if anybody would disagree.Most people at least *try* to be sensitive to the needs of others.Sometimes they fail.But the important thing is to try.Then we are in agreement..What started this IMO was someone saying that the adoptee had morerights than the birth parent in reunion.Who said that?

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bn930m%24q2s%40marlowe.umd.edu&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

snipped some..
LindaAnd, a P.S. Jackie, the adoptee is the only person in the triad who had nosay in his or her adoption (with a few, limited exceptions.) Therefore,in reunion, the adoptee's desires trump the birthmother's.

Kathy added her usual reply to that..

LindaAnd, a P.S. Jackie, the adoptee is the only person in the triad who had nosay in his or her adoption (with a few, limited exceptions.) Therefore,in reunion, the adoptee's desires trump the birthmother's.She ain't ever gonna' get that one until she drops her ' it was *all done tothe relinquishing mother* mantra.'Kathy"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

Fiend added something of interest..
In article <bn930m$q2s@marlowe.umd.edu>, lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney)wrote:the adoptee is the only person in the triad who had no sayin his or her adoption (with a few, limited exceptions.) Therefore,in reunion, the adoptee's desires trump the birthmother's.I'm sorry to have to disagree with an idea that would give us adoptees such ahuge advantage, but I have to object to the notion that some of us have morerights than others. To me, this is a matter of equitable treatment. In no otherrelationship, not even in marriage, does one adult have the right to forbidcontact between two other adults in order to continue a deception of longstanding. I see no moral basis for a birthmother's assuming that privilege tothe adoptee's detriment.Because I've lost all the posts I intended answering, this seems the best placeto add that no one has suggested ignoring the birthmother's desires ordismissing her concerns altogether. On the contrary, I think we all agree thatthe adoptee should accommodate the birthmother as far as possible short ofabandoning his own desires and his rights as an adult human being. I say thisjust in case someone may have been misrepresenting this position, possibly inprivate correspondence, so as to imply that we don't feel the birthmother hasthe right to be "human" in such a situation. Of course she has, no less and nomore than the adoptee.whoever-----------------------------and the right to drink coffee

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<gqm3svoug2p6phrfl0j7u3kb8qj3ber6ms@4ax.com>... On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 16:56:30 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:


Top post:


Thank you, Jackie. That clears things up a lot as far as I'm
concerned.
So it was only one person who said that - not a cabal of bmom
persecuting monsters, as you seemed to think.
'For the record', I am and always have been, in agreement with Fiend
on this matter, and I'd put money on the fact that most here feel the
same way.
Do I understand then that you are actually in agreement with what
Fiend has written and that you believe that most people here are
simply people who want (as far as possible and without destroying
another person's life) to access something tremendously important to
them, and which, what's more, is rightfully theirs?


Rh.


In article <itnurvcjoafjcj8ri7mrc1kejfrsl32re3@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On 21 Nov 2003 16:17:10 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)wrote:>> What I object to is someone steamrolling someone else no matter who>> they are or what side of the triangle they are on.>>>> Steamrolling the person because they think they know best.. No one>> knows what is best for someone else..>I very much doubt if anybody would disagree.>Most people at least *try* to be sensitive to the needs of others.>Sometimes they fail.>But the important thing is to try.Then we are in agreement..What started this IMO was someone saying that the adoptee had morerights than the birth parent in reunion.Who said that? http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bn930m%24q2s%40marlowe.umd.edu&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain snipped some..LindaAnd, a P.S. Jackie, the adoptee is the only person in the triad who had nosay in his or her adoption (with a few, limited exceptions.) Therefore,in reunion, the adoptee's desires trump the birthmother's. Kathy added her usual reply to that..LindaAnd, a P.S. Jackie, the adoptee is the only person in the triad who had nosay in his or her adoption (with a few, limited exceptions.) Therefore,in reunion, the adoptee's desires trump the birthmother's.She ain't ever gonna' get that one until she drops her ' it was *all done tothe relinquishing mother* mantra.'Kathy"To err is human; to forgive, divine." Fiend added something of interest..In article <bn930m$q2s@marlowe.umd.edu>, lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney)wrote:the adoptee is the only person in the triad who had no sayin his or her adoption (with a few, limited exceptions.) Therefore,in reunion, the adoptee's desires trump the birthmother's.I'm sorry to have to disagree with an idea that would give us adoptees such ahuge advantage, but I have to object to the notion that some of us have morerights than others. To me, this is a matter of equitable treatment. In no otherrelationship, not even in marriage, does one adult have the right to forbidcontact between two other adults in order to continue a deception of longstanding. I see no moral basis for a birthmother's assuming that privilege tothe adoptee's detriment.Because I've lost all the posts I intended answering, this seems the best placeto add that no one has suggested ignoring the birthmother's desires ordismissing her concerns altogether. On the contrary, I think we all agree thatthe adoptee should accommodate the birthmother as far as possible short ofabandoning his own desires and his rights as an adult human being. I say thisjust in case someone may have been misrepresenting this position, possibly inprivate correspondence, so as to imply that we don't feel the birthmother hasthe right to be "human" in such a situation. Of course she has, no less and nomore than the adoptee.whoever-----------------------------and the right to drink coffee

On 24 Nov 2003 07:03:17 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
Thank you, Jackie. That clears things up a lot as far as I'mconcerned.So it was only one person who said that - not a cabal of bmompersecuting monsters, as you seemed to think.

Why do you decide what I think?

That was one quick example.

'For the record', I am and always have been, in agreement with Fiendon this matter, and I'd put money on the fact that most here feel thesame way.

Well hey.. What can I say.
Do I understand then that you are actually in agreement with whatFiend has written and that you believe that most people here aresimply people who want (as far as possible and without destroyinganother person's life) to access something tremendously important tothem, and which, what's more, is rightfully theirs?

Key words are access something tremendously important to them.

Is it all about taking?

I just read a thread on adoption.com.. A birth mom is driving an
adoptee nuts with her love..
Her unrequited love.. Her lost love.. Her unresolved love..

The adoptee is about to drop the woman..

Funny eh.

Jackie

In article <0di6sv0tq7rdmn5mtbb5763caej8rlbdat@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On 24 Nov 2003 07:03:17 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)wrote:Thank you, Jackie. That clears things up a lot as far as I'mconcerned.So it was only one person who said that - not a cabal of bmompersecuting monsters, as you seemed to think.Why do you decide what I think?That was one quick example.'For the record', I am and always have been, in agreement with Fiendon this matter, and I'd put money on the fact that most here feel thesame way.Well hey.. What can I say.Do I understand then that you are actually in agreement with whatFiend has written and that you believe that most people here aresimply people who want (as far as possible and without destroyinganother person's life) to access something tremendously important tothem, and which, what's more, is rightfully theirs?Key words are access something tremendously important to them.Is it all about taking?I just read a thread on adoption.com.. A birth mom is driving anadoptee nuts with her love..Her unrequited love.. Her lost love.. Her unresolved love..The adoptee is about to drop the woman..Funny eh.

Not really. I know an adoptee in this situation. While she was thrilled to
find her bmom, she wasn't prepared for this woman to try to make up for
30-some-old years of lost time - Not to mention, act like this woman wasn't
raised by two other people and that they are considered her "parents". The poor
adoptee was torn between trying to please her bmom and honor her aparents. I
know she felt completely overwhelmed. I haven't been in contact with her for a
while, but I do hope things worked out. The last time I spoke to her, she
certainly had no intentions to "drop" her bmom, but she did have to tell her to
back off a bit.

Hmmm, and my bmom was ready to "drop" me at one point too.

Funny, eh?

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:27:19 -0500, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:
On 24 Nov 2003 07:03:17 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)wrote:Thank you, Jackie. That clears things up a lot as far as I'mconcerned.So it was only one person who said that - not a cabal of bmompersecuting monsters, as you seemed to think.Why do you decide what I think?

So then, you *do* you think most of us here are in that
category?That was one quick example.'For the record', I am and always have been, in agreement with Fiendon this matter, and I'd put money on the fact that most here feel thesame way.Well hey.. What can I say.

For a start, you could address what Rh said...
Do I understand then that you are actually in agreement with whatFiend has written and that you believe that most people here aresimply people who want (as far as possible and without destroyinganother person's life) to access something tremendously important tothem, and which, what's more, is rightfully theirs?Key words are access something tremendously important to them.

It's interesting that you see those as the key words. What
about the rest of it?
Is it all about taking?

No Jackie. It's also about *giving*.
I just read a thread on adoption.com.. A birth mom is driving anadoptee nuts with her love..Her unrequited love.. Her lost love.. Her unresolved love..The adoptee is about to drop the woman..Funny eh.

What's so funny about it? I don't know anything about this
particular situation, but could it be that the bmom is
looking to the adoptee to resolve her own issues in an
inappropriate manner? [note: this is a question, not a
conclusion] People can suffocate under cloying, overly
demanding, and intrusive "love". It happens all the time
in all sorts of relationships--what some see as loving
behavior is sometimes in reality possessive and obsessive.
Being a birthmother doesn't provide immunity--I've run into
a few in my day. I've noticed that you are very careful to
give your bson the space his life as a young
husband/father/wage earner requires; other bmoms may not be
so considerate. Sometimes the recipient of all that "love"
needs to either get out or go down with the ship.

Nancy
Jackie

>Subject: Re: Sri Lankan Adoptee Losing Hope.From: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 11/25/2003 7:27 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <0di6sv0tq7rdmn5mtbb5763caej8rlbdat@4ax.com>

< snip >
Do I understand then that you are actually in agreement with whatFiend has written and that you believe that most people here aresimply people who want (as far as possible and without destroyinganother person's life) to access something tremendously important tothem, and which, what's more, is rightfully theirs?Key words are access something tremendously important to them.Is it all about taking?I just read a thread on adoption.com.. A birth mom is driving anadoptee nuts with her love..Her unrequited love.. Her lost love.. Her unresolved love..

I feel a song from Debby Boone coming on.
The adoptee is about to drop the woman..

Oh well. Perhaps there's a lesson in there somewhere.
Funny eh.

Friggin' hilarious.

Dad

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<0di6sv0tq7rdmn5mtbb5763caej8rlbdat@4ax.com>... On 24 Nov 2003 07:03:17 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:Thank you, Jackie. That clears things up a lot as far as I'mconcerned.So it was only one person who said that - not a cabal of bmompersecuting monsters, as you seemed to think. Why do you decide what I think?



I didn't.
Key words are '*seemed* to think'.
That doesn't say, or even imply, that you actually *think* that way.


That was one quick example. .




.. . . of your inability to communicate on the level.



'For the record', I am and always have been, in agreement with Fiendon this matter, and I'd put money on the fact that most here feel thesame way. Well hey.. What can I say.



For starters, you might say that you'll take your grievances up with
the person who actually said that adoptee's rights trumph those of
bmothers, rather than with those who haven't.


Do I understand then that you are actually in agreement with whatFiend has written and that you believe that most people here aresimply people who want (as far as possible and without destroyinganother person's life) to access something tremendously important tothem, and which, what's more, is rightfully theirs? Key words are access something tremendously important to them.



You think these things unimportant?
Anyway, that's not an answer to my question.


Is it all about taking?



I've never advocated anything other that a sensitive and considerate
approach.
Quite a few adoptees on this ng seem to have made reunion headway by
being firm and persistant, as well as sensitive and considerate.


I just read a thread on adoption.com.. A birth mom is driving an adoptee nuts with her love.. Her unrequited love.. Her lost love.. Her unresolved love.. The adoptee is about to drop the woman.. Funny eh.



I'm sure it happens. And I don't think it's funny.
It happens the other way round too. I don't think that's funny either.
I think it's very sad.




Rh. Jackie

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<gqm3svoug2p6phrfl0j7u3kb8qj3ber6ms@4ax.com>...



Jackie, I apologise for the snittiness of my recent (hurried and
thoughtless) posts.
And I'm glad you included the inimitable Fiend's most excellent one.
Fiend wrote:



Because I've lost all the posts I intended answering, this seems the best placeto add that no one has suggested ignoring the birthmother's desires ordismissing her concerns altogether. On the contrary, I think we all agree thatthe adoptee should accommodate the birthmother as far as possible short ofabandoning his own desires and his rights as an adult human being. I say thisjust in case someone may have been misrepresenting this position, possibly inprivate correspondence, so as to imply that we don't feel the birthmother hasthe right to be "human" in such a situation. Of course she has, no less and nomore than the adoptee.



That says it all, as far as I'm concerned.
If you have disagreements with particular people (you've now made it
quite clear who they are) please confine any future snittiness on your
part to them. I don't enjoy the implication that I hold attitudes that
aren't my own, any more than you do. And I'm not happy when such
attitudes are wrongly (IMO) imputed to others

I'd very much like to know if you agree with Fiend's perspective that
the 'adoptee should accomodate the birthmother as far as possible',
with the added proviso that he does so' *short of abandoning his own
desires and his rights as an adult human being*.'

If so, we're in accord.


Rh.





whoever-----------------------------and the right to drink coffee

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:20:55 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:27:19 -0500, Jackie<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:On 24 Nov 2003 07:03:17 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)wrote:Thank you, Jackie. That clears things up a lot as far as I'mconcerned.So it was only one person who said that - not a cabal of bmompersecuting monsters, as you seemed to think.Why do you decide what I think?So then, you *do* you think most of us here are in thatcategory?

I think that most folks here think it is okay to give the adoptee more
consideration (and or human rights) than the birth mom when in
reunion.

But I honestly do not know..
That was one quick example.'For the record', I am and always have been, in agreement with Fiendon this matter, and I'd put money on the fact that most here feel thesame way.Well hey.. What can I say.For a start, you could address what Rh said...

I posted one of fiends old letters as an example..
Rh is trying to get me into a discussion on what fiend said..
We have discussed this ad nauseum..
I thought I had made myself perfectly clear..
More fool me..
Do I understand then that you are actually in agreement with whatFiend has written and that you believe that most people here aresimply people who want (as far as possible and without destroyinganother person's life) to access something tremendously important tothem, and which, what's more, is rightfully theirs?Key words are access something tremendously important to them.It's interesting that you see those as the key words. Whatabout the rest of it?

I will address that in Rh's post.
Is it all about taking?No Jackie. It's also about *giving*.

Who gives and who takes?
I just read a thread on adoption.com.. A birth mom is driving anadoptee nuts with her love..Her unrequited love.. Her lost love.. Her unresolved love..The adoptee is about to drop the woman..Funny eh.What's so funny about it?

Not a damn thing..
don't know anything about thisparticular situation, but could it be that the bmom islooking to the adoptee to resolve her own issues in aninappropriate manner? [note: this is a question, not aconclusion] People can suffocate under cloying, overlydemanding, and intrusive "love".

Yes the birth mom is acting inappropriately..
Yes the birth mom is invading the adoptee's life..
It happens all the timein all sorts of relationships--what some see as lovingbehavior is sometimes in reality possessive and obsessive.Being a birthmother doesn't provide immunity--I've run intoa few in my day. I've noticed that you are very careful togive your bson the space his life as a younghusband/father/wage earner requires; other bmoms may not beso considerate. Sometimes the recipient of all that "love"needs to either get out or go down with the ship.

Exactly..

I agree..

But what of the birth mom who does not want the adoptee invading her
world? Some women are not given that privacy.. or that right..

She is expected to open her doors.. She is expected to adhere to the
expectations of the adoptee..
That being knowing the siblings.. Which is the bottom line issue in
this discussion..

The relationship is not equal.

Jackie

On 25 Nov 2003 10:18:42 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<0di6sv0tq7rdmn5mtbb5763caej8rlbdat@4ax.com>... On 24 Nov 2003 07:03:17 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:Thank you, Jackie. That clears things up a lot as far as I'mconcerned.So it was only one person who said that - not a cabal of bmompersecuting monsters, as you seemed to think. Why do you decide what I think?
I didn't.Key words are '*seemed* to think'.That doesn't say, or even imply, that you actually *think* that way.

You were inferring that I think that way.. IMO

That was one quick example. .
. . . of your inability to communicate on the level.

What the hell does that mean?
'For the record', I am and always have been, in agreement with Fiendon this matter, and I'd put money on the fact that most here feel thesame way. Well hey.. What can I say.
For starters, you might say that you'll take your grievances up withthe person who actually said that adoptee's rights trumph those ofbmothers, rather than with those who haven't.

I have done this here many times..
I am thinking folks are getting sick of it..

But its this or the damn war.. and Steve pontificating his views..

Do I understand then that you are actually in agreement with whatFiend has written and that you believe that most people here aresimply people who want (as far as possible and without destroyinganother person's life) to access something tremendously important tothem, and which, what's more, is rightfully theirs? Key words are access something tremendously important to them.
You think these things unimportant?Anyway, that's not an answer to my question.

Key words as far as possible..

You are playing with words again Rh..
Is it all about taking?
I've never advocated anything other that a sensitive and considerateapproach.

But you add .."as far as possible"..

So if sensitive and considerate does not work go to plan B from outer
space..

Quite a few adoptees on this ng seem to have made reunion headway bybeing firm and persistant, as well as sensitive and considerate.

Okay..
I just read a thread on adoption.com.. A birth mom is driving an adoptee nuts with her love.. Her unrequited love.. Her lost love.. Her unresolved love.. The adoptee is about to drop the woman.. Funny eh.
I'm sure it happens. And I don't think it's funny.It happens the other way round too. I don't think that's funny either.I think it's very sad.

As do I.


Jackie

On 25 Nov 2003 16:44:19 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<gqm3svoug2p6phrfl0j7u3kb8qj3ber6ms@4ax.com>...
Jackie, I apologise for the snittiness of my recent (hurried andthoughtless) posts.

We are here to argue..
And I'm glad you included the inimitable Fiend's most excellent one.Fiend wrote:
Because I've lost all the posts I intended answering, this seems the best placeto add that no one has suggested ignoring the birthmother's desires ordismissing her concerns altogether. On the contrary, I think we all agree thatthe adoptee should accommodate the birthmother as far as possible short ofabandoning his own desires and his rights as an adult human being. I say thisjust in case someone may have been misrepresenting this position, possibly inprivate correspondence, so as to imply that we don't feel the birthmother hasthe right to be "human" in such a situation. Of course she has, no less and nomore than the adoptee.

I would never say the siblings must not be contacted.. Not for one
second would I even think this.. To know a blood brother and or sister
is important.. Fiend wrote an excellent response.. That is why I copy
and pasted it into this discussion.

But who messed with the womans head in the first place? Who told the
woman that she has no right to find out about her child? No right to
find out whether the relinquished son or daughter is alive or dead?
Its unnatural.. Its against nature..

But she lives by this unnatural law of the land.. She does not find
her son or daughter.. She does what the judge tells her to do.

I say attack the real problem.. Attack that damn secrecy..
Open the records and allow the woman her dignity..
Allow the woman the truth..

Don't just say.. "Well you are wrong and you must not keep the secret
any more."

Stop the buggers that are using her..

That says it all, as far as I'm concerned.If you have disagreements with particular people (you've now made itquite clear who they are) please confine any future snittiness on yourpart to them.

Oh please..
I don't enjoy the implication that I hold attitudes thataren't my own, any more than you do. And I'm not happy when suchattitudes are wrongly (IMO) imputed to others

Well I had better shut the hell up then..
I'd very much like to know if you agree with Fiend's perspective thatthe 'adoptee should accomodate the birthmother as far as possible',with the added proviso that he does so' *short of abandoning his owndesires and his rights as an adult human being*.'If so, we're in accord.

Why do we decide the outcome of a relationship that was manipulated by
the secret keepers?
Someone that decided that the closed era would work.

Don't run over the woman.. Understand her.



Jackie

in article lus8svk55k3j701ju766ev4hr30tg66gs3@4ax.com, Jackie at
jdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 26/11/03 10:03 am:
On 25 Nov 2003 16:44:19 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote: Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<gqm3svoug2p6phrfl0j7u3kb8qj3ber6ms@4ax.com>...
Jackie, I apologise for the snittiness of my recent (hurried and thoughtless) posts.

We are here to argue..
And I'm glad you included the inimitable Fiend's most excellent one. Fiend wrote:
> Because I've lost all the posts I intended answering, this seems the best> place to add that no one has suggested ignoring the birthmother's desires> or dismissing her concerns altogether. On the contrary, I think we all> agree that the adoptee should accommodate the birthmother as far as> possible short of abandoning his own desires and his rights as an adult> human being. I say this just in case someone may have been misrepresenting> this position, possibly in private correspondence, so as to imply that we> don't feel the birthmother has the right to be "human" in such a situation.> Of course she has, no less and no more than the adoptee.

I would never say the siblings must not be contacted.. Not for one second would I even think this.. To know a blood brother and or sister is important.. Fiend wrote an excellent response.. That is why I copy and pasted it into this discussion.



So Jackie, can we take it you no longer believe what you wrote to Gary in
Oct 2002?


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=5lh0su4lentanr5b0pejdpbi82pq2s4f4k%404 ax.c
om



<quote>


In that other thread.. some adoptee's have said that they have a right to
contact the siblings when they want to contact them ...'

'... I have been saying that this is not a good thing ...'


'...And I think you have the right to keep that information (sibling info)
to yourself as do all birth parents.

If the birth parent wants to keep the secret of the bson or bdaughter
from the siblings.. I think they have a right to do this..'


<end quote>


But who messed with the womans head in the first place? Who told the woman that she has no right to find out about her child? No right to find out whether the relinquished son or daughter is alive or dead? Its unnatural.. Its against nature..


Rather the same the same thing with siblings, isn't it really? Especially if
it's the birth mother doing the deciding whether or not they can know each
other?

Robin

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<18s8svos3jfl28uknc7iuinrsphk2as615@4ax.com>... On 25 Nov 2003 10:18:42 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<0di6sv0tq7rdmn5mtbb5763caej8rlbdat@4ax.com>... On 24 Nov 2003 07:03:17 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote: >Thank you, Jackie. That clears things up a lot as far as I'm >concerned. >So it was only one person who said that - not a cabal of bmom >persecuting monsters, as you seemed to think. Why do you decide what I think?I didn't.Key words are '*seemed* to think'.That doesn't say, or even imply, that you actually *think* that way. You were inferring that I think that way.. IMO



Hey, Flippertygibbet.
No indeedy.
It is YOU who are inferring that I thought you thought that way ;-)

That was one quick example. .. . . of your inability to communicate on the level. What the hell does that mean?


It means that you rarely, if ever, reply directly to direct questions.
It means that,in my particular case, you avoid issues with by
repeatedly impugning the integrity of my words.
It means you make it very clear that people who are do not share your
viewpoint are deficient in feeling and, by extension, ethically
challenged.
And that people who stick to a different point of view from yours are
'controlling'.
Communication for you is the art of evasion.
It's all avoidance. With hen-pecks of attack, followed by a quick
retreat.
There's nothing substantial that can be taken hold of.
No progression, no possibility of extricating anything that has form
from this miserable quagmire of terminal feelingfulness.

>'For the record', I am and always have been, in agreement with Fiend >on this matter, and I'd put money on the fact that most here feel the >same way. Well hey.. What can I say.For starters, you might say that you'll take your grievances up withthe person who actually said that adoptee's rights trumph those ofbmothers, rather than with those who haven't. I have done this here many times.. I am thinking folks are getting sick of it.. But its this or the damn war.. and Steve pontificating his views..



Well, why *don't* you continue to pursue it with the people who
disagree with you? Instead of projecting it onto others?
Or shouldn't I expect a reply to that?


>Do I understand then that you are actually in agreement with what >Fiend has written and that you believe that most people here are >simply people who want (as far as possible and without destroying >another person's life) to access something tremendously important to >them, and which, what's more, is rightfully theirs? Key words are access something tremendously important to them.You think these things unimportant?Anyway, that's not an answer to my question. Key words as far as possible.. You are playing with words again Rh..


Oh no, I'm bloody well not.
You are being slippery and avoiding again. But what's new?
Your refusal to even try to listen and understand is part of your
unwillingness (or inability) to communicate 'on the level'.
It really is a waste of time for me to even try to communicate with
you, because, when I do, I'm accused of 'playing with words' (oh, key
words are 'playing with words', by the way).
It might have been interesting to discuss mechanisms of avoidance,
repression and denial as related to the closeted bmother, but if I
were to try to talk about them in the terms I'd need to use, I'm
pretty sure you'd lambast me for 'pathologising', so I guess that's
not going anywhere. Is it all about taking?I've never advocated anything other that a sensitive and considerateapproach. But you add .."as far as possible"..


Now THAT is patently and totally ridiculous.
Fiend used the very same 'key' words, in almost precisely the same
context.
Check it out if you don't believe me.

So if sensitive and considerate does not work go to plan B from outer space..




I guess you should know.
I (personally) don't have much experience of outer space . . .


Quite a few adoptees on this ng seem to have made reunion headway bybeing firm and persistant, as well as sensitive and considerate. Okay.. I just read a thread on adoption.com.. A birth mom is driving an adoptee nuts with her love.. Her unrequited love.. Her lost love.. Her unresolved love.. The adoptee is about to drop the woman.. Funny eh.I'm sure it happens. And I don't think it's funny.It happens the other way round too. I don't think that's funny either.I think it's very sad. As do I.



I *really, really, really* hate to say it, but I think we are closer
on this than you'd like to believe, Jackie.




Rh. Jackie

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<n9m3svgvnn8ouikf3aupl8djmh290jo8go@4ax.com>... On 23 Nov 2003 07:05:55 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote: For the times they are a-changin'.Oh for the good old days. Where have all the wonderful protest songs gone? Theyhad such meaning. <sigh>Di They are what helped it along.. I love to listen to Dylan. Jackie


Me too. I love all protests songs though. The youth of today have nothing to say.

Di

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<lus8svk55k3j701ju766ev4hr30tg66gs3@4ax.com>... On 25 Nov 2003 16:44:19 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<gqm3svoug2p6phrfl0j7u3kb8qj3ber6ms@4ax.com>...Jackie, I apologise for the snittiness of my recent (hurried andthoughtless) posts. We are here to argue..And I'm glad you included the inimitable Fiend's most excellent one.Fiend wrote: >Because I've lost all the posts I intended answering, this seems the best place >to add that no one has suggested ignoring the birthmother's desires or >dismissing her concerns altogether. On the contrary, I think we all agree that >the adoptee should accommodate the birthmother as far as possible short of >abandoning his own desires and his rights as an adult human being. I say this >just in case someone may have been misrepresenting this position, possibly in >private correspondence, so as to imply that we don't feel the birthmother has >the right to be "human" in such a situation. Of course she has, no less and no >more than the adoptee. I would never say the siblings must not be contacted.. Not for one second would I even think this.. To know a blood brother and or sister is important.. Fiend wrote an excellent response.. That is why I copy and pasted it into this discussion. But who messed with the womans head in the first place? Who told the woman that she has no right to find out about her child? No right to find out whether the relinquished son or daughter is alive or dead? Its unnatural.. Its against nature.. But she lives by this unnatural law of the land.. She does not find her son or daughter.. She does what the judge tells her to do. I say attack the real problem.. Attack that damn secrecy.. Open the records and allow the woman her dignity.. Allow the woman the truth.. Don't just say.. "Well you are wrong and you must not keep the secret any more." Stop the buggers that are using her..That says it all, as far as I'm concerned.If you have disagreements with particular people (you've now made itquite clear who they are) please confine any future snittiness on yourpart to them. Oh please..I don't enjoy the implication that I hold attitudes thataren't my own, any more than you do. And I'm not happy when suchattitudes are wrongly (IMO) imputed to others Well I had better shut the hell up then..I'd very much like to know if you agree with Fiend's perspective thatthe 'adoptee should accomodate the birthmother as far as possible',with the added proviso that he does so' *short of abandoning his owndesires and his rights as an adult human being*.'If so, we're in accord. Why do we decide the outcome of a relationship that was manipulated by the secret keepers? Someone that decided that the closed era would work. Don't run over the woman.. Understand her. Jackie

Well put. Although I doubt many will understand it.

Di



Di

in article c599139c.0311260806.1897f90e@posting.google.com, Dian at
patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 26/11/03 4:06 pm:
Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<lus8svk55k3j701ju766ev4hr30tg66gs3@4ax.com>... On 25 Nov 2003 16:44:19 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote: Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<gqm3svoug2p6phrfl0j7u3kb8qj3ber6ms@4ax.com>... Jackie, I apologise for the snittiness of my recent (hurried and thoughtless) posts. We are here to argue.. And I'm glad you included the inimitable Fiend's most excellent one. Fiend wrote:>> Because I've lost all the posts I intended answering, this seems the best>> place to add that no one has suggested ignoring the birthmother's desires>> or dismissing her concerns altogether. On the contrary, I think we all>> agree that the adoptee should accommodate the birthmother as far as>> possible short of abandoning his own desires and his rights as an adult>> human being. I say this just in case someone may have been misrepresenting>> this position, possibly in private correspondence, so as to imply that we>> don't feel the birthmother has the right to be "human" in such a>> situation. Of course she has, no less and no more than the adoptee.>> I would never say the siblings must not be contacted.. Not for one second would I even think this.. To know a blood brother and or sister is important.. Fiend wrote an excellent response.. That is why I copy and pasted it into this discussion. But who messed with the womans head in the first place? Who told the woman that she has no right to find out about her child? No right to find out whether the relinquished son or daughter is alive or dead? Its unnatural.. Its against nature.. But she lives by this unnatural law of the land.. She does not find her son or daughter.. She does what the judge tells her to do. I say attack the real problem.. Attack that damn secrecy.. Open the records and allow the woman her dignity.. Allow the woman the truth.. Don't just say.. "Well you are wrong and you must not keep the secret any more." Stop the buggers that are using her.. That says it all, as far as I'm concerned. If you have disagreements with particular people (you've now made it quite clear who they are) please confine any future snittiness on your part to them. Oh please.. I don't enjoy the implication that I hold attitudes that aren't my own, any more than you do. And I'm not happy when such attitudes are wrongly (IMO) imputed to others Well I had better shut the hell up then.. I'd very much like to know if you agree with Fiend's perspective that the 'adoptee should accomodate the birthmother as far as possible', with the added proviso that he does so' *short of abandoning his own desires and his rights as an adult human being*.' If so, we're in accord. Why do we decide the outcome of a relationship that was manipulated by the secret keepers? Someone that decided that the closed era would work. Don't run over the woman.. Understand her. Jackie

Well put. Although I doubt many will understand it. Di


Well Di, I did find this bit
I would never say the siblings must not be contacted.. Not for one second would I even think this.. To know a blood brother and or sister is important.. Fiend wrote an excellent response.. That is why I copy and pasted it into this discussion.

rather difficult to understand in the light of Jackie's previous quote;

<quote>

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=5lh0su4lentanr5b0pejdpbi82pq2s4f4k%404 ax.c
om

In that other thread.. some adoptee's have said that they have a right to
contact the siblings when they want to contact them ...'

'... I have been saying that this is not a good thing ...'


'...And I think you have the right to keep that information (sibling info)
to yourself as do all birth parents.

If the birth parent wants to keep the secret of the bson or bdaughter
from the siblings.. I think they have a right to do this..'


<end quote>

But no doubt Jackie will be along shortly to explain how it fits in with her
assertion above;
I would never say the siblings must not be contacted.. Not for one second would I even think this.. To know a blood brother and or sister is important.. Fiend wrote an excellent response.. That is why I copy and pasted it into this discussion.

But then again maybe not.


Robin

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<lus8svk55k3j701ju766ev4hr30tg66gs3@4ax.com>... On 25 Nov 2003 16:44:19 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<gqm3svoug2p6phrfl0j7u3kb8qj3ber6ms@4ax.com>...Jackie, I apologise for the snittiness of my recent (hurried andthoughtless) posts. We are here to argue..



Not only to argue,
but sometimes (I hope) to agree

And I'm glad you included the inimitable Fiend's most excellent one.Fiend wrote: >Because I've lost all the posts I intended answering, this seems the best place >to add that no one has suggested ignoring the birthmother's desires or >dismissing her concerns altogether. On the contrary, I think we all agree that >the adoptee should accommodate the birthmother as far as possible short of >abandoning his own desires and his rights as an adult human being. I say this >just in case someone may have been misrepresenting this position, possibly in >private correspondence, so as to imply that we don't feel the birthmother has >the right to be "human" in such a situation. Of course she has, no less and no >more than the adoptee. I would never say the siblings must not be contacted.. Not for one second would I even think this.. To know a blood brother and or sister is important.. Fiend wrote an excellent response.. That is why I copy and pasted it into this discussion. But who messed with the womans head in the first place? Who told the woman that she has no right to find out about her child? No right to find out whether the relinquished son or daughter is alive or dead? Its unnatural.. Its against nature.. But she lives by this unnatural law of the land.. She does not find her son or daughter.. She does what the judge tells her to do. I say attack the real problem.. Attack that damn secrecy.. Open the records and allow the woman her dignity.. Allow the woman the truth..



Absolutely.
But what do you suggest as a solution until records are opened.
Do you consider closed records as being some kind of moral equivalent
to a promise of privacy?
And even if and when records are opened, is there some kind of
retroactive obligation to protect the privacy of a woman who
relinquished many years ago.

Don't just say.. "Well you are wrong and you must not keep the secret any more."


Well, here I think we don't quite agree on what actually *is* being
said.
To me, it's more like a plea to be strong enough not to perpetuate the
problem, and pass the burdon on down. Stop the buggers that are using her..




I understand that, from her point of view, it might just seem like
more of the same kind of use/abuse.
But it really isn't.

That says it all, as far as I'm concerned.If you have disagreements with particular people (you've now made itquite clear who they are) please confine any future snittiness on yourpart to them. Oh please..
I don't enjoy the implication that I hold attitudes thataren't my own, any more than you do. And I'm not happy when suchattitudes are wrongly (IMO) imputed to others Well I had better shut the hell up then..


Not much chance of that.
Now, here's a straight question for you.
When you wrote recently that you had a 'lot of respect for me, but
that I shouldn't have pathologised that woman', were you lying about
the respect part?
Because I personally can't imagine how *anyone* could respect the
kind of person you seem to think I am. It would worry me very much if
they did, and is a matter of considerable puzzlement to me.



I'd very much like to know if you agree with Fiend's perspective thatthe 'adoptee should accomodate the birthmother as far as possible',with the added proviso that he does so' *short of abandoning his owndesires and his rights as an adult human being*.'If so, we're in accord. Why do we decide the outcome of a relationship that was manipulated by the secret keepers? Someone that decided that the closed era would work. Don't run over the woman.. Understand her.



I agree. Understanding goes a long way.
But, if the understanding is there, and there's no further progress,
what then?



Rh. Jackie

patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<c599139c.0311260753.a7d0f4c@posting.google.com>... Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<n9m3svgvnn8ouikf3aupl8djmh290jo8go@4ax.com>... On 23 Nov 2003 07:05:55 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:> For the times they are a-changin'.>Oh for the good old days. Where have all the wonderful protest songs gone? Theyhad such meaning. <sigh>Di They are what helped it along.. I love to listen to Dylan. Jackie Me too. I love all protests songs though. The youth of today have nothing to say.



I'm sorry you feel that way.
I know a few, and I disagree.



Rh.
Di

sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0311261141.511ba1a0@posting.google.com>... patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<c599139c.0311260753.a7d0f4c@posting.google.com>... Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<n9m3svgvnn8ouikf3aupl8djmh290jo8go@4ax.com>... On 23 Nov 2003 07:05:55 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote: >> For the times they are a-changin'. >> > >Oh for the good old days. Where have all the wonderful protest songs gone? They >had such meaning. <sigh> > >Di They are what helped it along.. I love to listen to Dylan. Jackie Me too. I love all protests songs though. The youth of today have nothing to say. I'm sorry you feel that way. I know a few, and I disagree.


Whoops.
I meant young people, of course.
The ones I know are very politically active, and have plenty to say.
(I know a fair number of protest songs too)


Rh. Rh. Di

cOn Wed, 26 Nov 2003 04:22:19 -0500, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:20:55 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:27:19 -0500, Jackie<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:On 24 Nov 2003 07:03:17 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)wrote:>Thank you, Jackie. That clears things up a lot as far as I'm>concerned.>So it was only one person who said that - not a cabal of bmom>persecuting monsters, as you seemed to think.Why do you decide what I think?So then, you *do* you think most of us here are in thatcategory?I think that most folks here think it is okay to give the adoptee moreconsideration (and or human rights) than the birth mom when inreunion.But I honestly do not know..

Jackie, I'm not sure what you're talking about. There's no
such thing as *more* human rights. I can't speak for other
people, so I'll spell out my position (again) for you.

I think no one is entitled to forbid another adult from
relating to any other adult. I think no one has the
right--whether "moral" or not--to deny any adult human being
the opportunity to relate to their siblings, and vice versa.
I believe anyone who is being denied that opportunity has a
moral obligation to consider the reasons for the attempted
denial and act accordingly within a reasonable framework of
time, but if that opportunity is important enough to the
person seeking it, it simply cannot be denied.

I think this is quite similar to the positions of Fiend and
GR and probably everyone here. If you can name even one
person here who advocates giving the finger to the birthmom
and outing her to an abusive and/or dangerous and/or
unforgiving third party without consideration, I'd like to
know who it is.That was one quick example.>'For the record', I am and always have been, in agreement with Fiend>on this matter, and I'd put money on the fact that most here feel the>same way.Well hey.. What can I say.For a start, you could address what Rh said...I posted one of fiends old letters as an example..Rh is trying to get me into a discussion on what fiend said..We have discussed this ad nauseum..I thought I had made myself perfectly clear..More fool me..

Actually, you haven't made yourself clear--you seem to waver
between accepting reasonable parameters and denying adoptees
any rights whatsoever. It would be helpful if you would
come right out and present your position on this matter. Do
you believe a birthmother in secrecy has the right to forbid
her relinquished child from knowing his/her siblings? It's
a yes/no question.

>Do I understand then that you are actually in agreement with what>Fiend has written and that you believe that most people here are>simply people who want (as far as possible and without destroying>another person's life) to access something tremendously important to>them, and which, what's more, is rightfully theirs?Key words are access something tremendously important to them.It's interesting that you see those as the key words. Whatabout the rest of it?I will address that in Rh's post.Is it all about taking?No Jackie. It's also about *giving*.Who gives and who takes?

Everyone.
I just read a thread on adoption.com.. A birth mom is driving anadoptee nuts with her love..Her unrequited love.. Her lost love.. Her unresolved love..The adoptee is about to drop the woman..Funny eh.What's so funny about it?Not a damn thing.. don't know anything about thisparticular situation, but could it be that the bmom islooking to the adoptee to resolve her own issues in aninappropriate manner? [note: this is a question, not aconclusion] People can suffocate under cloying, overlydemanding, and intrusive "love".Yes the birth mom is acting inappropriately..Yes the birth mom is invading the adoptee's life.. It happens all the timein all sorts of relationships--what some see as lovingbehavior is sometimes in reality possessive and obsessive.Being a birthmother doesn't provide immunity--I've run intoa few in my day. I've noticed that you are very careful togive your bson the space his life as a younghusband/father/wage earner requires; other bmoms may not beso considerate. Sometimes the recipient of all that "love"needs to either get out or go down with the ship.Exactly..I agree..But what of the birth mom who does not want the adoptee invading herworld? Some women are not given that privacy.. or that right..

As far as I can tell, *no one" is given the right to forbid
others from relating to the people in one's world. It's a
fact of life not exclusive to birthmothers.
She is expected to open her doors.. She is expected to adhere to theexpectations of the adoptee..

I don't think she is "expected" to do anything proactive in
this situation.
That being knowing the siblings.. Which is the bottom line issue inthis discussion..The relationship is not equal.

Maybe, maybe not, but it's certainly not equal for the
woman's children either. It's a stalemate, Jackie. The
birthmother presumably has the right to continue a life of
deception, and those being deceived have the right to the
truth. How would *you* solve this dilemma? What practical
solutions do you propose?

Nancy


Jackie

On 26 Nov 2003 07:24:23 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
It really is a waste of time for me to even try to communicate withyou,


Lets leave it at that.


Jackie

On 26 Nov 2003 08:06:18 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:
Don't run over the woman.. Understand her. JackieWell put. Although I doubt many will understand it.Di

Its like we have no human rights here.. The adoptee has the genetic
imperative to meet the siblings and that is okay..
But the nmom? Forget about it..

I read a letter last nite from a man who is into a two year reunion..
He does not like his nmom. He can not forgive her for relinquishing
him.. I sincerely wonder if he understands why she did.. And I
sincerely wonder if he wants to understand..

But I bet he wants to know the siblings.. Siblings who have no
baggage. Yet.

Also what about the nmoms genetic imperative? What about her wanting
to see/know her child and/or her grown up son or daughter?

Another interesting example of no one really caring about the feelings
of the nmom is in another post I read on adoption.com last nite.. This
one is about a sister of an adoptee who has died.. The adoptee died of
an overdose.. The sister wants to find the birth parent to tell her
(or them) that she is dead..
The sister went to the agency and the agency told her they would not
help..
My God what is wrong with those people..


Jackie

On 26 Nov 2003 07:53:05 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:
They are what helped it along.. I love to listen to Dylan. JackieMe too. I love all protests songs though. The youth of today have nothing to say.Di

My daughter sings her anger.. Problem is you can't understand what she
is signing .. She is shouting..

Hubby worked with Dylan.. A fellow Canadian did a film about Dylan and
hubby was interviewed.. What a hoot it was seeing him pontificating at
the cheese factory.. with all his bikes around him..

Jackie

>Subject: Re: Sri Lankan Adoptee Losing Hope.From: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 11/27/03 8:22 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <e0ubsvo3930qglu08gs669c7jpbcq465jq@4ax.com>On 26 Nov 2003 08:06:18 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote: Don't run over the woman.. Understand her. JackieWell put. Although I doubt many will understand it.DiIts like we have no human rights here.. The adoptee has the geneticimperative to meet the siblings and that is okay..But the nmom? Forget about it..


Oh, I dunno. I think it's quite alright for the nmom to get to know the
adoptee's biological siblings, don't you?

< snip >
Another interesting example of no one really caring about thefeelings of the nmom

< sigh >
is in another post I read on adoption.com last nite.. This one isabout a sister of an adoptee who has died.. The adoptee died ofan overdose.. The sister wants to find the birth parent to tell her(or them) that she is dead..

The adoptee's sister seemed to care.

Dad

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:56:49 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:

snipped for brevity..

I wrote..I think that most folks here think it is okay to give the adoptee moreconsideration (and or human rights) than the birth mom when inreunion.But I honestly do not know..Jackie, I'm not sure what you're talking about. There's nosuch thing as *more* human rights. I can't speak for otherpeople, so I'll spell out my position (again) for you.I think no one is entitled to forbid another adult fromrelating to any other adult.

What of the secret keeping in adoption?
What of the hidden records?

Why isn't it opened up?
I think no one has theright--whether "moral" or not--to deny any adult human beingthe opportunity to relate to their siblings, and vice versa.

The government does this.. IMO

The government denies the right of contact because they will not open
up the records.. Will not give the adoptee his or her original birth
certificate.. Will not tell the birth mom where her son or daughter
is. Will not tell her if he or she is alive or dead..
I believe anyone who is being denied that opportunity has amoral obligation to consider the reasons for the attempteddenial and act accordingly within a reasonable framework oftime, but if that opportunity is important enough to theperson seeking it, it simply cannot be denied.

The control is kept by the puppet master.. The ones who started this..
The ones who put out the information that (some) women wanted rid of
their children..

Check this out..

http://forums.adoption.com/t120355,15,1.html

FatBirdy wrote.. As for me, I am an adoptee in my late twenties and I have been in contact with my bmom for 2 years. She is quite nice but I am having trouble forgiving her for making me an adopted person. At times, the pain is emense, and after 2 years I am contemplating cutting off my relationship with my bmom becasue having contact with her is just too great of a painful reminder of the past.

please note.. I have no problem with cross posting posts from
adoption.com.. If one were to use the key words in what I have posted
above the message would show up on a google web search...
We quote all the time from searches done on google..
The poster above knew and or knows that what he posts is completely
open to the internet..

I think this is quite similar to the positions of Fiend andGR and probably everyone here. If you can name even oneperson here who advocates giving the finger to the birthmomand outing her to an abusive and/or dangerous and/orunforgiving third party without consideration, I'd like toknow who it is.

She is still at the bottom on the totem pole..
Her generic imperative is ignored.. Has been ignored for many years..
Have you even considered what the woman goes through when she wants to
know about her son or daughter?

Wants to contact him.. or she?

"Not allowed!" some say.. Not your kid anymore.. Bugger off...

Why is that acceptable?

What about her genetic imperative? Is that negated because she did
the deed?
The deed that she wanted rid of the kid.. Who told everyone this?

The secret keepers is my guess..
>That was one quick example.>>>>'For the record', I am and always have been, in agreement with Fiend>>on this matter, and I'd put money on the fact that most here feel the>>same way.>>Well hey.. What can I say.For a start, you could address what Rh said...I posted one of fiends old letters as an example..Rh is trying to get me into a discussion on what fiend said..We have discussed this ad nauseum..I thought I had made myself perfectly clear..More fool me..Actually, you haven't made yourself clear--you seem to waverbetween accepting reasonable parameters and denying adopteesany rights whatsoever.

Because we are not discussing the real issue..
We skirt that sucker..
It would be helpful if you wouldcome right out and present your position on this matter.

I do.. some who read these posts understand me completely.
Doyou believe a birthmother in secrecy has the right to forbidher relinquished child from knowing his/her siblings? It'sa yes/no question.

No one should forbid anyone right of contact..

But then there is a question..
Why is the birth mom forbidden (through secret record keeping) the
right of contact with her son or daughter?
Why is she told that the son or daughter is not her son or daughter?
He or she belongs to another family...

My argument here lies in the unfairness of this..
She is expected to just let it go.. The adoptee wanting to know the
siblings is not.

It is unfair.. and if this unfairness is not righted.. Adoptee's
wishing their original birth certificate etc.. will not get what they
wish..
Because women who want secrecy will come out of the closet (or will be
dragged out by the secret keepers) and say no to open records.. Why?
Because they know they are not considered in any of this. They have
been treated like children and told to go away.

IMO as always..
>>Do I understand then that you are actually in agreement with what>>Fiend has written and that you believe that most people here are>>simply people who want (as far as possible and without destroying>>another person's life) to access something tremendously important to>>them, and which, what's more, is rightfully theirs?>>Key words are access something tremendously important to them.It's interesting that you see those as the key words. Whatabout the rest of it?I will address that in Rh's post.>Is it all about taking?No Jackie. It's also about *giving*.Who gives and who takes?Everyone.

I don't think so.
>I just read a thread on adoption.com.. A birth mom is driving an>adoptee nuts with her love..>Her unrequited love.. Her lost love.. Her unresolved love..>>The adoptee is about to drop the woman..>>Funny eh.What's so funny about it?Not a damn thing.. don't know anything about thisparticular situation, but could it be that the bmom islooking to the adoptee to resolve her own issues in aninappropriate manner? [note: this is a question, not aconclusion] People can suffocate under cloying, overlydemanding, and intrusive "love".Yes the birth mom is acting inappropriately..Yes the birth mom is invading the adoptee's life.. It happens all the timein all sorts of relationships--what some see as lovingbehavior is sometimes in reality possessive and obsessive.Being a birthmother doesn't provide immunity--I've run intoa few in my day. I've noticed that you are very careful togive your bson the space his life as a younghusband/father/wage earner requires; other bmoms may not beso considerate. Sometimes the recipient of all that "love"needs to either get out or go down with the ship.Exactly..I agree..But what of the birth mom who does not want the adoptee invading herworld? Some women are not given that privacy.. or that right..As far as I can tell, *no one" is given the right to forbidothers from relating to the people in one's world. It's afact of life not exclusive to birthmothers.

Wait.. what of the birth mom who wants to find her child?
Her son or daughter..

What of her? Her search is forbidden by the secret keepers..
The ones in control...
She is expected to open her doors.. She is expected to adhere to theexpectations of the adoptee..I don't think she is "expected" to do anything proactive inthis situation.That being knowing the siblings.. Which is the bottom line issue inthis discussion..The relationship is not equal.Maybe, maybe not, but it's certainly not equal for thewoman's children either. It's a stalemate, Jackie.

It would not be if the attitude changed.. If (some) people decided
that the birth mom was not the bad guy in this..
The one who dropped her baby off and got on with her life..

But hey.. that is not going to change is it..
Now we have mommy killers.. Mommy baby dumpers..
Thebirthmother presumably has the right to continue a life ofdeception, and those being deceived have the right to thetruth. How would *you* solve this dilemma? What practicalsolutions do you propose?

Open it up.. Change attitudes.. Read about what really happened to
some of us.. Believe that it did happen..


Jackie

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<8ttbsv08nopv8181hspjmko2jd0csmrkau@4ax.com>... On 26 Nov 2003 07:24:23 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:It really is a waste of time for me to even try to communicate withyou, Lets leave it at that.




Sure.
When you've answered my questions, it's a deal



Rh. Jackie

in article dafc70.0311271152.6106a22a@posting.google.com, Rhiannon at
sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca wrote on 27/11/03 7:52 pm:
Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<8ttbsv08nopv8181hspjmko2jd0csmrkau@4ax.com>...
On 26 Nov 2003 07:24:23 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:

It really is a waste of time for me to even try to communicate with you,

Lets leave it at that.


Sure. When you've answered my questions, it's a deal



Ahh... this could go on for quite a while then. When was last time you
remember Jackie giving a straight answer to a question?


Robin

in article i40csvssoo8lrlvthe1btmur25140nsh16@4ax.com, Jackie at
jdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 27/11/03 2:31 pm:

<snip>

please note.. I have no problem with cross posting posts from adoption.com.. If one were to use the key words in what I have posted above the message would show up on a google web search... We quote all the time from searches done on google.. The poster above knew and or knows that what he posts is completely open to the internet..


U'hmmm... have you read the second part of Clause 10 of Rules of Adoption
Media Community Websites, on

http://www.adoption.com/community.php

"... All content placed on the Community Websites is expressly owned by
Adoption Media, and cannot be used in any form without it's express written
permission..."

Worth having a read of http://www.adoption.com/legal.php as well.


BTW, when I posted the following, I had no idea that it would appear on the
open Google web search engine within hours of being posted.

http://forums.adoption.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=322295#post322295

http://forums.adoption.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=308260#post308260

There is no clear indication on the adoption.com website that the message
boards are crawled by Google, the natural assumption would be that they are
"robot filed" out. Just as well I have no objection.

Robin

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:foubsvc87c71ne2pvta01bj4o9vv6u2jrg@4ax.com... On 27 Nov 2003 04:39:04 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:In article <lus8svk55k3j701ju766ev4hr30tg66gs3@4ax.com>, Jackie<jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:
<snip>
They told my son he was Irish.. I have no Irish blood in me..

That figures. Thank God for small mercies. :-)

Helen




Jackie

in article OZxxb.2385$nm6.16566@news.indigo.ie, helicon at
helicon@eircom.net wrote on 28/11/03 2:05 am:
"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:foubsvc87c71ne2pvta01bj4o9vv6u2jrg@4ax.com... On 27 Nov 2003 04:39:04 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote: In article <lus8svk55k3j701ju766ev4hr30tg66gs3@4ax.com>, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> writes: <snip> They told my son he was Irish.. I have no Irish blood in me.. That figures. Thank God for small mercies. :-) Helen

Seems to have been a popular thing to tell adoptees in the past. My sister
was told that she was Irish. When I found her she was even planning a
totally unnecessary trip to Dublin, to search for family that actually came
from England. Another of my mother's unusual spellings didn't help when she
called her Shan instead of a Welsh Siân, I didn't even know until I got the
birth certificate whether she was a girl or boy. Everyone seemed to have
assumed that Shan must be Irish.

Robin

In article <OZxxb.2385$nm6.16566@news.indigo.ie>, helicon says..."Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:foubsvc87c71ne2pvta01bj4o9vv6u2jrg@4ax .com... On 27 Nov 2003 04:39:04 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:In article <lus8svk55k3j701ju766ev4hr30tg66gs3@4ax.com>, Jackie<jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:<snip> They told my son he was Irish.. I have no Irish blood in me..That figures. Thank God for small mercies. :-)Helen

D'oh!

I must admit that I was thrilled when I found out that I had a little bit of
Irish blood in me :)

I remember when I went to Ireland for my honeymoon (definitely one of the BEST
times of my life) and at that time, I didn't know my whole heritage. I looked
at every person I passed to see if I somehow resembled them (my whole life,
people always told me I looked Irish). I didn't, but I also remember that I
felt so at home there - sort of like I had "come home". I cried the day I had
to fly back to the states :)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

Re: Sri Lankan Adoptee Losing Hope.

Group: alt.adoption Date: Fri, Nov 28, 2003, 2:05am (MST+7) From:
helicon@eircom.net (helicon)
"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:foubsvc87c71ne2pvta01bj4o9vv6u2jrg@4ax.com...
On 27 Nov 2003 04:39:04 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:
In article <lus8svk55k3j701ju766ev4hr30tg66gs3@4ax.com>, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:
<snip>

They told my son he was Irish.. I have no Irish blood in me..


That figures. Thank God for small mercies. :-)
Helen
Jackie


In taking your shot you missed the point. One that is very important to
me as an adoptee. If the little information I do have turns out to be
lies. It would be devastating to me. Just one more thing for me to work
through because of secrecy. It is not the adoptee's fault nor the
birthmothers but both are impacted. What Jackie is trying to convey is
important and also true for some.
Windforest

In article <i40csvssoo8lrlvthe1btmur25140nsh16@4ax.com>, Jackie says...
snippageShe is still at the bottom on the totem pole..Her generic imperative is ignored.. Has been ignored for many years..Have you even considered what the woman goes through when she wants toknow about her son or daughter?Wants to contact him.. or she?"Not allowed!" some say.. Not your kid anymore.. Bugger off...Why is that acceptable?What about her genetic imperative? Is that negated because she didthe deed?The deed that she wanted rid of the kid.. Who told everyone this?The secret keepers is my guess..

Just putting in my two cents here. This is not always the case. Many agencies
have services where the bmom can leave a letter in the file so if/when the
adoptee wants to contact her, all the information is there for her to do so.
The agency where I was adopted from had this, but my bmom chose not to put a
letter in the file. My SIL who is a bmom just recently updated her information
so her bdaughter will have her current address & phone number if/when she
decides to search for her. So, just for the record, not every bmom is told that
she can never have contact with her relinquished child.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

Robin <nospam@harritt.net> wrote in message news:<BBEC1819.29C4D%nospam@harritt.net>... in article dafc70.0311271152.6106a22a@posting.google.com, Rhiannon at sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca wrote on 27/11/03 7:52 pm: Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<8ttbsv08nopv8181hspjmko2jd0csmrkau@4ax.com>... On 26 Nov 2003 07:24:23 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:> It really is a waste of time for me to even try to communicate with> you, Lets leave it at that. Sure. When you've answered my questions, it's a deal Ahh... this could go on for quite a while then. When was last time you remember Jackie giving a straight answer to a question?


I know, I know (sigh)
Accountability just isn't her forté.




Rh. Robin

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<4uvbsv8lul55cha3kbkefjs57tdqs670mq@4ax.com>... On 26 Nov 2003 07:53:05 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote: They are what helped it along.. I love to listen to Dylan. JackieMe too. I love all protests songs though. The youth of today have nothing to say.Di My daughter sings her anger.. Problem is you can't understand what she is signing .. She is shouting..

Between all the head banging? :-) Hubby worked with Dylan.. A fellow Canadian did a film about Dylan and hubby was interviewed.. What a hoot it was seeing him pontificating at the cheese factory.. with all his bikes around him.. Jackie

How neat to be part of something like that.

Di

"Robin" <nospam@harritt.net> wrote in message
news:BBEC6293.29C8C%nospam@harritt.net... in article OZxxb.2385$nm6.16566@news.indigo.ie, helicon at helicon@eircom.net wrote on 28/11/03 2:05 am: "Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:foubsvc87c71ne2pvta01bj4o9vv6u2jrg@4ax.com... On 27 Nov 2003 04:39:04 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:> In article <lus8svk55k3j701ju766ev4hr30tg66gs3@4ax.com>, Jackie> <jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:> <snip> They told my son he was Irish.. I have no Irish blood in me.. That figures. Thank God for small mercies. :-) Helen Seems to have been a popular thing to tell adoptees in the past. My sister was told that she was Irish. When I found her she was even planning a totally unnecessary trip to Dublin, to search for family that actually
came from England.

Judging by the numbers of English people who come over to Dublin for their
stag nights, she might very well have met members of her birth family!

Another of my mother's unusual spellings didn't help when she called her Shan instead of a Welsh Siân, I didn't even know until I got
the birth certificate whether she was a girl or boy. Everyone seemed to have assumed that Shan must be Irish.

It's possible that someone simply wrote down the name phonetically. One of
our lovely ds is called by that name and we frequently have to say "it's
pronounced shan".

Helen
Robin

"Windforest" <badaii@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12657-3FC6B710-14@storefull-2158.public.lawson.webtv.net... Re: Sri Lankan Adoptee Losing Hope. Group: alt.adoption Date: Fri, Nov 28, 2003, 2:05am (MST+7) From: helicon@eircom.net (helicon) "Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:foubsvc87c71ne2pvta01bj4o9vv6u2jrg@4ax.com... On 27 Nov 2003 04:39:04 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote: In article <lus8svk55k3j701ju766ev4hr30tg66gs3@4ax.com>, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> writes: <snip> They told my son he was Irish.. I have no Irish blood in me.. That figures. Thank God for small mercies. :-) Helen Jackie In taking your shot you missed the point.

No I didn't - you are being a bit thin-skinned. My aim was quite direct and
true, WF. I have taken enough flak from Jackie for many things, and I was
simply glad that I couldn't be blamed again - guilty by association, by
virtue of nationality - of having *anything* to do with her unhappiness.
Anyway, perhaps his bf had some Irish in him. It would be no great shame.

One that is very important to me as an adoptee. If the little information I do have turns out to be lies. It would be devastating to me.

If it turns out to be lies, then conversely you might discover the truth.

Just one more thing for me to work through because of secrecy. It is not the adoptee's fault nor the birthmothers but both are impacted. What Jackie is trying to convey is important and also true for some.

Yes it is, but don't fall into her blame-trap because it will be impossible
to get out of it.

Helen
Windforest

On 27 Nov 2003 14:12:44 GMT, adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote:
Subject: Re: Sri Lankan Adoptee Losing Hope.From: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 11/27/03 8:22 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <e0ubsvo3930qglu08gs669c7jpbcq465jq@4ax.com>On 26 Nov 2003 08:06:18 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:> Don't run over the woman.. Understand her.>>>> JackieWell put. Although I doubt many will understand it.DiIts like we have no human rights here.. The adoptee has the geneticimperative to meet the siblings and that is okay..But the nmom? Forget about it.. Oh, I dunno. I think it's quite alright for the nmom to get to know theadoptee's biological siblings, don't you?

And we have another game with words..
< snip >Another interesting example of no one really caring about thefeelings of the nmom < sigh >is in another post I read on adoption.com last nite.. This one isabout a sister of an adoptee who has died.. The adoptee died ofan overdose.. The sister wants to find the birth parent to tell her(or them) that she is dead.. The adoptee's sister seemed to care.

God bless her.. Folks like her give me hope..


Jackie

On 27 Nov 2003 20:06:45 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:
My daughter sings her anger.. Problem is you can't understand what she is signing .. She is shouting..Between all the head banging? :-) Hubby worked with Dylan.. A fellow Canadian did a film about Dylan and hubby was interviewed.. What a hoot it was seeing him pontificating at the cheese factory.. with all his bikes around him.. JackieHow neat to be part of something like that.Di



What a time it was.. When I came back to Canada I can remember hearing
'For What It's Worth'.. Buffalo Springfield..

What a call to arms that was..

I will always love that song.

Jackie

Why don't you report me Robin..

We can see how it would pan out.. I would love to know what they would
do... Especially since Google repeats what is posted every darn day..

Damn maybe I will be banned.. Bummer..

Jackie

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 00:14:04 +0000, Robin <nospam@harritt.net> wrote:
in article i40csvssoo8lrlvthe1btmur25140nsh16@4ax.com, Jackie atjdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 27/11/03 2:31 pm:<snip> please note.. I have no problem with cross posting posts from adoption.com.. If one were to use the key words in what I have posted above the message would show up on a google web search... We quote all the time from searches done on google.. The poster above knew and or knows that what he posts is completely open to the internet..U'hmmm... have you read the second part of Clause 10 of Rules of AdoptionMedia Community Websites, onhttp://www.adoption.com/community.php"... All content placed on the Community Websites is expressly owned byAdoption Media, and cannot be used in any form without it's express writtenpermission..."Worth having a read of http://www.adoption.com/legal.php as well.BTW, when I posted the following, I had no idea that it would appear on theopen Google web search engine within hours of being posted.http://forums.adoption.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=322295#post322295http://forums.adoption.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=308260#post308260There is no clear indication on the adoption.com website that the messageboards are crawled by Google, the natural assumption would be that they are"robot filed" out. Just as well I have no objection.Robin

>Subject: Re: Sri Lankan Adoptee Losing Hope.From: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 11/28/03 8:09 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <84iesv0oprmno8dlgbo2olau5eh95r2ek9@4ax.com>

< snip >
Oh, I dunno. I think it's quite alright for the nmom to get to know theadoptee's biological siblings, don't you?And we have another game with words..

Impossible. There are no words.
Another interesting example of no one really caring about thefeelings of the nmom < sigh >is in another post I read on adoption.com last nite.. This one isabout a sister of an adoptee who has died.. The adoptee died ofan overdose.. The sister wants to find the birth parent to tell her(or them) that she is dead.. The adoptee's sister seemed to care.God bless her.. Folks like her give me hope..

I think most people are good folks.

Dad

badaii@webtv.net (Windforest) wrote in message news:<12657-3FC6B710-14@storefull-2158.public.lawson.webtv.net>... Re: Sri Lankan Adoptee Losing Hope. Group: alt.adoption Date: Fri, Nov 28, 2003, 2:05am (MST+7) From: helicon@eircom.net (helicon) "Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:foubsvc87c71ne2pvta01bj4o9vv6u2jrg@4ax.com... On 27 Nov 2003 04:39:04 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote: In article <lus8svk55k3j701ju766ev4hr30tg66gs3@4ax.com>, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> writes: <snip> They told my son he was Irish.. I have no Irish blood in me.. That figures. Thank God for small mercies. :-) Helen Jackie In taking your shot you missed the point.


I don't think she did.
I think you missed hers.


One that is very important to me as an adoptee. If the little information I do have turns out to be lies. It would be devastating to me. Just one more thing for me to work through because of secrecy.


I think I get that.
I imagine having that one little bit of tangibility torn away (even if
in reality it was only a mirage) would shake up one's world, almost
'yet again'.

It is not the adoptee's fault nor the birthmothers but both are impacted.
..


Of course. But empathy alone (I mean really understanding the impact
of secrecy on the closeted bmother) won't alter the situation for an
adoptee who wants contact and information. I am sure it would make him
more sensitive to her, though - which could be a kind of double-edged
sword for him.


What Jackie is trying to convey is important and also true for some.


Indeed it is.
But how would you suggest resolving a stalemate situation, where the
adoptee *has* been caring, patient and delicate in his approach?
It's the practical solution to this predicament that's the problem -
and there doesn't really seem to be one from Jackie's perspective.
In a way I agree with her. At this point it has become an 'either-or'
situation.
So if the adoptee does choose to surrender up his rights (as the
bmother lost hers) and walk away, is that any kind of resolution?
As you say, both mother and child have suffered from the old order.
But do you feel it is right for the stranglehold of the past to
continue to keep its hold on the present because of past wrongs and
inflicted pain?



Rh.

Windforest

Re: Sri Lankan Adoptee Losing Hope.

Group: alt.adoption Date: Fri, Nov 28, 2003, 10:12am (MST-1) From:
sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
badaii@webtv.net (Windforest) wrote in message
news:<12657-3FC6B710-14@storefull-2158.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
Re: Sri Lankan Adoptee Losing Hope.
Group: alt.adoption Date: Fri, Nov 28, 2003, 2:05am (MST+7) From:
helicon@eircom.net (helicon)
"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:foubsvc87c71ne2pvta01bj4o9vv6u2jrg@4ax.com... On 27 Nov 2003
04:39:04 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote: In article
<lus8svk55k3j701ju766ev4hr30tg66gs3@4ax.com>, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:
<snip>
They told my son he was Irish.. I have no Irish blood in me..
That figures. Thank God for small mercies. :-) Helen
Jackie
In taking your shot you missed the point.
I don't think she did.
I think you missed hers.
One that is very important to me as an adoptee. If the little
information I do have turns out to be lies. It would be devastating to
me. Just one more thing for me to work through because of secrecy.
I think I get that.
I imagine having that one little bit of tangibility torn away (even if
in reality it was only a mirage) would shake up one's world, almost 'yet
again'.
It is not the adoptee's fault nor the birthmothers but both are
impacted.

Of course. But empathy alone (I mean really understanding the impact of
secrecy on the closeted bmother) won't alter the situation for an
adoptee who wants contact and information. I am sure it would make him
more sensitive to her, though - which could be a kind of double-edged
sword for him.
What Jackie is trying to convey is important and also true for some.
Indeed it is.
But how would you suggest resolving a stalemate situation, where the
adoptee *has* been caring, patient and delicate in his approach? It's
the practical solution to this predicament that's the problem - and
there doesn't really seem to be one from Jackie's perspective. In a way
I agree with her. At this point it has become an 'either-or' situation.
So if the adoptee does choose to surrender up his rights (as the bmother
lost hers) and walk away, is that any kind of resolution? As you say,
both mother and child have suffered from the old order. But do you feel
it is right for the stranglehold of the past to continue to keep its
hold on the present because of past wrongs and inflicted pain?
Rh.
Windforest


No I do not but receiving information and demanding a reunion or contact
are not the same.
So what is the stalemate position you are referring to RH? Because it
seems to me nine times out of ten it is contact not the gathering of
information.
I have always believed that since I am the one searching that I have an
obligation to be compassionate tolerant and willing to wait as long as
it takes. Because I have prepared myself for years of many different
scenarios. I have the advantage of knowing some of what to expect. Where
as the person on the other side doesn't and maybe it isn't the focus of
everything in their life right now.
I have no right to invade someones life and not allow them the time to
process or deal. I have a right to information that is all. Contact is
gravy and welcome but not my right.
Windforest

badaii@webtv.net (Windforest) wrote in message news:<28348-3FC7CC97-484@storefull-2154.public.lawson.webtv.net>... Re: Sri Lankan Adoptee Losing Hope. Group: alt.adoption Date: Fri, Nov 28, 2003, 10:12am (MST-1) From: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) badaii@webtv.net (Windforest) wrote in message news:<12657-3FC6B710-14@storefull-2158.public.lawson.webtv.net>... Re: Sri Lankan Adoptee Losing Hope. Group: alt.adoption Date: Fri, Nov 28, 2003, 2:05am (MST+7) From: helicon@eircom.net (helicon) "Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:foubsvc87c71ne2pvta01bj4o9vv6u2jrg@4ax.com... On 27 Nov 2003 04:39:04 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote: In article <lus8svk55k3j701ju766ev4hr30tg66gs3@4ax.com>, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> writes: <snip> They told my son he was Irish.. I have no Irish blood in me.. That figures. Thank God for small mercies. :-) Helen Jackie In taking your shot you missed the point. I don't think she did. I think you missed hers. One that is very important to me as an adoptee. If the little information I do have turns out to be lies. It would be devastating to me. Just one more thing for me to work through because of secrecy. I think I get that. I imagine having that one little bit of tangibility torn away (even if in reality it was only a mirage) would shake up one's world, almost 'yet again'. It is not the adoptee's fault nor the birthmothers but both are impacted. Of course. But empathy alone (I mean really understanding the impact of secrecy on the closeted bmother) won't alter the situation for an adoptee who wants contact and information. I am sure it would make him more sensitive to her, though - which could be a kind of double-edged sword for him. What Jackie is trying to convey is important and also true for some. Indeed it is. But how would you suggest resolving a stalemate situation, where the adoptee *has* been caring, patient and delicate in his approach? It's the practical solution to this predicament that's the problem - and there doesn't really seem to be one from Jackie's perspective. In a way I agree with her. At this point it has become an 'either-or' situation. So if the adoptee does choose to surrender up his rights (as the bmother lost hers) and walk away, is that any kind of resolution? As you say, both mother and child have suffered from the old order. But do you feel it is right for the stranglehold of the past to continue to keep its hold on the present because of past wrongs and inflicted pain? Rh. Windforest No I do not but receiving information and demanding a reunion or contact are not the same.



They are related.
I suppose it depends on what 'information' means to a person.
The bare bones (medical info, bfather's name etc) are one thing.
Observing the linearments of the hereditary skull, hearing a familiar
timbre in another's voice, finding commonalities - it seems to me that
all this is information of another sort, visceral stuff, part of a
genetic touchstone and missing pieces from a puzzle.
In my opinion, it's not so much that a person has a'right' to such
things as whether he need be denied them.


So what is the stalemate position you are referring to RH? Because it seems to me nine times out of ten it is contact not the gathering of information.


From my perspective, contact *is* information of a particular kind.
It informs.

I think that people are entitled more than just 'circumscribed' info
with regards to themselves. They are entitled to full freedom of
information, which includes access to blood relatives against whom
they've commited no crime.
One would expect common decency and respect in any approach, but that
can't be legislated.
I know that Jackie isn't advocating contact vetoes but sometimes I
feel that she gets uncomfortable close to it.


I have always believed that since I am the one searching that I have an obligation to be compassionate tolerant and willing to wait as long as it takes. Because I have prepared myself for years of many different scenarios. I have the advantage of knowing some of what to expect.



A right and a proper attitude - though, if 'as long as it takes' were
to become 'forever', my personal opinion is that that's too high a
price to expect from anyone (or for a person to expect themselves to
pay).


Whereas the person on the other side doesn't and maybe it isn't the focus of everything in their life right now. I have no right to invade someones life and not allow them the time to process or deal. I have a right to information that is all. Contact is gravy and welcome but not my right.


Agreed. It's not your 'right' to burst in and make yourself obnoxious
(not that you ever would!).
However, *if* an individual *were* to feel a strong need for contact,
and met with resistance over a *protracted period* (like 'forever' -
which could happen), had assessed the situation and the possible
consequences for the bmother, then I think it would be their 'right'
to apply some pressure. How little or how much would be up to them, of
course.
A big responsibilty, but theirs nonetheless.



Rh.





Windforest

Julia, did you e-mail Mala as well? I'm thinking that maybe she's
stopped reading here because the posts have drifted pretty far from
the title topic. Your input looks like the most practical help for
her.

Rupa

Julia <jurol@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message I'd strongly suggest you get in touch with ICASN - the Aussie support group for intercountry adoptees. http://www.icasn.org/ Though you were adopted by people from your birth country, the majority of Sri Lankan adoptees in Oz would have been adopted transracially and they would be your most likely source for information. ICASN may well be able to give you some directions on accessing adoption information from Sri Lanka. Julia

On 29 Nov 2003 04:19:38 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
I know that Jackie isn't advocating contact vetoes but sometimes Ifeel that she gets uncomfortable close to it.


I will say again..

Contact veto's put the power in the wrong place..

Contact veto's give the secret keepers the power..

What they want..


Jackie

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:41:43 GMT, "Marley Greiner"
<maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:0lfhsv0fo9si15adeodl8f4e1gqflrjh5c@4ax .com... On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:52:46 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote: snipped for brevity..>>I think no one is entitled to forbid another adult from>>relating to any other adult.>>What of the secret keeping in adoption?>What of the hidden records?>>Why isn't it opened up?Well, technically I don't believe anyone is legallyforbidden to relate to another adult, though sealed recordsdo sometimes make it damn difficult. The judge told me that *legally* I was not allowed to have anything to do with my child once I signed the papers. He was very clear about that.. He questioned me to make sure I understood..The judge lied. All he did was teminate our parental rights.

Right the judge lied.. The judge was misinformed..

What about the ones who believed him? Or her.


snipped some words.. that I agree with..
>She is still at the bottom on the totem pole..>Her generic imperative is ignored.. Has been ignored for many years..>Have you even considered what the woman goes through when she wants to>know about her son or daughter?

LOL her genetic.. not generic..
>Wants to contact him.. or she?>>"Not allowed!" some say.. Not your kid anymore.. Bugger off...>>Why is that acceptable?Genetic imperative? I assume you mean some sort of primalurge to know one's own flesh and blood, including those onemay have agreed (willingly or not) to never know. Am Icorrect? Yes the primal urge of a mother to know of her child.. Or to know her child..How is the birthmother the one at the bottom of the totempole when those very same children (who agreed to nothing)are being denied the very same thing. Because she is bypassed..Jackie, we all bypassed in this.

Then more fool we..

The state marginalizes adoptees, bparentsand to a smaller, but no less important extent, aparents. In a nifty turnof the hand, it succeeds sometimes in turning the main players of the dramaagainst each other to sidestep the brick bats that will ensue when peopletranscend their family drama and go after the real villain: the partnershipof nannny state and social work industrialists who decades ago set up amodel of family engineering--long since debunked.

Yes.. Except for this new drama.. This Safe Haven drama..
Secret adoption isrooted in myth and stereotype and state power, all of which are impossibleto discredit. in the current cultural and political climate. Until thoseinvolved in adoption accept the fact that we are involved in a form of classwarfare, not an individual dysfunction, nothing will change.

So IMO we respect each other in our own particular map of the world..

Yes some women were messed with.. Yes some women based their lives on
keeping the secret.. I say help them not hinder them..
I say respect them.. for who they are..

Adoption sitsat the nexus of nearly every social issue in the US today and must be seenas a critical to discussions on race, gender roles and issues, welfarereform, marriage and divorce, church and state separation, and economics.Until people get out of their own private adoption ghetto and fight thereal world lib-com hegemony , nothing will change.

Accepting that what has gone down has gone down..
Accepting that we can not go back and change what happened..

Help our walking wounded..


Jackie

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<32ghsv06rsvqcj1mr8osc4co2o68nord2i@4ax.com>... I will say again.. Contact veto's put the power in the wrong place.. Contact veto's give the secret keepers the power..



Quite so.
The opening of records ought to mean full freedom of information and
access, *subject only to the discretion of the individuals involved*.
Give the power back to the people it was taken from, and let them sort
it out for themselves as best they can (hopefully, quitewell)


Rh.

'I lock my door against myself,
And bar them out; but who shall wall
Self from myself, most loathed of all.'

'Who Shall Deliver Me?' Christina Rossetti, 1876.







What they want.. Jackie

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:harjsv8ca163ub1a6qd12653akgn1v8ut1@4ax.com... On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:41:43 GMT, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:0lfhsv0fo9si15adeodl8f4e1gqflrjh5c@4ax .com... On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:52:46 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote: snipped for brevity.. >>>I think no one is entitled to forbid another adult from >>>relating to any other adult. >> >>What of the secret keeping in adoption? >>What of the hidden records? >> >>Why isn't it opened up? > >Well, technically I don't believe anyone is legally >forbidden to relate to another adult, though sealed records >do sometimes make it damn difficult. The judge told me that *legally* I was not allowed to have anything to do with my child once I signed the papers. He was very clear about that.. He questioned me to make sure I understood..The judge lied. All he did was teminate our parental rights. Right the judge lied.. The judge was misinformed..

I think misinformed may be too kind. He was a cog in the adoption-state
complex. What about the ones who believed him? Or her.

Hopefully they woke up to the truth. Personally, I don't know why anybody
would believe anything a judge says. snipped some words.. that I agree with.. >>She is still at the bottom on the totem pole.. >>Her generic imperative is ignored.. Has been ignored for many
years.. >>Have you even considered what the woman goes through when she wants
to >>know about her son or daughter? LOL her genetic.. not generic..

Well, adoption sort of generic. Lots of people don't care what they get as
long s it wears a diaper

(cut)
Because she is bypassed..Jackie, we were all bypassed in this. Then more fool we.. The state marginalizes adoptees, bparentsand to a smaller, but no less important extent, aparents. In a nifty
turnof the hand, it succeeds sometimes in turning the main players of the
dramaagainst each other to sidestep the brick bats that will ensue when peopletranscend their family drama and go after the real villain: the
partnershipof nannny state and social work industrialists who decades ago set up amodel of family engineering--long since debunked. Yes.. Except for this new drama.. This Safe Haven drama..

By, and that's some drama. The return of the Theatre of the Absurd. Secret adoption isrooted in myth and stereotype and state power, all of which are
impossibleto discredit. in the current cultural and political climate. Until
thoseinvolved in adoption accept the fact that we are involved in a form of
classwarfare, not an individual dysfunction, nothing will change. So IMO we respect each other in our own particular map of the world..

I suppose so, but you have to reach a class consciousness, which is inimical
to US thinking. We are all individuals and anything that happens to us is
OUR individual fault--not the fault of the systemic rot. Those who
acknowledge AdoptionWorld class structure are destructive, trouble-makers,
crazy, ungrateful, Black Block malcontents, in need of therapy or at least
a good kick in the pants by some male authority figure, man or woman.
Yes some women were messed with.. Yes some women based their lives on keeping the secret.. I say help them not hinder them.. I say respect them.. for who they are..

But respecting them, which I think is possible, also can render them
continued victim status. Respect needs to be tempered with reality. The
issue goes way beyond personal needs, and it's only gonna get worse until
identity destruction policy implodes. Adoptee identify rights are tied to
much larger issues.Adoption sitsat the nexus of nearly every social issue in the US today and must be
seenas a critical to discussions on race, gender roles and issues, welfarereform, marriage and divorce, church and state separation, and economics.Until people get out of their own private adoption ghetto and fight thereal world lib-com hegemony , nothing will change. Accepting that what has gone down has gone down.. Accepting that we can not go back and change what happened..

I think that's a great idea. Unfortunately, lots of people can't. They
whine and moan about things they can't change. You can, however, change the
present and the future. Help our walking wounded.. Jackie

Marley

In article <dafc70.0311271152.6106a22a@posting.google.com>,
sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) writes:
Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:<8ttbsv08nopv8181hspjmko2jd0csmrkau@4ax.com>... On 26 Nov 2003 07:24:23 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:It really is a waste of time for me to even try to communicate withyou, Lets leave it at that.Sure.When you've answered my questions, it's a deal
I don't think there is enough time.....you will be waiting until the end of
time for that.

KLRh. Jackie

klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote in message news:<20031130143558.15923.00002242@mb-m12.aol.com>... In article <dafc70.0311271152.6106a22a@posting.google.com>, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) writes:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:<8ttbsv08nopv8181hspjmko2jd0csmrkau@4ax.com>... On 26 Nov 2003 07:24:23 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote: >It really is a waste of time for me to even try to communicate with >you, Lets leave it at that. > >Sure.When you've answered my questions, it's a deal I don't think there is enough time.....you will be waiting until the end of time for that.


And beyond.


Rh. KLRh. Jackie

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:23:56 GMT, "Marley Greiner"
<maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

The judge lied. All he did was teminate our parental rights. Right the judge lied.. The judge was misinformed..

The thing is.. I never got any paperwork.. I did not get to read
anything legal after I signed..
First step in rendering me childlike..
I think misinformed may be too kind. He was a cog in the adoption-statecomplex.

And now I hear that in Florida they changed the birth dates..
What about the ones who believed him? Or her.Hopefully they woke up to the truth. Personally, I don't know why anybodywould believe anything a judge says.

He put on a good act..

When I got married in the early seventies.. Hubby and I went before a
judge.. I was in my jeans and my bright orange and red vest..
My friends were dressed in the same kind of clothes..
Parents were not invited. Hubbies mom never forgave me..

The judge and his receptionist tolerated us..
The disapproval was very clear on their faces..

I had a twinge of guilt..

You wrote.. Secret adoption isrooted in myth and stereotype and state power, all of which areimpossibleto discredit. in the current cultural and political climate. Untilthoseinvolved in adoption accept the fact that we are involved in a form ofclasswarfare, not an individual dysfunction, nothing will change. So IMO we respect each other in our own particular map of the world..I suppose so, but you have to reach a class consciousness, which is inimicalto US thinking. We are all individuals and anything that happens to us isOUR individual fault--not the fault of the systemic rot. Those whoacknowledge AdoptionWorld class structure are destructive, trouble-makers,crazy, ungrateful, Black Block malcontents, in need of therapy or at leasta good kick in the pants by some male authority figure, man or woman.

Glad you are in the fight Marley..
Yes some women were messed with.. Yes some women based their lives on keeping the secret.. I say help them not hinder them.. I say respect them.. for who they are..But respecting them, which I think is possible, also can render themcontinued victim status. Respect needs to be tempered with reality. Theissue goes way beyond personal needs, and it's only gonna get worse untilidentity destruction policy implodes. Adoptee identify rights are tied tomuch larger issues.

So how do we get these women into this kind of understanding?

If you bypass them they are going to get pissed off.. They will fight
for the right to stay in the secrecy..

They will not see the real issue..
Adoption sitsat the nexus of nearly every social issue in the US today and must beseenas a critical to discussions on race, gender roles and issues, welfarereform, marriage and divorce, church and state separation, and economics.Until people get out of their own private adoption ghetto and fight thereal world lib-com hegemony , nothing will change. Accepting that what has gone down has gone down.. Accepting that we can not go back and change what happened..I think that's a great idea. Unfortunately, lots of people can't. Theywhine and moan about things they can't change. You can, however, change thepresent and the future.

Its about control..

Jackie

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<dhkjsvgp9n02g1k9qfokfsfuib6q13057l@4ax.com>... On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:51:25 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:48:22 -0500, Jackie<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:52:46 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:No, Jackie, to hell with the adoptee. Right? I think it is horrible that the adoptee is rejected again.. I personally look to the ones that are into keeping the secrecy going.. I look to the ones who fight openness in adoption.. Not the woman who has bought into this crap..


Unfortunately, if she has bought into it,she's now become part of it.
Regardless of how this came about (and I can understand why a woman
might feel that, because she's lost or forfeited her rights to her
child in a climate of secrecy, that child has no right, legal or
emotional, to make contact with her or with other blood relatives.
It's not logical, but we aren't talking reason) she's joined the ranks
of those who 'fight openess in adoption'


snip>Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. If an adoptee wants to>know others in his birthfamily and his birthmother doesn't>want him to know the others, how would *you* resolve the>situation.Remove all secrecy.. All of it.Make it a fair and equal playing field..I'll try this one more time. This is WWJD (What WouldJackie Do). If you had still been into deep secrecy anddenial when you reunited with your son and he desperatelywanted to know his siblings, would you have felt justifiedin refusing him the opportunity? I would not be thinking straight IMO. I would be an emotionally shut down woman.. I would not understand the pain of others.. I would be protecting myself and my world.. I would be disconnected from my feelings towards him.. What the judge told me to do.. Would you have made anyeffort to understand his genetic imperative? No one understood my genetic imperative in 1965.. How could I understand it in someone else? I was not allowed to see my son.. I was not given any help with my grief.. I was not allowed to talk about my son..etc etc etc.. Other women went through a similar experience.. IMO those are the women who are refusing contact with siblings..



I did see my son, and I do think that's important in terms of bringing
home the reality of the situation (although personally, I don't think
it helps in resolving issues of loss and sadness), and might
contribute to feelings of disentitlement.
Other than that, my family was immersed in lies, secrecy and and
almost total denial. All of which was the opposite of what I ever
wanted. There was no help with grief (rather the opposite. Expressions
of sorrow met with abuse and contempt, at least from my mother), and
absolutely no possibility of discussing it, either before or after the
adoption.
So I'm not so sure that you are right that this is the only or even
the main reason for women refusing contact with siblings. I suspect it
has more to do with the social mores of the society in which they live
(and *by* which they live), and the extent to which they have been
able to distance themselves from the world in which they relinquished.
If they are still part of a rigid and censorious community, of course
they are going to resist having past 'indiscretions' revealed. They
are going to want to 'lock their door upon themselves'.
What did you think of the Christina Rossetti quote?
I thought it quite apposite. There's a painting, too, of that name by
Fernand (?) Khnopff, that was inspired by the poem.



Rh.

I know there are wrong people in this world.. I know that some women are just plain mean spirited.. And IMO those women should be bypassed.. All I suggest and or ask is that the adoptee should keep an open mind in the beginning of the contact.. Would you havecared? How can someone who has totally shut down her feelings care? How can someone when has totally shut down her feelings understand caring? Would you have been willing to sacrifice yourrelationship with him to keep your other kids from knowing? A better question would be.. Would I be willing to protect my emotional shut down self and sacrifice my relationship with him? Would I be willing to protect my long term relationship with my husband who I may not have told? Would I be willing to admit that my relationship with others is based on lies? Would I be willing to admit that there was a lack of intimacy in my long term relationships..If, God forbid, you died shortly thereafter, would you wishhim to stay away from your funeral even if it was importantto him to attend? I can not control that.. The generic secret birth mom can not control that.. If so, why? And if you had noobjections, would you have wanted him to identify himselfprior to attending, while attending, or not at all? No control over that.. The secret will out.. as we know.. I am looking at the issues of the woman who does not understand this.. Jackie

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<dhkjsvgp9n02g1k9qfokfsfuib6q13057l@4ax.com>... On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:51:25 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:
A better question would be.. Would I be willing to protect my emotional shut down self and sacrifice my relationship with him? Would I be willing to protect my long term relationship with my husband who I may not have told? Would I be willing to admit that my relationship with others is based on lies? Would I be willing to admit that there was a lack of intimacy in my long term relationships..


Those are good questions to ask.
But, IMO, behavior can't be annexed entirely.
I don't think one can comfortably blame all present behavior on past
experiences, unless you can make a case for those experiences inducing
a pathological condition.
Present action doesn't always have to do with past situations, but
also with present situations. It's a very dynamic thing.


If, God forbid, you died shortly thereafter, would you wishhim to stay away from your funeral even if it was importantto him to attend? I can not control that.. The generic secret birth mom can not control that.. If so, why? And if you had noobjections, would you have wanted him to identify himselfprior to attending, while attending, or not at all? No control over that.. The secret will out.. as we know.. I am looking at the issues of the woman who does not understand this..



If she doesn't understand,she's a poster girl for the closed era in
adoption.
She's become a secret even from herself.





Rh. Jackie

[Again, heavily snipped]

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 09:38:19 -0500, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 09:18:31 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:
And I am arguing that the adoptee should be as equal andunderstood and respected as the birthmother.Some birth mothers decided that the child was not their child.Some women actually bought into that kind of thinking..They believed what the state and or authorities put out..So from a birth moms perspective..(some of them) the child is reallynot their child..That child is with other parents..They respect that.They give the other parents that kind of respect.. Separate families..So when the adoptee comes knocking they do not understand IMO what isreally going on.. They have managed to completely agree with thestate..

That's all well and good, but doesn't the basic respect for
another person's needs also enter into it?

BTW, I can't help but see this as a contradiction to your
theory of genetic imperative. If the birthmother is
agreeing with the state and no longer considers the adoptee
connected to her in any way, where does that leave her
primal need to know him? If she agrees with the state, he's
just a stranger, just another asshole invading her space.
Why would she give more than a passing damn whether he's
alive and well?
And as Marley says IMO.. That is the problem..But I do not think the answer is in a forced outting..Forcing her to change her thinking or belief's will not work..IMO

Nope. Especially not if the adoptee doesn't mean anything
to her anymore.
I used it as a possible reason why someone named FatBirdywould want out of a reunion.I have since found out that FatBirdy is being kept in the closet..No siblings for he or she.. Same issue..

And FatBirdy is giving up and going away rather than forcing
an outing? The birthmother keeps her secret but loses the
relationship with the adoptee. How do you feel about that?
The adoptee was bypassed from the very start.By the state.. By the judge who tells the woman that this child is nolonger her child.. By the secrets and the "don't talk about it"..

The child is bypassed by the decisions that lead up to those
words.
I believe the general consensus is for the adoptee to besensitive to the bmother's situation and give her areasonable amount to time to come to grips with thesituation. If that fails, the adoptee eventually has toconsider his own needs.And what a high drama this is.. A very difficult to read high drama..

High drama? I don't think considering one's own needs to be
high drama. It's just life. Can you picture a world where
no one ever considered their own needs?
And I agree that eventually the adoptee gets to do what he or shedecides to do..No blame.

I don't know what to make of this statement. The adoptee
gets to do whatever he decides, but your wording sounds like
you don't approve but just can't think of a way to stop it.
> Doesn't the adoptee>also get to have this genetic imperative in reverse?Yes.. Its how he or she goes about it.. That is what I question..How *can* an adoptee go about it if the birthmother isrefusing to allow it?My thoughts on this.. have been said here over and over..Read about what it was like back then.. Have some understanding..Then act..But I also believe that another answer is to just work at opening itall up.. Change the thinking of the collective.. Give the women achance to have an 'aha' moment..But then I really don't know what to do..

Changing the thinking of the collective happens one person
at a time. People can have an "aha" moment without
following the herd if they're open to reason.
Here's a question. Do you think that a simple exchange ofinformation would fulfill the genetic imperative?It puts a persons mind at rest.. If, forexample, you had been contacted every so often by the agencywith the word that your son was alive and well, would thathave satisfied you?Yes..This is what I have now..Bson is gone again.. No emails no nothing..I am left with wondering if I have done something wrong..

I'm sorry, Jackie.
This is the kind of reunion I got.. I can read with envy the ones whoget an intimate relationship.. I can read with envy about the ones whoknow their grandbabies..But I can and do understand that I cannot change who he is..I accept that life can be hard on some.. I accept that we make thebest of it..

It sounds like perhaps you're *not* satisfied with a simple
exchange of information. It sounds like, while your mind is
eased, it isn't enough in terms of your genetic imperative.

What if you found that your son wasn't in contact because
someone in his life doesn't want him to know your other
kids? Would you be angry? If so, would you be angry with
that someone, angry with your son, or both?
None of this should have happened..Closed adoption and secrecy should never have been promised.But it did and it was and there's nothing we can do tochange that. We're discussing how to make the best of itafter the fact.We can fight to open it up.. We can stop the ones who lobby forsilence..What Marley does..IMO if women in hiding *understands* how wrong this secrecy is.. thenmaybe they will change..Change the thinking of the collective..

Yes, we can fight, but it takes time. Some people don't
have that kind of time. The collective may show the woman
how wrong the secrecy is, but hopefully in the meantime she
would try to figure it out on her own.
If the birth mom does not consider the plight of the adoptee.. If thebirth mother has cut off all her feelings and or understanding.Is she the one to be punished by being bypassed?Respect and understanding work in both directions. Sheneedn't be bypassed at all if she can pull herself togetherenough to reciprocate those traits. That's why those of ushere advocate giving her a reasonable amount of time to doso.But is that a cop out?Twenty thirty forty years of silence.. A few more years will (or may)make no difference..

Makes no difference to whom? My bmom died 6 years after we
reunited. She had early onset (fast moving) Alzheimer's
Disease for the last 3 years. Time is very precious.
And we fight and the real bad guy sits and keeps the wrongs coveredup..I read adoption.com now (as all know).. There are so many stories ofthe adoptee being denied contact.. So much pain..I sure as heck do not know the answer to this.. GR said two years orsomething like that.. Give the birth mom two years to come around..GR said 6 months. I tend to think that's a bit harsh, butit would depend on the circumstances.But then I believe GR understands that six months can be two years orthree or four.. Nothing changes..

I dunno. GR was pretty adamant about her 6 month limit in a
conversation with me.

I didn't have 3-4 years. No one knows how much time they
have, and no one wants to waste that time expecting
something that might never happen.
I do not think these women who want secrecy are stupid.. I do notthink they are mean.. I do think that they can be used..Used by the ones who do not want open records.Who want the sins of the past covered up..I agree.And I guess that is where the fight lies..What I know will all my being is that I had to take me out of thesecrecy.. I had to do it myself..I was controlled back then.. I will not be controlled again..I will dig my heals in.. And react..

Absolutely. And adoptees (from the old era) are told their
whole lives that they must never know their siblings. They
were controlled, and many refuse to be controlled again.
They react.
There are far more than just 2 people involved in reunion.The siblings, the grandparents, even the adoptive family areall major players. And then there's the birthfather whoalso contributed half the adoptee's DNA and shares equalstatus in that genetic imperative, like it or not.I personally believe it comes down to individual relationships..Even with the siblings.. IMO she is the kingpin..

That's interesting. Does this genetic imperative only
extend to mothers? A birthmother only has 1 person missing
from her life (usually); I, as an adoptee, also had a
birthfather and 6 siblings who were of great importance. I
think this is the root of the problem--I don't think you
understand the extent of the needs adoptees have when they
search.

Assuming "genetic imperative" is a legitimate human
condition, for most adoptees, IMO, the genetic imperative is
compounded by genetic isolation. We aren't just missing one
piece of our genetic family, we're missing the whole
enchilada. There were no kingpins when I searched, I wasn't
just out looking for a mommy, it was a package. There were
*2* people out there who had the closest genetic connection
possible with me, plus an assortment of siblings who may
manifest my inherited traits even more so than my
birthparents. And coming from a position of having had no
genetic similarities to anyone at all, that's what I hoped
to find wherever I could find it.
>>>If *whose* attitude changed? You don't think attitudes have>>>changed in the past 50 years?>>>>Records are not open.. An adoptee can not get his or her original>>birth certificate..>>Oh, that. I thought you were talking about the attitude of>thinking the birthmom was the "bad guy" for getting on with>her life. Like I said, I don't know of anyone who feels>that way anymore.Balderdash.. If the adoptee bypasses her and contacts the siblingsagainst her wishes.. IMO she is considered the bad guy..How else could a person do this?How else could a person justify this act and or deed in his or her ownmind..Genetic imperative? Freedom of association?She is still the bad guy.. IMO she is still considered this..

Not by anyone who *thinks*.
Sure. I agree. But if the birthmother wants a relationshipwith the adoptee, eventually she's going to have to come togrips with her emotions and realize she cannot continue tobuy into the bull**** and infringe on the rights of anotherhuman being. [please note, I said "eventually", as in"after a reasonable amount of time".]My question then is .. Does she see this from afar?Does she stand back and see that she is buying into the bull****..This is her life.. This is her trauma..This is her secret.. If a person does not talk about her secret.. Howdoes she find out what is bull **** and what is not bull ****?

I suppose by listening to others. Reunions have been
publicized and televised since at least the late 60s. When
I say "come to grips", the first step is to take the bananas
out of her ears. If she won't listen now to those who have
been there, she's probably still not going to be listening
when "the collective" says it's all right.
>I'll try this one more time. This is WWJD (What Would>Jackie Do). If you had still been into deep secrecy and>denial when you reunited with your son and he desperately>wanted to know his siblings, would you have felt justified>in refusing him the opportunity?
> Would you have>cared?How can someone who has totally shut down her feelings care?How can someone when has totally shut down her feelings understandcaring?I'm not speaking of a woman who is in some sort of catatonicstate.I am not either..

You said: "How can someone who has totally shut down her
feelings care?" "How can someone when has totally shut down
her feelings understand :caring?" Anyone who can't care or
even understand caring is pretty far gone.
I'm speaking of a woman who presumably functionsrelatively normally in other aspects of her life, a womanwho can scrape up love and understanding for her husband andkept kids and friends and extended family, a woman who cando her job and laugh at a joke and appreciate the goodthings around her, all while keeping a deep dark secret thatshe doesn't want to face.Are you saying that this woman is not shut down emotionally?

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. She has the
capability to feel, to love, to be happy, to sympathize and
empathize, to function in a day to day life. She is perhaps
isolating that one aspect of her life from her emotions, but
she still has a frame of reference for emotions in general.
It is my understanding that suchwomen do exist; the ones who are *completely* shut down areprobably institutionalized, I would think, and/or probablydon't have husbands and children to keep the secret from.So let's discuss this relative to the functioning closetbirthmother, ok?That is who I am discussing.. Interesting that you put this kind ofanalogy up here..Maybe this basic understanding or misunderstanding of what a shut downwomen is or is not.. is the problem..

See above. IMO, if the woman is a functioning human being,
she indeed has the ability to care and/or understand caring.
> Would you have been willing to sacrifice your>relationship with him to keep your other kids from knowing?A better question would be.. Would I be willing to protect myemotional shut down self and sacrifice my relationship with him?Would I be willing to protect my long term relationship with myhusband who I may not have told?Would I be willing to admit that my relationship with others is basedon lies?Would I be willing to admit that there was a lack of intimacy in mylong term relationships..Ok. So, would you?I did.. It took some therapy tho..

I don't think you answered the first of your improved
questions: "Would I be willing to protect my emotional shut
down self and sacrifice my relationship with him?"
>If, God forbid, you died shortly thereafter, would you wish>him to stay away from your funeral even if it was important>to him to attend?I can not control that.. The generic secret birth mom can not controlthat..This isn't about control. What would be your *wish*?I cant go there.. I wont go there.. Not my drama.I don't like that drama..

Ok. You seemed ok talking about it just recently.> If so, why? And if you had no>objections, would you have wanted him to identify himself>prior to attending, while attending, or not at all?No control over that..Again, what would be your preference?Again won't play..

It's not a game.
The secret will out.. as we know..Maybe. Or maybe he'd have the good taste to attend theservice incognito and, having seen his siblings, would thenjust let it go with no one being the wiser.If the woman is dead then the womans issues are gone..

And the adoptee's issues live on and on.
Her trauma is gone.. Right should happen after that..

What kind of "right"?

Nancy
Different day.. Different deal..Jackie

In article <780ksvkglreuselv6q6fmusaih7k25lte1@4ax.com>,
nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:

Jackie said:
Where is the adoptee betrayed on this level? This is a forced outingfor the birth mom..Where does a forced outing happen to the adoptee?
Can't you see, Jackie the adopted person has already suffered from being
divorced from his or her siblings. Do we have to put some kind of value
on pain and make the two sums equivalent fro the b mom and adoptee to make
you happy?
I believe the general consensus is for the adoptee to besensitive to the bmother's situation and give her areasonable amount to time to come to grips with thesituation. If that fails, the adoptee eventually has toconsider his own needs.

THANK YOU NANCY! This is a clear statement of simple common sense.
Jackie, I never meant that the adoptee had the right to trample on the
feelings of a birthmother. Nor did I mean that sensitivity, compassion
and again common sense were to be left out of reunions. I just think the
adoptee needs to consider her own needs.


Linda

..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<fffmsvotr25lnjh8vsgn9s05evqtesv3lp@4ax.com>... On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:23:56 GMT, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:But respecting them, which I think is possible, also can render themcontinued victim status.



I think that when pity gets confused with respect, it can cause big
trouble down the road.
It's perfectly possible to respect a person, to sympathise with their
predicament and to disagree with their position.
And if necessary to oppose it according to one's own principles and
beliefs.



Respect needs to be tempered with reality. The issue goes way beyond personal needs, and it's only gonna get worse until identity destruction policy implodes. Adoptee identify rights are tied to much larger issues. So how do we get these women into this kind of understanding? If you bypass them they are going to get pissed off.. They will fight for the right to stay in the secrecy..


The above argument is a Byzantine sleight of thought in itself.
It's a good example (quote Marley) of that 'nifty turn of hand' that
sometimes succeeds in turning the principle players in the drama
against each other.
It shifts the blame for the demand for contact vetoes onto the
individuals who actually *want* contact rather than onto those who
want to avoid it.




Rh.

They will not see the real issue.. >Adoption sits >at the nexus of nearly every social issue in the US today and must be seen >as a critical to discussions on race, gender roles and issues, welfare >reform, marriage and divorce, church and state separation, and economics. >Until people get out of their own private adoption ghetto and fight the >real world lib-com hegemony , nothing will change. Accepting that what has gone down has gone down.. Accepting that we can not go back and change what happened..I think that's a great idea. Unfortunately, lots of people can't. Theywhine and moan about things they can't change. You can, however, change thepresent and the future. Its about control.. Jackie

sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0312011030.3783eb9@posting.google.com>... Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<dhkjsvgp9n02g1k9qfokfsfuib6q13057l@4ax.com>... On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:51:25 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote: I was not allowed to see my son.. I was not given any help with my grief.. I was not allowed to talk about my son..etc etc etc.. Other women went through a similar experience.. IMO those are the women who are refusing contact with siblings.. I did see my son, and I do think that's important in terms of bringing home the reality of the situation (although personally, I don't think it helps in resolving issues of loss and sadness), and might contribute to feelings of disentitlement.


Correction to above.
I meant that *not* seeing one's child would be likely to add to
feelings of disentitlement.



Rh.

Other than that, my family was immersed in lies, secrecy and and almost total denial. All of which was the opposite of what I ever wanted. There was no help with grief (rather the opposite. Expressions of sorrow met with abuse and contempt, at least from my mother), and absolutely no possibility of discussing it, either before or after the adoption. So I'm not so sure that you are right that this is the only or even the main reason for women refusing contact with siblings. I suspect it has more to do with the social mores of the society in which they live (and *by* which they live), and the extent to which they have been able to distance themselves from the world in which they relinquished. If they are still part of a rigid and censorious community, of course they are going to resist having past 'indiscretions' revealed. They are going to want to 'lock their door upon themselves'. What did you think of the Christina Rossetti quote? I thought it quite apposite. There's a painting, too, of that name by Fernand (?) Khnopff, that was inspired by the poem. Rh. I know there are wrong people in this world.. I know that some women are just plain mean spirited.. And IMO those women should be bypassed.. All I suggest and or ask is that the adoptee should keep an open mind in the beginning of the contact.. Would you havecared? How can someone who has totally shut down her feelings care? How can someone when has totally shut down her feelings understand caring? Would you have been willing to sacrifice yourrelationship with him to keep your other kids from knowing? A better question would be.. Would I be willing to protect my emotional shut down self and sacrifice my relationship with him? Would I be willing to protect my long term relationship with my husband who I may not have told? Would I be willing to admit that my relationship with others is based on lies? Would I be willing to admit that there was a lack of intimacy in my long term relationships..If, God forbid, you died shortly thereafter, would you wishhim to stay away from your funeral even if it was importantto him to attend? I can not control that.. The generic secret birth mom can not control that.. If so, why? And if you had noobjections, would you have wanted him to identify himselfprior to attending, while attending, or not at all? No control over that.. The secret will out.. as we know.. I am looking at the issues of the woman who does not understand this.. Jackie

In article <fffmsvotr25lnjh8vsgn9s05evqtesv3lp@4ax.com>, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:23:56 GMT, "Marley Greiner"<maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >The judge lied. All he did was teminate our parental rights. Right the judge lied.. The judge was misinformed..The thing is.. I never got any paperwork.. I did not get to readanything legal after I signed..First step in rendering me childlike..

Yet not a word from you on the real child in the picture. The adoptee, who
never had any say in this life-altering decision. You were not rendered
childlike, you chose to let your self be childlike. You were an adult, albeit
a young ignorant one...but it is never you, is it? It's always "they" and
"them" and "the system"...Sorry, but it just wears thin after a while. I think
you had as much opportunity to go to a library and do a little research. Just
like another bmom here did. There is no "I-didn't-know-better" excuse
available by law to anyone. It is a persons responsibility to know. I am so
glad that my birthmom was not caught up in this poor me attitude that you have.

KL

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:44:34 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:
[Again, heavily snipped]
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 09:38:19 -0500, Jackie<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 09:18:31 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:And I am arguing that the adoptee should be as equal andunderstood and respected as the birthmother.Some birth mothers decided that the child was not their child.Some women actually bought into that kind of thinking..They believed what the state and or authorities put out..So from a birth moms perspective..(some of them) the child is reallynot their child..That child is with other parents..They respect that.They give the other parents that kind of respect.. Separate families..So when the adoptee comes knocking they do not understand IMO what isreally going on.. They have managed to completely agree with thestate..That's all well and good, but doesn't the basic respect foranother person's needs also enter into it?

IMO they (some of them) were not shown that kind of respect when they
relinquished..
You learn what you live..
BTW, I can't help but see this as a contradiction to yourtheory of genetic imperative. If the birthmother isagreeing with the state and no longer considers the adopteeconnected to her in any way, where does that leave herprimal need to know him?

Some women cut off their primal need.. Will not acknowledge it..
Were told they must not acknowledge it.. Were told they must not speak
of it..

Many different reactions.. Many different scenarios..
I said some of them.. and I meant it..
If she agrees with the state, he'sjust a stranger, just another asshole invading her space.

By saying asshole IMO you are setting the conversation up to make a
victim of the adoptee.. And IMO you are belittling the birthmoms
reaction to contact..
Why would she give more than a passing damn whether he'salive and well?

She does not.. I was talking about the woman who hangs up the phone
when the adoptee comes calling..

I am trying to explore the why of it..
And as Marley says IMO.. That is the problem..But I do not think the answer is in a forced outting..Forcing her to change her thinking or belief's will not work..IMONope. Especially not if the adoptee doesn't mean anythingto her anymore.

The adoptee was never a baby.. The adoptee was never her baby..
I used it as a possible reason why someone named FatBirdywould want out of a reunion.I have since found out that FatBirdy is being kept in the closet..No siblings for he or she.. Same issue..And FatBirdy is giving up and going away rather than forcingan outing?

I don't know.. The drama continues..
The birthmother keeps her secret but loses therelationship with the adoptee. How do you feel about that?

Survival.. If a person is totally tied up in knots and can not for one
second open that door.. then IMO the birth mother will probably be
happy that she can continue on in her world of fantasy..

"I'm dancing as fast as I can" comes to mind..
The adoptee was bypassed from the very start.By the state.. By the judge who tells the woman that this child is nolonger her child.. By the secrets and the "don't talk about it"..The child is bypassed by the decisions that lead up to thosewords.

What decisions.. Was there really a decision?

The pregnant girl is told "You will not shame us".
I believe the general consensus is for the adoptee to besensitive to the bmother's situation and give her areasonable amount to time to come to grips with thesituation. If that fails, the adoptee eventually has toconsider his own needs.And what a high drama this is.. A very difficult to read high drama..High drama? I don't think considering one's own needs to behigh drama. It's just life. Can you picture a world whereno one ever considered their own needs?

I think the forced outing of a birth mom high drama .. You do not.
Position very clear.
And I agree that eventually the adoptee gets to do what he or shedecides to do..No blame.I don't know what to make of this statement. The adopteegets to do whatever he decides, but your wording sounds likeyou don't approve but just can't think of a way to stop it.

Yes.. That is exactly what I meant..
The adoptee has freedom of association..
>> Doesn't the adoptee>>also get to have this genetic imperative in reverse?>>Yes.. Its how he or she goes about it.. That is what I question..How *can* an adoptee go about it if the birthmother isrefusing to allow it?My thoughts on this.. have been said here over and over..Read about what it was like back then.. Have some understanding..Then act..But I also believe that another answer is to just work at opening itall up.. Change the thinking of the collective.. Give the women achance to have an 'aha' moment..But then I really don't know what to do..Changing the thinking of the collective happens one personat a time. People can have an "aha" moment withoutfollowing the herd if they're open to reason.

But if they are not open to reason?
Here's a question. Do you think that a simple exchange ofinformation would fulfill the genetic imperative?It puts a persons mind at rest.. If, forexample, you had been contacted every so often by the agencywith the word that your son was alive and well, would thathave satisfied you?Yes..This is what I have now..Bson is gone again.. No emails no nothing..I am left with wondering if I have done something wrong..I'm sorry, Jackie.

Its who he is.. Its who I am..
Its me accepting responsibility for my actions..
This is the kind of reunion I got.. I can read with envy the ones whoget an intimate relationship.. I can read with envy about the ones whoknow their grandbabies..But I can and do understand that I cannot change who he is..I accept that life can be hard on some.. I accept that we make thebest of it..It sounds like perhaps you're *not* satisfied with a simpleexchange of information. It sounds like, while your mind iseased, it isn't enough in terms of your genetic imperative.

I hate that I gave him up in the very first place..
I hate that I did not spend my life with this incredible man..
Of course its not enough.. But sometimes life can come and hit a
person from behind and one must accept the fallout..

I can't control any of it..
What if you found that your son wasn't in contact becausesomeone in his life doesn't want him to know your otherkids?

His life .. His issues to work out..
Would you be angry?

What would be the point?
If so, would you be angry withthat someone, angry with your son, or both?

I am angry because someone had a good idea after World War ll..

Someone decided closed adoption was a good thing..

I am angry that we live in a society that really does not care about
the individuals in it..
Cares more about the money earned.. Cares more about keeping face..
Cares more about being better than..
>None of this should have happened..>Closed adoption and secrecy should never have been promised.But it did and it was and there's nothing we can do tochange that. We're discussing how to make the best of itafter the fact.We can fight to open it up.. We can stop the ones who lobby forsilence..What Marley does..IMO if women in hiding *understands* how wrong this secrecy is.. thenmaybe they will change..Change the thinking of the collective..Yes, we can fight, but it takes time. Some people don'thave that kind of time.

If the siblings are contacted against the birth moms wishes then I bet
some of these siblings will remain connected to the birth mom and will
reject the adoptee seeking friendship.

I do not think the issue is time.. I think the issue is how messed up
are these people.. You have a woman who has cut off feelings while
raising children.. How well do you think these children are raised?
Naomi hated that she had a mother who was always depressed..
Always had a bottle of pills sitting next to her.
The collective may show the womanhow wrong the secrecy is, but hopefully in the meantime shewould try to figure it out on her own.

We can hope.

I do my best to pass on my knowledge..
>If the birth mom does not consider the plight of the adoptee.. If the>birth mother has cut off all her feelings and or understanding.>Is she the one to be punished by being bypassed?Respect and understanding work in both directions. Sheneedn't be bypassed at all if she can pull herself togetherenough to reciprocate those traits. That's why those of ushere advocate giving her a reasonable amount of time to doso.But is that a cop out?Twenty thirty forty years of silence.. A few more years will (or may)make no difference..Makes no difference to whom? My bmom died 6 years after wereunited. She had early onset (fast moving) Alzheimer'sDisease for the last 3 years. Time is very precious.

I was addressing the issue of the woman sorting her 'stuff'.

I was saying that a woman who has not sorted her 'stuff' in thirty
five years may never sort it..
I was trying to address what the woman in hiding is thinking and or
feeling and IMO time will make no difference to her.. And yes I agree
the adoptee does not have that time.
But you can not get blood from a stone..

After she is gone all bets are off..
>And we fight and the real bad guy sits and keeps the wrongs covered>up..>I read adoption.com now (as all know).. There are so many stories of>the adoptee being denied contact.. So much pain..>>I sure as heck do not know the answer to this.. GR said two years or>something like that.. Give the birth mom two years to come around..GR said 6 months. I tend to think that's a bit harsh, butit would depend on the circumstances.But then I believe GR understands that six months can be two years orthree or four.. Nothing changes..I dunno. GR was pretty adamant about her 6 month limit in aconversation with me.

Well I don't agree with GR.. (looking up to see if the sky is falling)
I didn't have 3-4 years. No one knows how much time theyhave, and no one wants to waste that time expectingsomething that might never happen.

And what of the woman whohas her life totally changed?
Is that okay?
A woman who has sorted how to deal with all these emotional trauma's
and cut off of feelings.. You may think she is wrong.. But who are you
to tell her?
>I do not think these women who want secrecy are stupid.. I do not>think they are mean.. I do think that they can be used..>Used by the ones who do not want open records.>Who want the sins of the past covered up..I agree.And I guess that is where the fight lies..What I know will all my being is that I had to take me out of thesecrecy.. I had to do it myself..I was controlled back then.. I will not be controlled again..I will dig my heals in.. And react..Absolutely. And adoptees (from the old era) are told theirwhole lives that they must never know their siblings. Theywere controlled, and many refuse to be controlled again.They react.

Yes.. And the pain just keeps on keeping on..
There are far more than just 2 people involved in reunion.The siblings, the grandparents, even the adoptive family areall major players. And then there's the birthfather whoalso contributed half the adoptee's DNA and shares equalstatus in that genetic imperative, like it or not.I personally believe it comes down to individual relationships..Even with the siblings.. IMO she is the kingpin..That's interesting. Does this genetic imperative onlyextend to mothers?

I don't know..
A birthmother only has 1 person missingfrom her life (usually); I, as an adoptee, also had abirthfather

Who only she can name..
and 6 siblings who were of great importance. Ithink this is the root of the problem--I don't think youunderstand the extent of the needs adoptees have when theysearch.

I am not saying they should not bypass her.. I am trying to put out
here what it can do to her.
Your situation is different IMO.
Your siblings were also relinquished..

She does not have emotional control over them.. I am addressing the
issue of the women who has kept her subsequent children and does not
want them to know about the relinquished son or daughter..
Does not want her secret out..
Assuming "genetic imperative" is a legitimate humancondition, for most adoptees, IMO, the genetic imperative iscompounded by genetic isolation. We aren't just missing onepiece of our genetic family, we're missing the wholeenchilada.

And that is just plain horrible..

Damn the closed era..
There were no kingpins when I searched, I wasn'tjust out looking for a mommy, it was a package.

I know that..
There were*2* people out there who had the closest genetic connectionpossible with me, plus an assortment of siblings who maymanifest my inherited traits even more so than mybirthparents. And coming from a position of having had nogenetic similarities to anyone at all, that's what I hopedto find wherever I could find it.

And why weren't women told that (above) when they relinquished in the
very first place.. Why weren't they given that information when they
made a decision to not speak of the relinquished child..
Di said the study was out there..
>>>>If *whose* attitude changed? You don't think attitudes have>>>>changed in the past 50 years?>>>>>>Records are not open.. An adoptee can not get his or her original>>>birth certificate..>>>>Oh, that. I thought you were talking about the attitude of>>thinking the birthmom was the "bad guy" for getting on with>>her life. Like I said, I don't know of anyone who feels>>that way anymore.>>Balderdash.. If the adoptee bypasses her and contacts the siblings>against her wishes.. IMO she is considered the bad guy..>How else could a person do this?>How else could a person justify this act and or deed in his or her own>mind..Genetic imperative? Freedom of association?She is still the bad guy.. IMO she is still considered this..Not by anyone who *thinks*.Sure. I agree. But if the birthmother wants a relationshipwith the adoptee, eventually she's going to have to come togrips with her emotions and realize she cannot continue tobuy into the bull**** and infringe on the rights of anotherhuman being. [please note, I said "eventually", as in"after a reasonable amount of time".]My question then is .. Does she see this from afar?Does she stand back and see that she is buying into the bull****..This is her life.. This is her trauma..This is her secret.. If a person does not talk about her secret.. Howdoes she find out what is bull **** and what is not bull ****?I suppose by listening to others.

If you seek to listen..
Reunions have beenpublicized and televised since at least the late 60s.

I could not .. would not watch those shows..
WhenI say "come to grips", the first step is to take the bananasout of her ears.

If I could I would take the bananas out of all the ears..
If she won't listen now to those who havebeen there, she's probably still not going to be listeningwhen "the collective" says it's all right.

If a woman shares how she came out of the closet and if the share
rings true we may have an 'aha' moment.... Thank you Jesus!

If we have shows like the show that happened in Oregon then
women may seek to just forget about it.. Or ask the state for
protection..
I am sure the secret keepers depend on this..

Women in the closet are very easily used..IMO
>>I'll try this one more time. This is WWJD (What Would>>Jackie Do). If you had still been into deep secrecy and>>denial when you reunited with your son and he desperately>>wanted to know his siblings, would you have felt justified>>in refusing him the opportunity?>> Would you have>>cared?>>How can someone who has totally shut down her feelings care?>>How can someone when has totally shut down her feelings understand>caring?I'm not speaking of a woman who is in some sort of catatonicstate.I am not either..You said: "How can someone who has totally shut down herfeelings care?" "How can someone when has totally shut downher feelings understand :caring?" Anyone who can't care oreven understand caring is pretty far gone.

But no one sees how far she is gone.. (low grade depression)
An actor on a stage.. The training some of us women got when young..
I'm speaking of a woman who presumably functionsrelatively normally in other aspects of her life, a womanwho can scrape up love and understanding for her husband andkept kids and friends and extended family, a woman who cando her job and laugh at a joke and appreciate the goodthings around her, all while keeping a deep dark secret thatshe doesn't want to face.Are you saying that this woman is not shut down emotionally?Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. She has thecapability to feel, to love, to be happy, to sympathize andempathize, to function in a day to day life. She is perhapsisolating that one aspect of her life from her emotions, butshe still has a frame of reference for emotions in general.

We can agree to disagree on this..
It is my understanding that suchwomen do exist; the ones who are *completely* shut down areprobably institutionalized, I would think, and/or probablydon't have husbands and children to keep the secret from.So let's discuss this relative to the functioning closetbirthmother, ok?That is who I am discussing.. Interesting that you put this kind ofanalogy up here..Maybe this basic understanding or misunderstanding of what a shut downwomen is or is not.. is the problem..See above. IMO, if the woman is a functioning human being,she indeed has the ability to care and/or understand caring.

I was the one who could put the animals to sleep.. I had no problem
with it..
I knew I was getting better when I freaked out when one of our older
cats got sick.. My daughter came home from school and was astounded at
my tears..

You pretend love.. You act as if because you know that life must go
on.
>> Would you have been willing to sacrifice your>>relationship with him to keep your other kids from knowing?>>A better question would be.. Would I be willing to protect my>emotional shut down self and sacrifice my relationship with him?>>Would I be willing to protect my long term relationship with my>husband who I may not have told?>>Would I be willing to admit that my relationship with others is based>on lies?>>Would I be willing to admit that there was a lack of intimacy in my>long term relationships..Ok. So, would you?I did.. It took some therapy tho..I don't think you answered the first of your improvedquestions: "Would I be willing to protect my emotional shutdown self and sacrifice my relationship with him?"

Yes.. Probably.

Because I don't know him.. There is no emotional history..
IMO this is what happens in reunion..
That is why there is cut off and neglected feelings..
>>If, God forbid, you died shortly thereafter, would you wish>>him to stay away from your funeral even if it was important>>to him to attend?>>I can not control that.. The generic secret birth mom can not control>that..This isn't about control. What would be your *wish*?I cant go there.. I wont go there.. Not my drama.I don't like that drama..Ok. You seemed ok talking about it just recently.

I was re-acting to what Helen put out..
>> If so, why? And if you had no>>objections, would you have wanted him to identify himself>>prior to attending, while attending, or not at all?>>No control over that..Again, what would be your preference?Again won't play..It's not a game.

Really?
>The secret will out.. as we know..Maybe. Or maybe he'd have the good taste to attend theservice incognito and, having seen his siblings, would thenjust let it go with no one being the wiser.If the woman is dead then the womans issues are gone..And the adoptee's issues live on and on.

And the adoptee can contact the siblings..
And start again.. Day one in the rest of his or her life..
Her trauma is gone.. Right should happen after that..What kind of "right"?

The right of the adoptee to interact with his or her siblings.


Jackie

On 1 Dec 2003 10:30:27 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<dhkjsvgp9n02g1k9qfokfsfuib6q13057l@4ax.com>... On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:51:25 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:48:22 -0500, Jackie<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:>On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:52:46 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:No, Jackie, to hell with the adoptee. Right? I think it is horrible that the adoptee is rejected again.. I personally look to the ones that are into keeping the secrecy going.. I look to the ones who fight openness in adoption.. Not the woman who has bought into this crap..
Unfortunately, if she has bought into it,she's now become part of it.

Absolutely.
Regardless of how this came about (and I can understand why a womanmight feel that, because she's lost or forfeited her rights to herchild in a climate of secrecy, that child has no right, legal oremotional, to make contact with her or with other blood relatives.It's not logical, but we aren't talking reason) she's joined the ranksof those who 'fight openess in adoption'

And she is used by them as well.. They haul her out and put her on
TV.

snipped some.
Would you have made anyeffort to understand his genetic imperative? No one understood my genetic imperative in 1965.. How could I understand it in someone else? I was not allowed to see my son.. I was not given any help with my grief.. I was not allowed to talk about my son..etc etc etc.. Other women went through a similar experience.. IMO those are the women who are refusing contact with siblings..
I did see my son, and I do think that's important in terms of bringinghome the reality of the situation (although personally, I don't thinkit helps in resolving issues of loss and sadness), and might contribute to feelings of disentitlement.

Are you saying that seeing your son contributed to your feelings of
disentitlement? I am not sure I understand what you are saying here..
Other than that, my family was immersed in lies, secrecy and andalmost total denial. All of which was the opposite of what I everwanted. There was no help with grief (rather the opposite. Expressionsof sorrow met with abuse and contempt, at least from my mother), andabsolutely no possibility of discussing it, either before or after theadoption.So I'm not so sure that you are right that this is the only or eventhe main reason for women refusing contact with siblings.

IMO a woman who rejects her child is disconnected from her feelings..

How else can she do it?
I suspect ithas more to do with the social mores of the society in which they live(and *by* which they live), and the extent to which they have beenable to distance themselves from the world in which they relinquished.If they are still part of a rigid and censorious community, of coursethey are going to resist having past 'indiscretions' revealed. Theyare going to want to 'lock their door upon themselves'.

And how do they do this?


What did you think of the Christina Rossetti quote?I thought it quite apposite. There's a painting, too, of that name byFernand (?) Khnopff, that was inspired by the poem.

What quote?

Jackie

On 1 Dec 2003 16:30:51 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0312011030.3783eb9@posting.google.com>... Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<dhkjsvgp9n02g1k9qfokfsfuib6q13057l@4ax.com>... On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:51:25 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote: I was not allowed to see my son.. I was not given any help with my grief.. I was not allowed to talk about my son..etc etc etc.. Other women went through a similar experience.. IMO those are the women who are refusing contact with siblings.. > > I did see my son, and I do think that's important in terms of bringing home the reality of the situation (although personally, I don't think it helps in resolving issues of loss and sadness), and might contribute to feelings of disentitlement.Correction to above.I meant that *not* seeing one's child would be likely to add tofeelings of disentitlement.

You are scrambling my brain..

If a person does not see her child.. She may feel disentitled..

That is what I think.. I am not sure about what you are saying.


Jackie

In article <20031201223416.23307.00004778@mb-m29.aol.com>, KL says...In article <fffmsvotr25lnjh8vsgn9s05evqtesv3lp@4ax.com>, Jackie<jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:23:56 GMT, "Marley Greiner"<maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:> >The judge lied. All he did was teminate our parental rights.>> Right the judge lied.. The judge was misinformed..The thing is.. I never got any paperwork.. I did not get to readanything legal after I signed..First step in rendering me childlike..Yet not a word from you on the real child in the picture. The adoptee, whonever had any say in this life-altering decision. You were not renderedchildlike, you chose to let your self be childlike. You were an adult, albeita young ignorant one...but it is never you, is it? It's always "they" and"them" and "the system"...Sorry, but it just wears thin after a while. I thinkyou had as much opportunity to go to a library and do a little research. Justlike another bmom here did. There is no "I-didn't-know-better" excuseavailable by law to anyone. It is a persons responsibility to know. I am soglad that my birthmom was not caught up in this poor me attitude that you have.

I'm glad that my bmom is not like this as well. Frankly, I was shocked when she
bought up my relinquishment and why she chose that particular adoption agency.
She didn't go into any great detail, but did state, "Heck, I was just a kid".
She truly feels that she made the right decision for both of us and takes
complete responsibility for it - and she relinquished several years before
Jackie did.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

On 1 Dec 2003 11:39:18 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<dhkjsvgp9n02g1k9qfokfsfuib6q13057l@4ax.com>... On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:51:25 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote: A better question would be.. Would I be willing to protect my emotional shut down self and sacrifice my relationship with him? Would I be willing to protect my long term relationship with my husband who I may not have told? Would I be willing to admit that my relationship with others is based on lies? Would I be willing to admit that there was a lack of intimacy in my long term relationships..
Those are good questions to ask.

I agree..
But, IMO, behavior can't be annexed entirely.

You mean feelings or behavior can not be negated because of a good
excuses?
I don't think one can comfortably blame all present behavior on pastexperiences, unless you can make a case for those experiences inducinga pathological condition.

I was not making a judgment with those questions.
Present action doesn't always have to do with past situations, butalso with present situations. It's a very dynamic thing.

I feel like you are still thinking that you can decide what that other
woman can do..Justify your condemnation of her.
If, God forbid, you died shortly thereafter, would you wishhim to stay away from your funeral even if it was importantto him to attend? I can not control that.. The generic secret birth mom can not control that.. If so, why? And if you had noobjections, would you have wanted him to identify himselfprior to attending, while attending, or not at all? No control over that.. The secret will out.. as we know.. I am looking at the issues of the woman who does not understand this..
If she doesn't understand,she's a poster girl for the closed era inadoption.

There seems to be a few of them..
She's become a secret even from herself.

Yes.. That is my point..

Jackie

On 1 Dec 2003 16:32:39 -0500, lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney)
wrote:
In article <780ksvkglreuselv6q6fmusaih7k25lte1@4ax.com>,nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:Jackie said:Where is the adoptee betrayed on this level? This is a forced outingfor the birth mom..Where does a forced outing happen to the adoptee?Can't you see, Jackie the adopted person has already suffered from beingdivorced from his or her siblings.

Yes I can see this Linda..
Do we have to put some kind of valueon pain and make the two sums equivalent fro the b mom and adoptee to makeyou happy?

All I ask for is understanding..
I believe the general consensus is for the adoptee to besensitive to the bmother's situation and give her areasonable amount to time to come to grips with thesituation. If that fails, the adoptee eventually has toconsider his own needs.THANK YOU NANCY! This is a clear statement of simple common sense.Jackie, I never meant that the adoptee had the right to trample on thefeelings of a birthmother. Nor did I mean that sensitivity, compassionand again common sense were to be left out of reunions. I just think theadoptee needs to consider her own needs.

And I think the adoptee needs to understand what is happening when
they bypass the birth mom..


Jackie

On 1 Dec 2003 14:08:24 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:

I wrote to Marley. So how do we get these women into this kind of understanding? If you bypass them they are going to get pissed off.. They will fight for the right to stay in the secrecy..
The above argument is a Byzantine sleight of thought in itself.

Oh lordy you are using big words again..
It's a good example (quote Marley) of that 'nifty turn of hand' thatsometimes succeeds in turning the principle players in the dramaagainst each other.It shifts the blame for the demand for contact vetoes onto theindividuals who actually *want* contact rather than onto those whowant to avoid it.

Jeeeze your mind is complicated..


Jackie

I'm leaving for New York in a few hours and don't have time
to answer this as thoroughly as I'd like, but I'll take a
shot. Snipping again...


On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 08:30:30 -0500, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:
They give the other parents that kind of respect.. Separate families..So when the adoptee comes knocking they do not understand IMO what isreally going on.. They have managed to completely agree with thestate..That's all well and good, but doesn't the basic respect foranother person's needs also enter into it?IMO they (some of them) were not shown that kind of respect when theyrelinquished..You learn what you live..

They can respect the state and the adoptive family but they
can't respect the adoptee?
BTW, I can't help but see this as a contradiction to yourtheory of genetic imperative. If the birthmother isagreeing with the state and no longer considers the adopteeconnected to her in any way, where does that leave herprimal need to know him?Some women cut off their primal need.. Will not acknowledge it..Were told they must not acknowledge it.. Were told they must not speakof it..

If it's indeed primal, it's still in there somewhere.
If she agrees with the state, he'sjust a stranger, just another asshole invading her space.By saying asshole IMO you are setting the conversation up to make avictim of the adoptee.. And IMO you are belittling the birthmomsreaction to contact..

Not at all. He is an intruder, an annoyance, an interloper
out to do damage to the cocoon she's built around herself.
IMO, that's an asshole.
Forcing her to change her thinking or belief's will not work..IMONope. Especially not if the adoptee doesn't mean anythingto her anymore.The adoptee was never a baby.. The adoptee was never her baby..

Ok, I think I understand what you mean.
The birthmother keeps her secret but loses therelationship with the adoptee. How do you feel about that?Survival.. If a person is totally tied up in knots and can not for onesecond open that door.. then IMO the birth mother will probably behappy that she can continue on in her world of fantasy..

Then the adoptee need not feel any obligation to stick
around? Somehow I was thinking our hypothetical birthmother
wanted an exclusive relationship with that person and the
problem was she didn't want others involved.
The child is bypassed by the decisions that lead up to thosewords.What decisions.. Was there really a decision?

*Someone* made a decision to relinquish the child. The
child didn't just pack up and leave.
I think the forced outing of a birth mom high drama .. You do not.Position very clear.

Ok, we disagree on this. I think it *can* be high drama,
but doesn't necessarily have to be.And I agree that eventually the adoptee gets to do what he or shedecides to do..No blame.I don't know what to make of this statement. The adopteegets to do whatever he decides, but your wording sounds likeyou don't approve but just can't think of a way to stop it.Yes.. That is exactly what I meant..The adoptee has freedom of association..

...and often, a need to know.
Changing the thinking of the collective happens one personat a time. People can have an "aha" moment withoutfollowing the herd if they're open to reason.But if they are not open to reason?

Then I guess they stay locked in their own personal hell and
the chips fall where they may.
It sounds like perhaps you're *not* satisfied with a simpleexchange of information. It sounds like, while your mind iseased, it isn't enough in terms of your genetic imperative.I hate that I gave him up in the very first place..I hate that I did not spend my life with this incredible man..Of course its not enough.. But sometimes life can come and hit aperson from behind and one must accept the fallout..

My point exactly. Open or closed, it's not just the
information, it goes much deeper. On both sides.
If so, would you be angry withthat someone, angry with your son, or both?I am angry because someone had a good idea after World War ll..Someone decided closed adoption was a good thing..I am angry that we live in a society that really does not care aboutthe individuals in it..Cares more about the money earned.. Cares more about keeping face..Cares more about being better than..

It's not our society, it's the world we live in. I think
all societies are like that and always have been to some
extent. As far as I can tell, there's always been
figurative totem poles with someone at the bottom, and
there's always been competition to succeed and those who
attempt to save face. It's only the standards that differ
and change. If you don't like our society, take a look at
Japan; these things are magnified nearly beyond imagination,
yet those are the values and it seems to work, by and large.
Yes, we can fight, but it takes time. Some people don'thave that kind of time.If the siblings are contacted against the birth moms wishes then I betsome of these siblings will remain connected to the birth mom and willreject the adoptee seeking friendship.

Maybe, maybe not. I think it's sometimes a catharsis to get
it out in the open. By the standards of our current
society, knowing that your mom relinquished a kid isn't the
worst thing you could learn.
I do not think the issue is time.. I think the issue is how messed upare these people.. You have a woman who has cut off feelings whileraising children.. How well do you think these children are raised?Naomi hated that she had a mother who was always depressed..Always had a bottle of pills sitting next to her.

Well, there ya go. If I remember correctly, Naomi had her
own "aha" moment when you told her about your first born; it
finally explained why Mom was so weird :-) and brought you
closer. The probability exists that she would have had that
same reaction even if your son had turned up and told her.
I don't think you're giving people enough credit for being
reasonable.
Makes no difference to whom? My bmom died 6 years after wereunited. She had early onset (fast moving) Alzheimer'sDisease for the last 3 years. Time is very precious.I was addressing the issue of the woman sorting her 'stuff'.I was saying that a woman who has not sorted her 'stuff' in thirtyfive years may never sort it..I was trying to address what the woman in hiding is thinking and orfeeling and IMO time will make no difference to her.. And yes I agreethe adoptee does not have that time.But you can not get blood from a stone..

I agree. That's why I think the adoptee eventually needs to
do whatever he needs to do.
But then I believe GR understands that six months can be two years orthree or four.. Nothing changes..I dunno. GR was pretty adamant about her 6 month limit in aconversation with me.Well I don't agree with GR.. (looking up to see if the sky is falling)

GASP!
I didn't have 3-4 years. No one knows how much time theyhave, and no one wants to waste that time expectingsomething that might never happen.And what of the woman who has her life totally changed?Is that okay?A woman who has sorted how to deal with all these emotional trauma'sand cut off of feelings.. You may think she is wrong.. But who are youto tell her?

Who is anyone to tell anyone else anything? Sometimes it
needs to be done, and sometimes someone will get through.
I personally believe it comes down to individual relationships..Even with the siblings.. IMO she is the kingpin..That's interesting. Does this genetic imperative onlyextend to mothers?I don't know..

I suggest to you that it doesn't.
A birthmother only has 1 person missingfrom her life (usually); I, as an adoptee, also had abirthfatherWho only she can name..

Usually. Or possibly her parents or siblings or friends,
which is sometimes why she is ultimately bypassed.
and 6 siblings who were of great importance. Ithink this is the root of the problem--I don't think youunderstand the extent of the needs adoptees have when theysearch.I am not saying they should not bypass her.. I am trying to put outhere what it can do to her.Your situation is different IMO.Your siblings were also relinquished..She does not have emotional control over them.. I am addressing theissue of the women who has kept her subsequent children and does notwant them to know about the relinquished son or daughter..Does not want her secret out..

I have 2 siblings who were relinquished and 4 (paternal) who
were not. Furthermore, both my relinquished siblings were
already reunited and in a relationship with my bmom when I
turned up. And my bmom didn't tell any of us about the
others for several years. Even after she did, she refused
to tell 2 of us anything about our youngest brother (except
that he existed) and refused to tell him about us at all.
She was possessive of him and somehow decided he'd be "hurt"
to know he wasn't her only child. [I still don't know where
she got that idea--he's not exactly Mr. Sensitive...]

It's a bit different, but the same themes apply. I think a
lot of birthmothers keep their kept kids apart from the
adoptee for no other reason than because they think they'll
be "hurt" to know she isn't/wasn't perfect. And I also
think most adult children figure that out anyway and care
less about their parents wayward youth than the parents
think. LOL
Assuming "genetic imperative" is a legitimate humancondition, for most adoptees, IMO, the genetic imperative iscompounded by genetic isolation. We aren't just missing onepiece of our genetic family, we're missing the wholeenchilada.And that is just plain horrible..Damn the closed era.. There were no kingpins when I searched, I wasn'tjust out looking for a mommy, it was a package.I know that.. There were*2* people out there who had the closest genetic connectionpossible with me, plus an assortment of siblings who maymanifest my inherited traits even more so than mybirthparents. And coming from a position of having had nogenetic similarities to anyone at all, that's what I hopedto find wherever I could find it.And why weren't women told that (above) when they relinquished in thevery first place.. Why weren't they given that information when theymade a decision to not speak of the relinquished child..Di said the study was out there..

Why weren't they told that the adoptee might wonder about
his entire biological family? I dunno...I think that's
rather self-evident if you think about it.

There are studies out there about everything, and some of
them are really off the wall. Some studies are done by
obscure academics, some are done by total whackos and/or
espouse whacko theories, and not every study in the world is
(or should be) taken seriously. The fact that this one
study that Di produced fell between the cracks is
unfortunate, but the thinking of the day was pretty
entrenched and lots of other studies reinforced that
thinking. I just don't think we can get too worked up about
this--it was done over 50 years ago when behavioral science
was far less sophisticated and far less accepted than it is
now.
If you seek to listen.. Reunions have beenpublicized and televised since at least the late 60s.I could not .. would not watch those shows..

But you still knew they were out there and these things
happened to other people.
WhenI say "come to grips", the first step is to take the bananasout of her ears.If I could I would take the bananas out of all the ears..

People sometimes take their own bananas out.
If she won't listen now to those who havebeen there, she's probably still not going to be listeningwhen "the collective" says it's all right.If a woman shares how she came out of the closet and if the sharerings true we may have an 'aha' moment.... Thank you Jesus!

Where does a woman who cannot watch/read about reunion find
those who share their experience? Is this the only
catalyst? I think more often than not, the appearance of
the adoptee is the "come to Jesus" moment.
If we have shows like the show that happened in Oregon thenwomen may seek to just forget about it.. Or ask the state forprotection..I am sure the secret keepers depend on this..
Women in the closet are very easily used..IMO

But the initiative in Oregon passed despite these 6 used
women and it seems to be working relatively smoothly. You
maintain that the only answer to the woman in secrecy is
open records, yet you believe the process drove other women
in Oregon into the closet and into emotional shut down?
What's wrong with this picture?
You said: "How can someone who has totally shut down herfeelings care?" "How can someone when has totally shut downher feelings understand :caring?" Anyone who can't care oreven understand caring is pretty far gone.But no one sees how far she is gone.. (low grade depression)An actor on a stage.. The training some of us women got when young..

This sounds rather all-encompassing, hardly "low grade".
Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. She has thecapability to feel, to love, to be happy, to sympathize andempathize, to function in a day to day life. She is perhapsisolating that one aspect of her life from her emotions, butshe still has a frame of reference for emotions in general.We can agree to disagree on this..

You had *no* capacity to understand or care when you were in
the closet? To love, sympathize, function, be happy? Dear
God...
See above. IMO, if the woman is a functioning human being,she indeed has the ability to care and/or understand caring.I was the one who could put the animals to sleep.. I had no problemwith it..I knew I was getting better when I freaked out when one of our oldercats got sick.. My daughter came home from school and was astounded atmy tears..You pretend love.. You act as if because you know that life must goon.

You didn't love your kids or your husband? You pretended?
Holy ****!
I don't think you answered the first of your improvedquestions: "Would I be willing to protect my emotional shutdown self and sacrifice my relationship with him?"Yes.. Probably.Because I don't know him.. There is no emotional history..IMO this is what happens in reunion..That is why there is cut off and neglected feelings..

You're probably right, and I'm not judging that. But isn't
it fair to accept that the adoptee bypassing the bmother
could be coming from the same place and afford him the same
privilege?
Again won't play..It's not a game.Really?

Nope, it's dead serious.
If the woman is dead then the womans issues are gone..And the adoptee's issues live on and on.And the adoptee can contact the siblings..And start again.. Day one in the rest of his or her life..

Without giving the birthmother the chance to explain her
side of the story to the others. At best, she'll have died
without the opportunity to ease her mind, will never know
the acceptance and forgiveness her family might show her,
and at worst her memory will be forever tainted with
bitterness.
What kind of "right"?The right of the adoptee to interact with his or her siblings.

So the solution is to sit back and hope the birthmother dies
before everyone else?

NancyJackie

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:8shmsv4jjppt81ddc1roa3u76irs9dnhqn@4ax.com... On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 09:18:31 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote: You wrote..



<snip>
>If, God forbid, you died shortly thereafter, would you wish>him to stay away from your funeral even if it was important>to him to attend?I can not control that.. The generic secret birth mom can not controlthat..This isn't about control. What would be your *wish*? I cant go there.. I wont go there.. Not my drama. I don't like that drama..

You certainly "went there" and made it *your drama* when it suited you,
grist to your mill to insult and berate me when I reported that an adopted
person went to his birth mother's funeral 'incognito'. You made a meal out
of that word for long enough for it to constitute a whole *series*, not to
talk about a *drama*.> If so, why? And if you had no>objections, would you have wanted him to identify himself>prior to attending, while attending, or not at all?No control over that..Again, what would be your preference? Again won't play..The secret will out.. as we know..Maybe. Or maybe he'd have the good taste to attend theservice incognito and, having seen his siblings, would thenjust let it go with no one being the wiser. If the woman is dead then the womans issues are gone..

So is *that* what you were getting at, when you castigated me - "the woman's
issues were gone" because she was dead, therefor he *should* have made
himself known to the wider family, instead of being there 'incognito'?

Would that have shown her the respect that she was due - nil nisi bonum - on
that final, important day, the day she was buried? What a wonderful memorial
it would have been, to add to the upset of the rest of the family and to
insult her memory by trivialising this aspect of her life, on the day of her
funeral. And for what purpose, I must ask?
Her trauma is gone.. Right should happen after that..

In due course, and with consideration for others' sensitivities - which is
precisely how that decent man handled it.
Different day.. Different deal..

As long as it's not incognito. <g>

Helen Jackie

klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote in message news:<20031201223416.23307.00004778@mb-m29.aol.com>... In article <fffmsvotr25lnjh8vsgn9s05evqtesv3lp@4ax.com>, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:23:56 GMT, "Marley Greiner"<maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:> >The judge lied. All he did was teminate our parental rights.>> Right the judge lied.. The judge was misinformed..The thing is.. I never got any paperwork.. I did not get to readanything legal after I signed..First step in rendering me childlike.. Yet not a word from you on the real child in the picture. The adoptee, who never had any say in this life-altering decision. You were not rendered childlike, you chose to let your self be childlike. You were an adult, albeit a young ignorant one...but it is never you, is it? It's always "they" and "them" and "the system"...Sorry, but it just wears thin after a while. I think you had as much opportunity to go to a library and do a little research. Just like another bmom here did. There is no "I-didn't-know-better" excuse available by law to anyone. It is a persons responsibility to know. I am so glad that my birthmom was not caught up in this poor me attitude that you have. KL

You come across as resenting any mother who didn't voluntarilty
relinquish as you've claimed your own mother apparantly did. Why is
that? Why do you resent mothers who didn't quite so voluntarily give
up their children and weren't quite as informed as you say your own
mother was? And why is it that only adoptees who mothers DID
voluntarily relinquish have this problem with mothers who didn't?

And what would the name of that particular book in the library be that
outlined a mothers legal rights today let alone 30-40 years ago?
Inquiring minds would like to know. <snark>

I've got news for you, sweety. There were none. All books available to
the public were aimed as advising how to go about adopting. Not how to
relinquish. Nothing absolutely nothing was written for the nmother.
And I defy you to find even one.

Di











Di

In article <c599139c.0312021242.15e6cf4f@posting.google.com>, Dian says...klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote in message news:<20031201223416.23307.00004778@mb-m29.aol.com>... In article <fffmsvotr25lnjh8vsgn9s05evqtesv3lp@4ax.com>, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:23:56 GMT, "Marley Greiner"<maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:>> >The judge lied. All he did was teminate our parental rights.>>>> Right the judge lied.. The judge was misinformed..The thing is.. I never got any paperwork.. I did not get to readanything legal after I signed..First step in rendering me childlike.. Yet not a word from you on the real child in the picture. The adoptee, who never had any say in this life-altering decision. You were not rendered childlike, you chose to let your self be childlike. You were an adult, albeit a young ignorant one...but it is never you, is it? It's always "they" and "them" and "the system"...Sorry, but it just wears thin after a while. I think you had as much opportunity to go to a library and do a little research. Just like another bmom here did. There is no "I-didn't-know-better" excuse available by law to anyone. It is a persons responsibility to know. I am so glad that my birthmom was not caught up in this poor me attitude that you have. KLYou come across as resenting any mother who didn't voluntariltyrelinquish as you've claimed your own mother apparantly did. Why isthat? Why do you resent mothers who didn't quite so voluntarily giveup their children and weren't quite as informed as you say your ownmother was? And why is it that only adoptees who mothers DIDvoluntarily relinquish have this problem with mothers who didn't?

Jesus Christmas - Talk about seeing only what you want to see.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<bl6psvos0oabcsp9qfmqa3bldtlc4map7j@4ax.com>... On 1 Dec 2003 10:30:27 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<dhkjsvgp9n02g1k9qfokfsfuib6q13057l@4ax.com>... On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:51:25 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote: >On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:48:22 -0500, Jackie ><jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote: > >>On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:52:46 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote: > > >No, Jackie, to hell with the adoptee. Right? I think it is horrible that the adoptee is rejected again.. I personally look to the ones that are into keeping the secrecy going.. I look to the ones who fight openness in adoption.. Not the woman who has bought into this crap..Unfortunately, if she has bought into it,she's now become part of it. Absolutely.Regardless of how this came about (and I can understand why a womanmight feel that, because she's lost or forfeited her rights to herchild in a climate of secrecy, that child has no right, legal oremotional, to make contact with her or with other blood relatives.It's not logical, but we aren't talking reason) she's joined the ranksof those who 'fight openess in adoption' And she is used by them as well.. They haul her out and put her on TV.



Sure, she's highly exploitable.
But she shares at least *some* responsibility for this.
Or do you feel she's *entirely* absolved, because of the traumatic
nature of her past experiences?
I feel very sorry for her, and sorry too for what she's come to
represent, but I don't have to allow pity to cloud my judgement that
what she's doing is wrong (You know, I suspect it's that kind of
thinking that caused more than a few bmothers to relinquish in the
first place - that they were more concerned for the survival of their
dysfunctional families of origin than for themselves and their unborn
child? They capitulated to pity and fear for the well-being of the
wrong people)


snipped some. > Would you have made any >effort to understand his genetic imperative? No one understood my genetic imperative in 1965.. How could I understand it in someone else? I was not allowed to see my son.. I was not given any help with my grief.. I was not allowed to talk about my son..etc etc etc.. Other women went through a similar experience.. IMO those are the women who are refusing contact with siblings..I did see my son, and I do think that's important in terms of bringinghome the reality of the situation (although personally, I don't thinkit helps in resolving issues of loss and sadness), and might contribute to feelings of disentitlement. Are you saying that seeing your son contributed to your feelings of disentitlement? I am not sure I understand what you are saying here..



I'm not suprised ;-)
I'm sorry. I realised immediately it didn't make much sense. There was
a lot going on here when I wrote it - the merlot was flowing free and
there was a lot of people action going on.
I'll try again.
What I meant was, that the reality of my son was brought home to me
because I was able to see and hold him after he was born. That became
a positive thing at reunion, although it is important for me to say
that before reunion, it didn't help at all.
However, I think that women who *have not* seen their children may
well have reduced feelings of entitlement *upon reunion*.
I imagine it is more difficult for them to accept that this person is
their child and easier for them to continue in their pretence that
they never gave birth. So they are more likely to stay in denial, and
consequently to reject a relationship with their child, and to oppose
contact with siblings.
Now, I'm speculating, of course. I haven't precisely 'been there', so
could be wrong.

Other than that, my family was immersed in lies, secrecy and andalmost total denial. All of which was the opposite of what I everwanted. There was no help with grief (rather the opposite. Expressionsof sorrow met with abuse and contempt, at least from my mother), andabsolutely no possibility of discussing it, either before or after theadoption.So I'm not so sure that you are right that this is the only or eventhe main reason for women refusing contact with siblings.


IMO a woman who rejects her child is disconnected from her feelings.. How else can she do it?




Oh, I agree with that, of course.
But you've said that women who were not allowed to talk about their
experience, who were not given any help with their grief are typically
the ones who would deny the sibling connection.
Based on my own experience, I'd disagree. Not seeing one's child, yes.
But the for rest, I don't think these are deciding factors.


I suspect ithas more to do with the social mores of the society in which they live(and *by* which they live), and the extent to which they have beenable to distance themselves from the world in which they relinquished.If they are still part of a rigid and censorious community, of coursethey are going to resist having past 'indiscretions' revealed. Theyare going to want to 'lock their door upon themselves'. And how do they do this?



By pretending *very hard*, IMO.
Perhaps they fear that if and when they meet their child they'll have
to come face to face with themselves.
Truth and consequences.

Here's the quote:

'I lock my door upon myself
And bar them out; but who shall wall
Self from myself, most loathed of all?'

'Who Shall Deliver me?' Christina Rossetti 1876.

There's a couple of Symbolist paintings inspired by the poem (same
title) by Fernand Khnopff (spelling?).
Also, I've just discovered that there's a novel called 'I Lock my Door
upon Myself' by Joyce Carol Oates. Maybe I'll get hold of it for my
Christmas read. I feel like reading something a little over the top!


Rh.What did you think of the Christina Rossetti quote?I thought it quite apposite. There's a painting, too, of that name byFernand (?) Khnopff, that was inspired by the poem. What quote? Jackie

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<qj7psvoijlql5c8clrm9m1a1hm237ja7po@4ax.com>... On 1 Dec 2003 11:39:18 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<dhkjsvgp9n02g1k9qfokfsfuib6q13057l@4ax.com>... On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:51:25 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote: A better question would be.. Would I be willing to protect my emotional shut down self and sacrifice my relationship with him? Would I be willing to protect my long term relationship with my husband who I may not have told? Would I be willing to admit that my relationship with others is based on lies? Would I be willing to admit that there was a lack of intimacy in my long term relationships..Those are good questions to ask. I agree..But, IMO, behavior can't be annexed entirely. You mean feelings or behavior can not be negated because of a good excuses?I don't think one can comfortably blame all present behavior on pastexperiences, unless you can make a case for those experiences inducinga pathological condition. I was not making a judgment with those questions.




I know.
You were making excuses.

Present action doesn't always have to do with past situations, butalso with present situations. It's a very dynamic thing. I feel like you are still thinking that you can decide what that other woman can do..Justify your condemnation of her.


You are wong about that.
I am not condemning.

I think that to accord responsibility *where it is due* is to show
respect, and to withold it is to make someone into less than
themselves.

Because I don't agree with a person who doesn't want contact doesn't
mean I don't sympathise with or understand their decision.
It's their decision to make, and I accept that even if I don't like
it.



Snip.


The secret will out.. as we know.. I am looking at the issues of the woman who does not understand this..If she doesn't understand,she's a poster girl for the closed era inadoption. There seems to be a few of them..She's become a secret even from herself. Yes.. That is my point..



A good point.
And I agree with it.
It's the ultimate imprisonment.


Rh. Jackie

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:fffmsvotr25lnjh8vsgn9s05evqtesv3lp@4ax.com... On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:23:56 GMT, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >The judge lied. All he did was teminate our parental rights. Right the judge lied.. The judge was misinformed.. The thing is.. I never got any paperwork.. I did not get to read anything legal after I signed.. First step in rendering me childlike..

That's not unusual. It's one of the things that really gets me about
adoption. You go to 7-11 and you get a receipt for a loaf of bread, but you
don't get one giving up a kid (though you do now).I think misinformed may be too kind. He was a cog in the adoption-statecomplex. And now I hear that in Florida they changed the birth dates..

Dates can be changed in some states. In Ohio a date can be change 3-days
forwards or backwards, but no more. In some states I've heard that years
can be changed. Yikes! What about the ones who believed him? Or her.Hopefully they woke up to the truth. Personally, I don't know why
anybodywould believe anything a judge says. He put on a good act..

Yeah, but I think that women especially get cowed by men in black. One
should have a healthy disrespect for all authority, especially patriarchial
authority. Trust me, none of it is "for your own good." When I got married in the early seventies.. Hubby and I went before a judge.. I was in my jeans and my bright orange and red vest.. My friends were dressed in the same kind of clothes.. Parents were not invited. Hubbies mom never forgave me.. The judge and his receptionist tolerated us.. The disapproval was very clear on their faces.. I had a twinge of guilt..

As well you should!!! My parents refused to come to my wedding. He had
long hair. You wrote.. > Secret adoption is >rooted in myth and stereotype and state power, all of which areimpossible >to discredit. in the current cultural and political climate. Untilthose >involved in adoption accept the fact that we are involved in a form ofclass >warfare, not an individual dysfunction, nothing will change. So IMO we respect each other in our own particular map of the world..I suppose so, but you have to reach a class consciousness, which is
inimicalto US thinking. We are all individuals and anything that happens to us
isOUR individual fault--not the fault of the systemic rot. Those whoacknowledge AdoptionWorld class structure are destructive,
trouble-makers,crazy, ungrateful, Black Block malcontents, in need of therapy or at
leasta good kick in the pants by some male authority figure, man or woman. Glad you are in the fight Marley..

Me, too. It helps that I hate everybody. Yes some women were messed with.. Yes some women based their lives on keeping the secret.. I say help them not hinder them.. I say respect them.. for who they are..But respecting them, which I think is possible, also can render themcontinued victim status. Respect needs to be tempered with reality. Theissue goes way beyond personal needs, and it's only gonna get worse untilidentity destruction policy implodes. Adoptee identify rights are tied
tomuch larger issues. So how do we get these women into this kind of understanding?

I don't know . I don't think they're interested in the political
implications. Everybody (just not them) is so tied up in some weird
narcissistic belief that everybody cares about them and their past and their
secrets, when in reality nobody gives a ****--unless you're Paris Hilton.
People have to realize that they don't count. They are simply low-paid
producers and consumers who keep the state running. If you bypass them they are going to get pissed off.. They will fight for the right to stay in the secrecy.. They will not see the real issue.. >Adoption sits >at the nexus of nearly every social issue in the US today and must beseen >as a critical to discussions on race, gender roles and issues, welfare >reform, marriage and divorce, church and state separation, and
economics. >Until people get out of their own private adoption ghetto and fight
the >real world lib-com hegemony , nothing will change. Accepting that what has gone down has gone down.. Accepting that we can not go back and change what happened..I think that's a great idea. Unfortunately, lots of people can't. Theywhine and moan about things they can't change. You can, however, change
thepresent and the future. Its about control.. Jackie

Yeah. The control of the vast majority by the very few. It's called
oligarchy.

Marley

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 03:25:59 GMT, "Marley Greiner"
<maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

snipped some.
Hopefully they woke up to the truth. Personally, I don't know whyanybodywould believe anything a judge says. He put on a good act..Yeah, but I think that women especially get cowed by men in black. Oneshould have a healthy disrespect for all authority, especially patriarchialauthority. Trust me, none of it is "for your own good."

He sat behind a very big desk.. He had total control of the
situation..
But then everyone did.. The woman who worked for the agency drove me
there.. I know we had a conversation in the car.. Something about how
I was supposed to talk with this man.. This judge..

He questioned me to see if I was stupid.. I was pleased with myself
that I proved to him that I was not..
When I got married in the early seventies.. Hubby and I went before a judge.. I was in my jeans and my bright orange and red vest.. My friends were dressed in the same kind of clothes.. Parents were not invited. Hubbies mom never forgave me.. The judge and his receptionist tolerated us.. The disapproval was very clear on their faces.. I had a twinge of guilt..As well you should!!! My parents refused to come to my wedding. He hadlong hair.

My hubby had long hair as well.. I forgot about that part..
All my friends had long hair.. Girls too..
You wrote..> > Secret adoption is> >rooted in myth and stereotype and state power, all of which areimpossible> >to discredit. in the current cultural and political climate. Untilthose> >involved in adoption accept the fact that we are involved in a form ofclass> >warfare, not an individual dysfunction, nothing will change.>> So IMO we respect each other in our own particular map of the world..I suppose so, but you have to reach a class consciousness, which isinimicalto US thinking. We are all individuals and anything that happens to usisOUR individual fault--not the fault of the systemic rot. Those whoacknowledge AdoptionWorld class structure are destructive,trouble-makers,crazy, ungrateful, Black Block malcontents, in need of therapy or atleasta good kick in the pants by some male authority figure, man or woman. Glad you are in the fight Marley..Me, too. It helps that I hate everybody.

It is becoming insane.. I read the letters from the ones who want
babies and the desperation is palpable..
> Yes some women were messed with.. Yes some women based their lives on> keeping the secret.. I say help them not hinder them..> I say respect them.. for who they are..But respecting them, which I think is possible, also can render themcontinued victim status. Respect needs to be tempered with reality. Theissue goes way beyond personal needs, and it's only gonna get worse untilidentity destruction policy implodes. Adoptee identify rights are tiedtomuch larger issues. So how do we get these women into this kind of understanding?I don't know . I don't think they're interested in the politicalimplications. Everybody (just not them) is so tied up in some weirdnarcissistic belief that everybody cares about them and their past and theirsecrets, when in reality nobody gives a ****--unless you're Paris Hilton.People have to realize that they don't count. They are simply low-paidproducers and consumers who keep the state running.

Lordy that's important..

Judge not lest ye be judged..
If you bypass them they are going to get pissed off.. They will fight for the right to stay in the secrecy.. They will not see the real issue..> >Adoption sits> >at the nexus of nearly every social issue in the US today and must beseen> >as a critical to discussions on race, gender roles and issues, welfare> >reform, marriage and divorce, church and state separation, andeconomics.> >Until people get out of their own private adoption ghetto and fightthe> >real world lib-com hegemony , nothing will change.>> Accepting that what has gone down has gone down..> Accepting that we can not go back and change what happened..I think that's a great idea. Unfortunately, lots of people can't. Theywhine and moan about things they can't change. You can, however, changethepresent and the future. Its about control.. JackieYeah. The control of the vast majority by the very few. It's calledoligarchy.

Damn fine word..


Jackie

On 2 Dec 2003 17:11:03 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:

snipped some..Regardless of how this came about (and I can understand why a womanmight feel that, because she's lost or forfeited her rights to herchild in a climate of secrecy, that child has no right, legal oremotional, to make contact with her or with other blood relatives.It's not logical, but we aren't talking reason) she's joined the ranksof those who 'fight openess in adoption' And she is used by them as well.. They haul her out and put her on TV.
Sure, she's highly exploitable.

Secrets do that to a person..
But she shares at least *some* responsibility for this.

I do not judge her.
Or do you feel she's *entirely* absolved, because of the traumaticnature of her past experiences?

No absolve no judgment.. This is what is going down..
If we recognize it and talk about it maybe we can work towards
stopping it..

No one likes being judged and found lacking..
I feel very sorry for her, and sorry too for what she's come torepresent, but I don't have to allow pity to cloud my judgement thatwhat she's doing is wrong

You insult the woman.. Do you realized you are doing this?

You take away her dignity..
(You know, I suspect it's that kind ofthinking that caused more than a few bmothers to relinquish in thefirst place - that they were more concerned for the survival of theirdysfunctional families of origin than for themselves and their unbornchild? They capitulated to pity and fear for the well-being of thewrong people)

Or they were trying to survive themselves..
Women from good homes got husbands.. Women with a good resume and who
presented themselves as good good people .. got the jobs..

They are playing a game.
They are playing at not playing a game.
If I show them I see they are,
I shall break the rules
and they will punish me.
I must play their game,
of not seeing I see the game.

R. D. Lang, from Knots

snipped some.> > Would you have made any> >effort to understand his genetic imperative?>> No one understood my genetic imperative in 1965.. How could I> understand it in someone else?> I was not allowed to see my son.. I was not given any help with my> grief.. I was not allowed to talk about my son..etc etc etc..>> Other women went through a similar experience.. IMO those are the> women who are refusing contact with siblings..I did see my son, and I do think that's important in terms of bringinghome the reality of the situation (although personally, I don't thinkit helps in resolving issues of loss and sadness), and might contribute to feelings of disentitlement. Are you saying that seeing your son contributed to your feelings of disentitlement? I am not sure I understand what you are saying here..
I'm not suprised ;-)I'm sorry. I realised immediately it didn't make much sense. There wasa lot going on here when I wrote it - the merlot was flowing free andthere was a lot of people action going on.

I go on the computer when the world is crazy around me..
I'll try again.What I meant was, that the reality of my son was brought home to mebecause I was able to see and hold him after he was born. That becamea positive thing at reunion, although it is important for me to saythat before reunion, it didn't help at all.

My son asked me if I held him.. I had to say no..
However, I think that women who *have not* seen their children maywell have reduced feelings of entitlement *upon reunion*.

But then all of us are different.. I guess my bottom line theory is
that women who have not actually gone through a proper procedure when
relinquishing.. may well live in a pretend world where the
relinquished child is concerned..
She may continue the pretend.. Or she may fight her way out of the
insanity of it..
I imagine it is more difficult for them to accept that this person istheir child and easier for them to continue in their pretence thatthey never gave birth. So they are more likely to stay in denial, andconsequently to reject a relationship with their child, and to opposecontact with siblings.Now, I'm speculating, of course. I haven't precisely 'been there', socould be wrong.

Nor have I .. and I could be wrong as well..

But its a good theory..
Other than that, my family was immersed in lies, secrecy and andalmost total denial. All of which was the opposite of what I everwanted. There was no help with grief (rather the opposite. Expressionsof sorrow met with abuse and contempt, at least from my mother), andabsolutely no possibility of discussing it, either before or after theadoption.So I'm not so sure that you are right that this is the only or eventhe main reason for women refusing contact with siblings.
IMO a woman who rejects her child is disconnected from her feelings.. How else can she do it?
Oh, I agree with that, of course.But you've said that women who were not allowed to talk about theirexperience, who were not given any help with their grief are typicallythe ones who would deny the sibling connection.

Because they are living in a vacuum.. They have no outside input.. No
new ideas to process..
No one asking her to look in another direction..
No one to actually see her pain..

If her pain is denied or not seen.. Because it is not shown..
How can she understand the pain of the son or daughter?
Based on my own experience, I'd disagree. Not seeing one's child, yes.But the for rest, I don't think these are deciding factors.

I think it is..
I suspect ithas more to do with the social mores of the society in which they live(and *by* which they live), and the extent to which they have beenable to distance themselves from the world in which they relinquished.If they are still part of a rigid and censorious community, of coursethey are going to resist having past 'indiscretions' revealed. Theyare going to want to 'lock their door upon themselves'. And how do they do this?
By pretending *very hard*, IMO.

As they have done from day one.
Perhaps they fear that if and when they meet their child they'll haveto come face to face with themselves.Truth and consequences.

And they will have to answer questions.. They will have to explain
themselves..
Lots of fear there..
Here's the quote:'I lock my door upon myselfAnd bar them out; but who shall wallSelf from myself, most loathed of all?' 'Who Shall Deliver me?' Christina Rossetti 1876.

I know that place..
There's a couple of Symbolist paintings inspired by the poem (sametitle) by Fernand Khnopff (spelling?).Also, I've just discovered that there's a novel called 'I Lock my Doorupon Myself' by Joyce Carol Oates. Maybe I'll get hold of it for myChristmas read. I feel like reading something a little over the top!

Heavy reading..


Jackie

On 2 Dec 2003 17:25:03 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
I don't think one can comfortably blame all present behavior on pastexperiences, unless you can make a case for those experiences inducinga pathological condition. I was not making a judgment with those questions.
I know.You were making excuses.

No I was not..

No blame and no excuses.. What is happening is happening.

I am trying to state (explore) the reasons why..
Present action doesn't always have to do with past situations, butalso with present situations. It's a very dynamic thing. I feel like you are still thinking that you can decide what that other woman can do..Justify your condemnation of her.
You are wong about that.I am not condemning.

I am glad you are not then.. Very glad..
I think that to accord responsibility *where it is due* is to showrespect, and to withold it is to make someone into less thanthemselves.

Where the responsibility lies is the question..

I personally do not think the birth mom is responsible for the kind of
adoptions we have now.. or in the last fifty years..

There was a climate of secrecy in adoption.. There was a climate of
clean slate thinking..
There was a climate of survival thinking and you will not survive with
a baby in tow..
Because I don't agree with a person who doesn't want contact doesn'tmean I don't sympathise with or understand their decision.It's their decision to make, and I accept that even if I don't likeit.

Good. We are in agreement..

> The secret will out.. as we know..>> I am looking at the issues of the woman who does not understand this..If she doesn't understand,she's a poster girl for the closed era inadoption. There seems to be a few of them..She's become a secret even from herself. Yes.. That is my point..
A good point.And I agree with it.It's the ultimate imprisonment.

Yes.

And my quest is to tell some of them.. Its nice out here..
Its hard and difficult but its nice..


Jackie

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:65orsvo71uurpapl1i3ea0nh1ua0vph36u@4ax.com... On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 03:25:59 GMT, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote: snipped some. >Hopefully they woke up to the truth. Personally, I don't know whyanybody >would believe anything a judge says. He put on a good act..Yeah, but I think that women especially get cowed by men in black. Oneshould have a healthy disrespect for all authority, especially
patriarchialauthority. Trust me, none of it is "for your own good." He sat behind a very big desk.. He had total control of the situation.. But then everyone did.. The woman who worked for the agency drove me there.. I know we had a conversation in the car.. Something about how I was supposed to talk with this man.. This judge.. He questioned me to see if I was stupid.. I was pleased with myself that I proved to him that I was not..

You did the best you could at the time. I don't think we should beat
yourselves up for things we did 35 years ago--though, of course, we all do. When I got married in the early seventies.. Hubby and I went before a judge.. I was in my jeans and my bright orange and red vest.. My friends were dressed in the same kind of clothes.. Parents were not invited. Hubbies mom never forgave me.. The judge and his receptionist tolerated us.. The disapproval was very clear on their faces.. I had a twinge of guilt..As well you should!!! My parents refused to come to my wedding. He hadlong hair. My hubby had long hair as well.. I forgot about that part.. All my friends had long hair.. Girls too..

And boots. And tennies with no socks. My mother developed a disturbing
foot fetish over my husband. You wrote.. >> > Secret adoption is >> >rooted in myth and stereotype and state power, all of which are >impossible >> >to discredit. in the current cultural and political climate.
Until >those >> >involved in adoption accept the fact that we are involved in a form
of >class >> >warfare, not an individual dysfunction, nothing will change. >> >> So IMO we respect each other in our own particular map of the
world.. > >I suppose so, but you have to reach a class consciousness, which isinimical >to US thinking. We are all individuals and anything that happens to
usis >OUR individual fault--not the fault of the systemic rot. Those who >acknowledge AdoptionWorld class structure are destructive,trouble-makers, >crazy, ungrateful, Black Block malcontents, in need of therapy or atleast >a good kick in the pants by some male authority figure, man or woman. Glad you are in the fight Marley..Me, too. It helps that I hate everybody. It is becoming insane.. I read the letters from the ones who want babies and the desperation is palpable..

If this were over anything else--like Empire couches or importing escargot
they'd been considered psycho. But it's OK with baybees.
Yeah. The control of the vast majority by the very few. It's calledoligarchy.


cut

Damn fine word..

Actually, I found a better word--a new word--after I posted this.
Sotolgarchy-- in an essay by Curtis White in this week's Village Voice
"Concerning Sotoligarchy: What happens when the rich and powerful rule the
stupid? It's called America."
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0349/essay.php
Sotolgarchy is defined as "the most
meaningful political alliance in this country is between the rich and the
chronically stupid." Here's an excerpt from it that follows a discussion of
Proust:


"We need to add the further irony that we are wrong to think that cruelty
funcions in our self-interest. Cruelty does not work. In both the short
and long run cruel efforts to maintain self-interest have the consequence
of making us conspire agianst ourselves. By acting cruelly in our self-
interest we actuablly lbcome consppirtors in our own defeat."

Of course, Jackie, if you admit to agreeing with this, then you'll be tarred
as "anti-American" again.

All hail the sololigarchy!

Marley

Jackie

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 09:42:44 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:
I'm leaving for New York in a few hours and don't have timeto answer this as thoroughly as I'd like, but I'll take ashot. Snipping again...

Have a wonderful trip..

Or.. Welcome back from your trip and how was New York?
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 08:30:30 -0500, Jackie<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:>They give the other parents that kind of respect.. Separate families..>>So when the adoptee comes knocking they do not understand IMO what is>really going on.. They have managed to completely agree with the>state..That's all well and good, but doesn't the basic respect foranother person's needs also enter into it?IMO they (some of them) were not shown that kind of respect when theyrelinquished..You learn what you live..They can respect the state and the adoptive family but theycan't respect the adoptee?

The state is a power mechanism.. The adoptive parents in my time were
not there.. Just like the baby was not there..

They were not respected by either the state or the aparents..
(aparents could not show respect that is a given)

The adoptee does not have a position of power..
Or should not IMO.
BTW, I can't help but see this as a contradiction to yourtheory of genetic imperative. If the birthmother isagreeing with the state and no longer considers the adopteeconnected to her in any way, where does that leave herprimal need to know him?Some women cut off their primal need.. Will not acknowledge it..Were told they must not acknowledge it.. Were told they must not speakof it..If it's indeed primal, it's still in there somewhere.

Yes.. and the question is.. How does one help a person explore all
that messed up primal stuff..
I ended up locked in my house.. I ended up afraid that I could not
survive if my husband got sick..
I forced myself to go for therapy..
If she agrees with the state, he'sjust a stranger, just another asshole invading her space.By saying asshole IMO you are setting the conversation up to make avictim of the adoptee.. And IMO you are belittling the birthmomsreaction to contact..Not at all. He is an intruder, an annoyance, an interloperout to do damage to the cocoon she's built around herself.IMO, that's an asshole.

He is not an annoyance.. or an interloper..
He is the whole ball of wax.. He is the cocoon..

He is the insanity.. One does not sort that in a day..
When I walked down the hill and asked for therapy I did not even tell
them I had given my son up.. I did not think it important..
I did not understand my insanity..
>Forcing her to change her thinking or belief's will not work..IMONope. Especially not if the adoptee doesn't mean anythingto her anymore.The adoptee was never a baby.. The adoptee was never her baby..Ok, I think I understand what you mean. The birthmother keeps her secret but loses therelationship with the adoptee. How do you feel about that?Survival.. If a person is totally tied up in knots and can not for onesecond open that door.. then IMO the birth mother will probably behappy that she can continue on in her world of fantasy..Then the adoptee need not feel any obligation to stickaround?

If the adoptee leaves then she may be shocked into understanding that
she needs help..
Somehow I was thinking our hypothetical birthmotherwanted an exclusive relationship with that person and theproblem was she didn't want others involved.

I don't think so..
She has lied.. She has not told her hubby.. (a hypothetic situation)
The intimacy in her marriage (of probably more than twenty years) is a
farce.. She is keeping secrets from her mate..
She thinks she is setting a good example for her children..
What her mother did.. (ya right)

Maybe indirect comments were made about women who give up babies.. You
know she was listening.. You know she has made conclusions..
Conclusions made in a vacuum.. False conclusions probably..

Now take that to her telling everyone that she has a long lost child.
Take that to her telling everyone that her life has been a lie..
Take that to her having to deal with this with her husband or mate..
Plus she is expected to explain herself..
Yikes.. She can not do that because she has not sorted anything..
The child is bypassed by the decisions that lead up to thosewords.What decisions.. Was there really a decision?*Someone* made a decision to relinquish the child. Thechild didn't just pack up and leave.

All things are multi determined..
Scott Peck said that in "In Search of Stones".

I take responsibility for putting myself in situations where I might
get pregnant.. Where I did get pregnant..
I take responsibility for my actions..

But I should have seen my child.. I should have been told of the long
term effects of giving a child up.. For him and me..
There are many shoulds in this..

But someone had an idea.. Someone decided that it was a good thing to
make the baby a clean slate.. Give the baby to the ones who could
afford to raise it.. Take the baby from the one who may need welfare
to raise the baby..
Those are the folks who I think should be taken to task..

And Safe Haven is a perfect example of a new way to change it all
(babies) around..
A new way to keep the secrets going.. To keep the manipulation going..
And we all are watching how this is happening..
Heart strings are tugged.. Dead babies are buried..
Statistic's are rigged..

Women who would never have killed their babies are abandoning..
And someone says.. We have saved another..

Balderdash..
I think the forced outing of a birth mom high drama .. You do not.Position very clear.Ok, we disagree on this. I think it *can* be high drama,but doesn't necessarily have to be.

If a woman has sat in secrecy for more than thirty years..
It sure as heck is high drama for her..
>And I agree that eventually the adoptee gets to do what he or she>decides to do..>No blame.I don't know what to make of this statement. The adopteegets to do whatever he decides, but your wording sounds likeyou don't approve but just can't think of a way to stop it.Yes.. That is exactly what I meant..The adoptee has freedom of association....and often, a need to know.

Information should be exchanged.. Records should be open..
And as Marley so aptly says.. People should get over themselves..
Changing the thinking of the collective happens one personat a time. People can have an "aha" moment withoutfollowing the herd if they're open to reason.But if they are not open to reason?Then I guess they stay locked in their own personal hell andthe chips fall where they may.

Yes..And I cringe..
It sounds like perhaps you're *not* satisfied with a simpleexchange of information. It sounds like, while your mind iseased, it isn't enough in terms of your genetic imperative.I hate that I gave him up in the very first place..I hate that I did not spend my life with this incredible man..Of course its not enough.. But sometimes life can come and hit aperson from behind and one must accept the fallout..My point exactly. Open or closed, it's not just theinformation, it goes much deeper. On both sides.

Yes..

I sought my son.. I learned everything I could about what it was like
for him..
If so, would you be angry withthat someone, angry with your son, or both?I am angry because someone had a good idea after World War ll..Someone decided closed adoption was a good thing..I am angry that we live in a society that really does not care aboutthe individuals in it..Cares more about the money earned.. Cares more about keeping face..Cares more about being better than..It's not our society, it's the world we live in. I thinkall societies are like that and always have been to someextent. As far as I can tell, there's always beenfigurative totem poles with someone at the bottom, andthere's always been competition to succeed and those whoattempt to save face. It's only the standards that differand change. If you don't like our society, take a look atJapan; these things are magnified nearly beyond imagination,yet those are the values and it seems to work, by and large.

What happened to me and others was cruel..
Inhuman and cruel..
That is in injustice.. it should be acknowledged..
Yes, we can fight, but it takes time. Some people don'thave that kind of time.If the siblings are contacted against the birth moms wishes then I betsome of these siblings will remain connected to the birth mom and willreject the adoptee seeking friendship.Maybe, maybe not. I think it's sometimes a catharsis to getit out in the open. By the standards of our currentsociety, knowing that your mom relinquished a kid isn't theworst thing you could learn.

But if the adoptee betrays the birth mom.. What then?

That adds another issue into the mix.. Protection of the one who is
weak.. I know Naomi and Davie will follow my lead..
I do not think the issue is time.. I think the issue is how messed upare these people.. You have a woman who has cut off feelings whileraising children.. How well do you think these children are raised?Naomi hated that she had a mother who was always depressed..Always had a bottle of pills sitting next to her.Well, there ya go. If I remember correctly, Naomi had herown "aha" moment when you told her about your first born; itfinally explained why Mom was so weird :-) and brought youcloser.

Yes.. And then she would bring home her friends who were adopted..
And then she lived with a fellow who was adopted..
And she was his caretaker.. Wot mom did..
The probability exists that she would have had thatsame reaction even if your son had turned up and told her.I don't think you're giving people enough credit for beingreasonable.

But if he had of decided to out me against my wishes.. She would have
probably helped me..
She would have probably have gotten angry at bson..
But I really do not know what she would have done..
An interesting question..
Makes no difference to whom? My bmom died 6 years after wereunited. She had early onset (fast moving) Alzheimer'sDisease for the last 3 years. Time is very precious.I was addressing the issue of the woman sorting her 'stuff'.I was saying that a woman who has not sorted her 'stuff' in thirtyfive years may never sort it..I was trying to address what the woman in hiding is thinking and orfeeling and IMO time will make no difference to her.. And yes I agreethe adoptee does not have that time.But you can not get blood from a stone..I agree. That's why I think the adoptee eventually needs todo whatever he needs to do.

Yes.. And I do my best to help women out of the closet..
and I do that by sharing my experience every way I can..
>But then I believe GR understands that six months can be two years or>three or four.. Nothing changes..I dunno. GR was pretty adamant about her 6 month limit in aconversation with me.Well I don't agree with GR.. (looking up to see if the sky is falling)GASP!

I do enjoy that woman.. (looking for Helen)
I didn't have 3-4 years. No one knows how much time theyhave, and no one wants to waste that time expectingsomething that might never happen.And what of the woman who has her life totally changed?Is that okay?A woman who has sorted how to deal with all these emotional trauma'sand cut off of feelings.. You may think she is wrong.. But who are youto tell her?Who is anyone to tell anyone else anything? Sometimes itneeds to be done, and sometimes someone will get through.

Or someone may read about what it was like back then..
Really understand how cold the world was for women like me..

Really understand the why of it.. and then act accordingly..
>I personally elieve it comes down to individual relationships..>Even with the siblings.. IMO she is the kingpin..That's interesting. Does this genetic imperative onlyextend to mothers?I don't know..I suggest to you that it doesn't. A birthmother only has 1 person missingfrom her life (usually); I, as an adoptee, also had abirthfatherWho only she can name..Usually. Or possibly her parents or siblings or friends,which is sometimes why she is ultimately bypassed.

And the world passes on without her..

Nothing new there..
and 6 siblings who were of great importance. Ithink this is the root of the problem--I don't think youunderstand the extent of the needs adoptees have when theysearch.I am not saying they should not bypass her.. I am trying to put outhere what it can do to her.Your situation is different IMO.Your siblings were also relinquished..She does not have emotional control over them.. I am addressing theissue of the women who has kept her subsequent children and does notwant them to know about the relinquished son or daughter..Does not want her secret out..I have 2 siblings who were relinquished and 4 (paternal) whowere not. Furthermore, both my relinquished siblings werealready reunited and in a relationship with my bmom when Iturned up. And my bmom didn't tell any of us about theothers for several years.

I smile.. Secrets rule the day.
Even after she did, she refusedto tell 2 of us anything about our youngest brother (exceptthat he existed) and refused to tell him about us at all.She was possessive of him and somehow decided he'd be "hurt"to know he wasn't her only child. [I still don't know whereshe got that idea--he's not exactly Mr. Sensitive...]

That is the conclusion of a woman who is living in a vacuum..
It's a bit different, but the same themes apply. I think alot of birthmothers keep their kept kids apart from theadoptee for no other reason than because they think they'llbe "hurt" to know she isn't/wasn't perfect. And I alsothink most adult children figure that out anyway and careless about their parents wayward youth than the parentsthink. LOL

Yes.. I look at my moms insanity.. I got caught up in it..
Assuming "genetic imperative" is a legitimate humancondition, for most adoptees, IMO, the genetic imperative iscompounded by genetic isolation. We aren't just missing onepiece of our genetic family, we're missing the wholeenchilada.And that is just plain horrible..Damn the closed era.. There were no kingpins when I searched, I wasn'tjust out looking for a mommy, it was a package.I know that.. There were*2* people out there who had the closest genetic connectionpossible with me, plus an assortment of siblings who maymanifest my inherited traits even more so than mybirthparents. And coming from a position of having had nogenetic similarities to anyone at all, that's what I hopedto find wherever I could find it.And why weren't women told that (above) when they relinquished in thevery first place.. Why weren't they given that information when theymade a decision to not speak of the relinquished child..Di said the study was out there..Why weren't they told that the adoptee might wonder abouthis entire biological family?

Not wonder.. Information is easily given in secrecy..
I was thinking of the need to know the siblings the blood..

The connection on a very deep level..

Until Di posted that missive I honestly believe that it really was not
that important..
I know a blank in my mind.. A misunderstanding..
But it was something I needed to sort..

I dunno...I think that'srather self-evident if you think about it.There are studies out there about everything, and some ofthem are really off the wall.

This one rang true to me.
Some studies are done byobscure academics, some are done by total whackos and/orespouse whacko theories, and not every study in the world is(or should be) taken seriously. The fact that this onestudy that Di produced fell between the cracks isunfortunate, but the thinking of the day was prettyentrenched and lots of other studies reinforced thatthinking. I just don't think we can get too worked up aboutthis--it was done over 50 years ago when behavioral sciencewas far less sophisticated and far less accepted than it isnow.

The study about the clean slate theory changed my life..
If you seek to listen.. Reunions have beenpublicized and televised since at least the late 60s.I could not .. would not watch those shows..But you still knew they were out there and these thingshappened to other people.

I quit Alma because of an article written in their newsletters..
It was an article about a woman dying just before the bson connected..
A real tear jerker..

I was not ready to actively seek out my son.. I knew I was not ready..
A hurry up tear jerker put me off totally..

I stopped looking for a few years.. Just to darn painful..
WhenI say "come to grips", the first step is to take the bananasout of her ears.If I could I would take the bananas out of all the ears..People sometimes take their own bananas out.

LOL LOL

I remember a song called Beans in my Ears..

It was big in the fifties..
We traveled across the states in a Buick..
It was on the juke boxes..

BEANS IN MY EARS
Serendipity Singers

My mommy said not to put beans in my ears
Beans in my ears, beans in my ears
My mommy said not to put beans in my ears
Beans in my ears

Now why would I want to put beans in my ears
Beans in my ears, beans in my ears
Now why would I want to put beans in my ears
Beans in my ears

You can't hear the teacher with beans in your ears,
Beans in your ears, beans in your ears
You can't hear the teacher with beans in your ears,
Beans in your ears

What's that you say, let's put beans in our ears
Beans in our ears, beans in our ears
What's that you say, let's put beans in our ears
Beans in our ears

You'll have to speak up I got beans in my ears
Beans in my ears, beans in my ears
You'll have to speak up I got beans in my ears
Beans in her ears

Say mommy we've gone and put beans in our ears
Beans in our ears, beans in our ears
Say mommy we've gone and put beans in our ears
Beans in our ears

That's nice boys just don't put those beans in your ears
Beans in our ears, beans in our ears
That's nice boys just don't put those beans in your ears
Beans in our ears

I think that all grown ups have beans in their ears
Beans in their ears, beans in their ears
I think that all grown ups have beans in their ears
Beans in their ears

end of quoting..

Sorry I had to post it.. Make this missive longer..

If she won't listen now to those who havebeen there, she's probably still not going to be listeningwhen "the collective" says it's all right.If a woman shares how she came out of the closet and if the sharerings true we may have an 'aha' moment.... Thank you Jesus!Where does a woman who cannot watch/read about reunion findthose who share their experience? Is this the onlycatalyst? I think more often than not, the appearance ofthe adoptee is the "come to Jesus" moment.

And maybe they might turn to the web..
But you are probably right.
If we have shows like the show that happened in Oregon thenwomen may seek to just forget about it.. Or ask the state forprotection..I am sure the secret keepers depend on this..Women in the closet are very easily used..IMOBut the initiative in Oregon passed despite these 6 usedwomen and it seems to be working relatively smoothly. Youmaintain that the only answer to the woman in secrecy isopen records,

If all women know the world is open.. then maybe they may start on the
journey to tell the telling.
Know they can no longer stay in the secret keeping..

They may walk down the hill and seek therapy like it did..
That is my hope.
yet you believe the process drove other womenin Oregon into the closet and into emotional shut down?

I don't understand what you are saying here..

The secrecy and the emotional shut down started well before the Oregon
initiative...
What's wrong with this picture?

Well I no longer have beans in my ears..
You said: "How can someone who has totally shut down herfeelings care?" "How can someone when has totally shut downher feelings understand :caring?" Anyone who can't care oreven understand caring is pretty far gone.But no one sees how far she is gone.. (low grade depression)An actor on a stage.. The training some of us women got when young..This sounds rather all-encompassing, hardly "low grade".

It was the word used.

You are not really depressed.. You are just not happy.
No laughing no crying.. no anger.. Anger not allowed.
Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. She has thecapability to feel, to love, to be happy, to sympathize andempathize, to function in a day to day life. She is perhapsisolating that one aspect of her life from her emotions, butshe still has a frame of reference for emotions in general.We can agree to disagree on this..You had *no* capacity to understand or care when you were inthe closet? To love, sympathize, function, be happy? DearGod...

I did not understand love.. I did not understand how to do this..

Once Naomi got mono.. I stood in the emergency ward with her all
day..She was put in the hospital and I went the very minute I woke the
next morning..
Hubby said let her be she is fine..

We had a fight..

But I still did not know about the feeling of love.. Not conscious..
See above. IMO, if the woman is a functioning human being,she indeed has the ability to care and/or understand caring.I was the one who could put the animals to sleep.. I had no problemwith it..I knew I was getting better when I freaked out when one of our oldercats got sick.. My daughter came home from school and was astounded atmy tears..You pretend love.. You act as if because you know that life must goon.You didn't love your kids or your husband? You pretended?Holy ****!

And I looked for the lost love.. I looked for the unrequited love..

The tall dark stranger..
I don't think you answered the first of your improvedquestions: "Would I be willing to protect my emotional shutdown self and sacrifice my relationship with him?"Yes.. Probably.Because I don't know him.. There is no emotional history..IMO this is what happens in reunion..That is why there is cut off and neglected feelings..You're probably right, and I'm not judging that. But isn'tit fair to accept that the adoptee bypassing the bmothercould be coming from the same place and afford him the sameprivilege?

I can not know if bypassing is the right thing to do or not..
All I can do is express my thoughts on this..
Folks can take what they want and leave the rest..
>Again won't play..It's not a game.Really?Nope, it's dead serious.>If the woman is dead then the womans issues are gone..And the adoptee's issues live on and on.And the adoptee can contact the siblings..And start again.. Day one in the rest of his or her life..Without giving the birthmother the chance to explain herside of the story to the others.

She could not do that..
At best, she'll have diedwithout the opportunity to ease her mind, will never knowthe acceptance and forgiveness her family might show her,

Or may not show her..
and at worst her memory will be forever tainted withbitterness.

Yes..

What kind of "right"?The right of the adoptee to interact with his or her siblings.So the solution is to sit back and hope the birthmother diesbefore everyone else?

No.. I think the solution is knowledge and understanding..


Jackie

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:38:57 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>
wrote:
"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:8shmsv4jjppt81ddc1roa3u76irs9dnhqn@4ax .com... On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 09:18:31 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote: You wrote..<snip>>>If, God forbid, you died shortly thereafter, would you wish>>him to stay away from your funeral even if it was important>>to him to attend?>>I can not control that.. The generic secret birth mom can not control>that..This isn't about control. What would be your *wish*? I cant go there.. I wont go there.. Not my drama. I don't like that drama..You certainly "went there" and made it *your drama* when it suited you,grist to your mill to insult and berate me when I reported that an adoptedperson went to his birth mother's funeral 'incognito'. You made a meal outof that word for long enough for it to constitute a whole *series*, not totalk about a *drama*.

I guess I was just flapping around looking for GR to help me.
>> If so, why? And if you had no>>objections, would you have wanted him to identify himself>>prior to attending, while attending, or not at all?>>No control over that..Again, what would be your preference? Again won't play..>The secret will out.. as we know..Maybe. Or maybe he'd have the good taste to attend theservice incognito and, having seen his siblings, would thenjust let it go with no one being the wiser. If the woman is dead then the womans issues are gone..So is *that* what you were getting at, when you castigated me - "the woman'sissues were gone" because she was dead, therefor he *should* have madehimself known to the wider family, instead of being there 'incognito'?Would that have shown her the respect that she was due - nil nisi bonum - onthat final, important day, the day she was buried? What a wonderful memorialit would have been, to add to the upset of the rest of the family and toinsult her memory by trivialising this aspect of her life, on the day of herfuneral. And for what purpose, I must ask? Her trauma is gone.. Right should happen after that..In due course, and with consideration for others' sensitivities - which isprecisely how that decent man handled it. Different day.. Different deal..As long as it's not incognito. <g>


Up yours Helen..


Jackie

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:oj2ssv4f7qgb0mthbnj127d5bgatuq6806@4ax.com... On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:38:57 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:8shmsv4jjppt81ddc1roa3u76irs9dnhqn@4ax .com... On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 09:18:31 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote: You wrote..<snip> >>>If, God forbid, you died shortly thereafter, would you wish >>>him to stay away from your funeral even if it was important >>>to him to attend? >> >>I can not control that.. The generic secret birth mom can not control >>that.. > >This isn't about control. What would be your *wish*? I cant go there.. I wont go there.. Not my drama. I don't like that drama..You certainly "went there" and made it *your drama* when it suited you,grist to your mill to insult and berate me when I reported that an
adoptedperson went to his birth mother's funeral 'incognito'. You made a meal
outof that word for long enough for it to constitute a whole *series*, not
totalk about a *drama*. I guess I was just flapping around looking for GR to help me.

Ah no, Jackie, you did it all on your own.
>>> If so, why? And if you had no >>>objections, would you have wanted him to identify himself >>>prior to attending, while attending, or not at all? >> >>No control over that.. > >Again, what would be your preference? Again won't play.. >>The secret will out.. as we know.. > >Maybe. Or maybe he'd have the good taste to attend the >service incognito and, having seen his siblings, would then >just let it go with no one being the wiser. If the woman is dead then the womans issues are gone..So is *that* what you were getting at, when you castigated me - "the
woman'sissues were gone" because she was dead, therefor he *should* have madehimself known to the wider family, instead of being there 'incognito'?Would that have shown her the respect that she was due - nil nisi bonum -
onthat final, important day, the day she was buried? What a wonderful
memorialit would have been, to add to the upset of the rest of the family and toinsult her memory by trivialising this aspect of her life, on the day of
herfuneral. And for what purpose, I must ask? Her trauma is gone.. Right should happen after that..In due course, and with consideration for others' sensitivities - which
isprecisely how that decent man handled it. Different day.. Different deal..As long as it's not incognito. <g> Up yours Helen..

Is that the best you can do?

Helen
Jackie

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:31:39 GMT, "Marley Greiner"
<maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:65orsvo71uurpapl1i3ea0nh1ua0vph36u@4ax .com... On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 03:25:59 GMT, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote: snipped some.> >Hopefully they woke up to the truth. Personally, I don't know whyanybody> >would believe anything a judge says.>> He put on a good act..Yeah, but I think that women especially get cowed by men in black. Oneshould have a healthy disrespect for all authority, especiallypatriarchialauthority. Trust me, none of it is "for your own good." He sat behind a very big desk.. He had total control of the situation.. But then everyone did.. The woman who worked for the agency drove me there.. I know we had a conversation in the car.. Something about how I was supposed to talk with this man.. This judge.. He questioned me to see if I was stupid.. I was pleased with myself that I proved to him that I was not..You did the best you could at the time. I don't think we should beatyourselves up for things we did 35 years ago--though, of course, we all do.

Its a tough old life.. And you are absolutely correct..
> When I got married in the early seventies.. Hubby and I went before a> judge.. I was in my jeans and my bright orange and red vest..> My friends were dressed in the same kind of clothes..> Parents were not invited. Hubbies mom never forgave me..>> The judge and his receptionist tolerated us..> The disapproval was very clear on their faces..>> I had a twinge of guilt..As well you should!!! My parents refused to come to my wedding. He hadlong hair. My hubby had long hair as well.. I forgot about that part.. All my friends had long hair.. Girls too..And boots. And tennies with no socks. My mother developed a disturbingfoot fetish over my husband.


Roger Waters
Amused To Death

Doctor Doctor what is wrong with me
This supermarket life is getting long
What is the heart life of a colour TV
What is the shelf life of a teenage queen
Ooh western woman
Ooh western girl

> You wrote..> >> > Secret adoption is> >> >rooted in myth and stereotype and state power, all of which are> >impossible> >> >to discredit. in the current cultural and political climate.Until> >those> >> >involved in adoption accept the fact that we are involved in a formof> >class> >> >warfare, not an individual dysfunction, nothing will change.> >>> >> So IMO we respect each other in our own particular map of theworld..> >> >I suppose so, but you have to reach a class consciousness, which isinimical> >to US thinking. We are all individuals and anything that happens tousis> >OUR individual fault--not the fault of the systemic rot. Those who> >acknowledge AdoptionWorld class structure are destructive,trouble-makers,> >crazy, ungrateful, Black Block malcontents, in need of therapy or atleast> >a good kick in the pants by some male authority figure, man or woman.>> Glad you are in the fight Marley..Me, too. It helps that I hate everybody. It is becoming insane.. I read the letters from the ones who want babies and the desperation is palpable..If this were over anything else--like Empire couches or importing escargotthey'd been considered psycho. But it's OK with baybees.

I can see why you say.. Who needs babies..
Yeah. The control of the vast majority by the very few. It's calledoligarchy.cut Damn fine word..Actually, I found a better word--a new word--after I posted this.Sotolgarchy-- in an essay by Curtis White in this week's Village Voice"Concerning Sotoligarchy: What happens when the rich and powerful rule thestupid? It's called America."http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0349/essay.phpSotolgarchy is defined as "the mostmeaningful political alliance in this country is between the rich and thechronically stupid." Here's an excerpt from it that follows a discussion ofProust:"We need to add the further irony that we are wrong to think that crueltyfuncions in our self-interest.

I read that article..Powerful stuff..
Cruelty does not work. In both the shortand long run cruel efforts to maintain self-interest have the consequenceof making us conspire agianst ourselves. By acting cruelly in our self-interest we actuablly lbcome consppirtors in our own defeat."

Well we (Canada) were warned that if we did not go to war with you
guys we would be sorry.. and we were also warned that we would not be
able to get into the reconstruction of Iraq.. No money for us..

Of course, Jackie, if you admit to agreeing with this, then you'll be tarredas "anti-American" again.All hail the sololigarchy!

All hail the sololigarchy..

Jackie

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<21qrsvov742nnr6olj17269ueaoplgrtrs@4ax.com>... On 2 Dec 2003 17:11:03 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote: snipped some.. >Regardless of how this came about (and I can understand why a woman >might feel that, because she's lost or forfeited her rights to her >child in a climate of secrecy, that child has no right, legal or >emotional, to make contact with her or with other blood relatives. >It's not logical, but we aren't talking reason) she's joined the ranks >of those who 'fight openess in adoption' And she is used by them as well.. They haul her out and put her on TV.Sure, she's highly exploitable. Secrets do that to a person..But she shares at least *some* responsibility for this. I do not judge her.Or do you feel she's *entirely* absolved, because of the traumaticnature of her past experiences? No absolve no judgment.. This is what is going down.. If we recognize it and talk about it maybe we can work towards stopping it.. No one likes being judged and found lacking..I feel very sorry for her, and sorry too for what she's come torepresent, but I don't have to allow pity to cloud my judgement thatwhat she's doing is wrong You insult the woman.. Do you realized you are doing this? >



Now this is where we disagree.
I don't think I do insult her.
According to my standards I'm according her proper respect.
To pretend other than I feel would be insulting, to her or anyone else
for that matter.
Put it slightly differently - I don't have to allow my sympathy for
her situation to alter my opinion that she isn't dealing with it in a
good way.
You feel differently about her situation and respond to it
accordingly. Therefore you're showing her respect too.



You take away her dignity.. >


I believe that I respect her dignity by treating her as an adult who
has my sympathy but with whom I also feel free to disagree.
I'd hope the same for myself.


(You know, I suspect it's that kind ofthinking that caused more than a few bmothers to relinquish in thefirst place - that they were more concerned for the survival of theirdysfunctional families of origin than for themselves and their unbornchild? They capitulated to pity and fear for the well-being of thewrong people) Or they were trying to survive themselves.. Women from good homes got husbands.. Women with a good resume and who presented themselves as good good people .. got the jobs.. They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game. R. D. Lang, from Knots




Two wrongs don't make a right,
but they make a good excuse.

Thomas Szasz, from The Second Sin.


snipped some. >> > Would you have made any >> >effort to understand his genetic imperative? >> >> No one understood my genetic imperative in 1965.. How could I >> understand it in someone else? >> I was not allowed to see my son.. I was not given any help with my >> grief.. I was not allowed to talk about my son..etc etc etc.. >> >> Other women went through a similar experience.. IMO those are the >> women who are refusing contact with siblings.. >I did see my son, and I do think that's important in terms of bringing >home the reality of the situation > (although personally, I don't think >it helps in resolving issues of loss and sadness), > and might contribute to feelings of disentitlement. Are you saying that seeing your son contributed to your feelings of disentitlement? I am not sure I understand what you are saying here..I'm not suprised ;-)I'm sorry. I realised immediately it didn't make much sense. There wasa lot going on here when I wrote it - the merlot was flowing free andthere was a lot of people action going on. I go on the computer when the world is crazy around me..I'll try again.What I meant was, that the reality of my son was brought home to mebecause I was able to see and hold him after he was born. That becamea positive thing at reunion, although it is important for me to saythat before reunion, it didn't help at all. My son asked me if I held him.. I had to say no...
..



That must have been hard to deal with - for you both.


However, I think that women who *have not* seen their children maywell have reduced feelings of entitlement *upon reunion*. But then all of us are different.. I guess my bottom line theory is that women who have not actually gone through a proper procedure when relinquishing.. may well live in a pretend world where the relinquished child is concerned.. She may continue the pretend.. Or she may fight her way out of the insanity of it..





What's a proper procedure?
From your perspective, I mean


I imagine it is more difficult for them to accept that this person istheir child and easier for them to continue in their pretence thatthey never gave birth. So they are more likely to stay in denial, andconsequently to reject a relationship with their child, and to opposecontact with siblings.Now, I'm speculating, of course. I haven't precisely 'been there', socould be wrong. Nor have I .. and I could be wrong as well.. But its a good theory.. >Other than that, my family was immersed in lies, secrecy and and >almost total denial. All of which was the opposite of what I ever >wanted. There was no help with grief (rather the opposite. Expressions >of sorrow met with abuse and contempt, at least from my mother), and >absolutely no possibility of discussing it, either before or after the >adoption. >So I'm not so sure that you are right that this is the only or even >the main reason for women refusing contact with siblings. IMO a woman who rejects her child is disconnected from her feelings.. How else can she do it?Oh, I agree with that, of course.But you've said that women who were not allowed to talk about theirexperience, who were not given any help with their grief are typicallythe ones who would deny the sibling connection. Because they are living in a vacuum.. They have no outside input.. No new ideas to process.. No one asking her to look in another direction.. No one to actually see her pain.. If her pain is denied or not seen.. Because it is not shown.. How can she understand the pain of the son or daughter?Based on my own experience, I'd disagree. Not seeing one's child, yes.But the for rest, I don't think these are deciding factors. I think it is.. >I suspect it >has more to do with the social mores of the society in which they live >(and *by* which they live), and the extent to which they have been >able to distance themselves from the world in which they relinquished. >If they are still part of a rigid and censorious community, of course >they are going to resist having past 'indiscretions' revealed. They >are going to want to 'lock their door upon themselves'. And how do they do this?By pretending *very hard*, IMO. As they have done from day one.Perhaps they fear that if and when they meet their child they'll haveto come face to face with themselves.Truth and consequences. And they will have to answer questions.. They will have to explain themselves.. Lots of fear there..Here's the quote:'I lock my door upon myselfAnd bar them out; but who shall wallSelf from myself, most loathed of all?' 'Who Shall Deliver me?' Christina Rossetti 1876. I know that place..There's a couple of Symbolist paintings inspired by the poem (sametitle) by Fernand Khnopff (spelling?).Also, I've just discovered that there's a novel called 'I Lock my Doorupon Myself' by Joyce Carol Oates. Maybe I'll get hold of it for myChristmas read. I feel like reading something a little over the top! Heavy reading..



I dunno. I anticipate something a bit kitschy.



Rh. Jackie

in article 21qrsvov742nnr6olj17269ueaoplgrtrs@4ax.com, Jackie at
jdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 3/12/03 2:15 pm:

<snip> Or they were trying to survive themselves.. Women from good homes got husbands.. Women with a good resume and who presented themselves as good good people .. got the jobs..
They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game. R. D. Lang, from Knots


He should have stuck to the poetry, and given psychiatry a miss altogether.
He was a damn good pianist as well.

BTW it's R.D. Laing, not Lang, I've a copy of The Divided Self on the table
beside the computer at the moment.

Robin

"Robin Harritt" <nospam@harritt.net> wrote in message
news:BBF5104F.2A97A%nospam@harritt.net... in article 21qrsvov742nnr6olj17269ueaoplgrtrs@4ax.com, Jackie at jdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 3/12/03 2:15 pm: <snip> Or they were trying to survive themselves.. Women from good homes got husbands.. Women with a good resume and who presented themselves as good good people .. got the jobs.. They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game. R. D. Lang, from Knots He should have stuck to the poetry, and given psychiatry a miss
altogether. He was a damn good pianist as well. BTW it's R.D. Laing, not Lang, I've a copy of The Divided Self on the
table beside the computer at the moment.

I saw him on the Late Late Show many years ago, and he was in a terrible
state - I think it was shortly before he died. I felt *deeply* ashamed that
the host seemed unable to handle him with his usual courtesy, and the
expertise normally reserved for such circumstances was notably absent.
Instead, poor old Laing was shown up for what he appeared to be - a drunken
*** - instead of what he really was - a flawed but decent, talented,
thoughtful and rather sad individual. He deserved better. He shouldn't have
been let onto the show in the condition he was in.

Helen
Robin

On 4 Dec 2003 06:47:45 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<21qrsvov742nnr6olj17269ueaoplgrtrs@4ax.com>... On 2 Dec 2003 17:11:03 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote: snipped some..>> >Regardless of how this came about (and I can understand why a woman> >might feel that, because she's lost or forfeited her rights to her> >child in a climate of secrecy, that child has no right, legal or> >emotional, to make contact with her or with other blood relatives.> >It's not logical, but we aren't talking reason) she's joined the ranks> >of those who 'fight openess in adoption'>> And she is used by them as well.. They haul her out and put her on> TV.Sure, she's highly exploitable. Secrets do that to a person..But she shares at least *some* responsibility for this. I do not judge her.Or do you feel she's *entirely* absolved, because of the traumaticnature of her past experiences? No absolve no judgment.. This is what is going down.. If we recognize it and talk about it maybe we can work towards stopping it.. No one likes being judged and found lacking..I feel very sorry for her, and sorry too for what she's come torepresent, but I don't have to allow pity to cloud my judgement thatwhat she's doing is wrong You insult the woman.. Do you realized you are doing this?
Now this is where we disagree.I don't think I do insult her.According to my standards I'm according her proper respect.To pretend other than I feel would be insulting, to her or anyone elsefor that matter.

So her life and her belief's are wrong..
Put it slightly differently - I don't have to allow my sympathy forher situation to alter my opinion that she isn't dealing with it in agood way.

Who are you to know? Who are you to say she is wrong..
Her situation may be very different from yours..
You feel differently about her situation and respond to itaccordingly. Therefore you're showing her respect too.

I do not judge her and find her lacking.
You take away her dignity..
I believe that I respect her dignity by treating her as an adult whohas my sympathy but with whom I also feel free to disagree.I'd hope the same for myself.

Disagree with or judge?

I disagree with a lot of people.. But I also keep in mind that I could
be wrong..
(You know, I suspect it's that kind ofthinking that caused more than a few bmothers to relinquish in thefirst place - that they were more concerned for the survival of theirdysfunctional families of origin than for themselves and their unbornchild? They capitulated to pity and fear for the well-being of thewrong people) Or they were trying to survive themselves.. Women from good homes got husbands.. Women with a good resume and who presented themselves as good good people .. got the jobs.. They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game. R. D. Lang, from Knots
Two wrongs don't make a right,but they make a good excuse.

If it is a wrong then who judges?
Thomas Szasz, from The Second Sin.

snipped some.
However, I think that women who *have not* seen their children maywell have reduced feelings of entitlement *upon reunion*. But then all of us are different.. I guess my bottom line theory is that women who have not actually gone through a proper procedure when relinquishing.. may well live in a pretend world where the relinquished child is concerned.. She may continue the pretend.. Or she may fight her way out of the insanity of it..

What's a proper procedure?

I am sure it is different for everyone.. Each relinquishment is
different..One woman is raped.. Another woman is a girl who did not
have a clue what she was doing..
From your perspective, I mean

Finally talking about what happened..
Finally getting someone else's opinion or thoughts to go over and
decide about..
But I believe with all my heart that the woman has to decide to deal
with it herself.. The woman has to decide to open up and tell the
telling.




Jackie

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 16:24:47 +0000, Robin Harritt <nospam@harritt.net>
wrote:
in article 21qrsvov742nnr6olj17269ueaoplgrtrs@4ax.com, Jackie atjdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 3/12/03 2:15 pm:<snip> Or they were trying to survive themselves.. Women from good homes got husbands.. Women with a good resume and who presented themselves as good good people .. got the jobs.. They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game. R. D. Lang, from KnotsHe should have stuck to the poetry, and given psychiatry a miss altogether.He was a damn good pianist as well.BTW it's R.D. Laing, not Lang, I've a copy of The Divided Self on the tablebeside the computer at the moment.Robin


I cut and pasted that from the internet I did not think of the
spelling.. I was making a point....

And again Robin miss the point by doing a critique on the spelling..

But then that is what you wish to do.. Isn't it..

Jackie

in article go41tvcoqnmpggmaq0c58adg8bv7nq2f96@4ax.com, Jackie at
jdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 5/12/03 2:18 pm:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 16:24:47 +0000, Robin Harritt <nospam@harritt.net> wrote: in article 21qrsvov742nnr6olj17269ueaoplgrtrs@4ax.com, Jackie at jdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 3/12/03 2:15 pm: <snip> Or they were trying to survive themselves.. Women from good homes got husbands.. Women with a good resume and who presented themselves as good good people .. got the jobs.. They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game. R. D. Lang, from Knots He should have stuck to the poetry, and given psychiatry a miss altogether. He was a damn good pianist as well. BTW it's R.D. Laing, not Lang, I've a copy of The Divided Self on the table beside the computer at the moment. Robin I cut and pasted that from the internet I did not think of the spelling.. I was making a point.... And again Robin miss the point by doing a critique on the spelling.. But then that is what you wish to do.. Isn't it.. Jackie

I'm not sure how you can do a 'critique' of spelling Jackie, the spelling of
a word or name is either correct or it is not, it is not something which is
open for comment on its artistic, political or scientific merit, which is
what a 'critique' is.

Whatever, in being so defensive it is you that misses the point. RD Laing
was the writer of Knots from which you quoted, there are a number of RD Lang
who are accomplished in their own fields, but who are/were not he.

The point that I was and am making, remains;

R.D. Laing should have stuck to the poetry, and given psychiatry a miss
altogether. He was a damn good pianist as well. That and no other point.

Robin

"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:<IRKzb.3250$nm6.17883@news.indigo.ie>... "Robin Harritt" <nospam@harritt.net> wrote in message news:BBF5104F.2A97A%nospam@harritt.net... in article 21qrsvov742nnr6olj17269ueaoplgrtrs@4ax.com, Jackie at jdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 3/12/03 2:15 pm: <snip> Or they were trying to survive themselves.. Women from good homes got husbands.. Women with a good resume and who presented themselves as good good people .. got the jobs.. They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game. R. D. Lang, from Knots He should have stuck to the poetry, and given psychiatry a miss altogether. He was a damn good pianist as well. BTW it's R.D. Laing, not Lang, I've a copy of The Divided Self on the table beside the computer at the moment. I saw him on the Late Late Show many years ago, and he was in a terrible state - I think it was shortly before he died. I felt *deeply* ashamed that the host seemed unable to handle him with his usual courtesy, and the expertise normally reserved for such circumstances was notably absent. Instead, poor old Laing was shown up for what he appeared to be - a drunken *** - instead of what he really was - a flawed but decent, talented, thoughtful and rather sad individual. He deserved better. He shouldn't have been let onto the show in the condition he was in.


I agree. That stinks.
Didn't he die playing tennis or somesuch?
Seems like an unlikely scenario for the dean of Hip, but I know he
didn't die choking on a bowl of Froot Loops.
As far as Laing himself is concerned, flawed goes without saying, but
meself I think he was a lot more than just decent and talented.
And (to Robin) I don't think one can separate the poet from the
psychiatrist (don't know anything about the pianist!) His is one
voice, not divided. I still get a lot out of his insights on language,
behaviour and the relativity of experience.

Here's a good quote for alt.a from 'The Politics of Experience':

'Our behaviour is a function of our experience.We act according to the
way we see things - if our experience is destroyed, our behaviour will
be detructive. If our experience is destroyed we will have lost our
own selves.'

Rh.

Helen Robin

in article dafc70.0312051215.7a19146b@posting.google.com, Rhiannon at
sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca wrote on 5/12/03 8:15 pm:
"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:<IRKzb.3250$nm6.17883@news.indigo.ie>... "Robin Harritt" <nospam@harritt.net> wrote in message news:BBF5104F.2A97A%nospam@harritt.net... in article 21qrsvov742nnr6olj17269ueaoplgrtrs@4ax.com, Jackie at jdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 3/12/03 2:15 pm: <snip>>> Or they were trying to survive themselves..> Women from good homes got husbands.. Women with a good resume and who> presented themselves as good good people .. got the jobs..> They are playing a game.> They are playing at not playing a game.> If I show them I see they are,> I shall break the rules> and they will punish me.> I must play their game,> of not seeing I see the game.>> R. D. Lang, from Knots He should have stuck to the poetry, and given psychiatry a miss altogether. He was a damn good pianist as well. BTW it's R.D. Laing, not Lang, I've a copy of The Divided Self on the table beside the computer at the moment. I saw him on the Late Late Show many years ago, and he was in a terrible state - I think it was shortly before he died. I felt *deeply* ashamed that the host seemed unable to handle him with his usual courtesy, and the expertise normally reserved for such circumstances was notably absent. Instead, poor old Laing was shown up for what he appeared to be - a drunken *** - instead of what he really was - a flawed but decent, talented, thoughtful and rather sad individual. He deserved better. He shouldn't have been let onto the show in the condition he was in. I agree. That stinks. Didn't he die playing tennis or somesuch? Seems like an unlikely scenario for the dean of Hip, but I know he didn't die choking on a bowl of Froot Loops. As far as Laing himself is concerned, flawed goes without saying, but meself I think he was a lot more than just decent and talented. And (to Robin) I don't think one can separate the poet from the psychiatrist (don't know anything about the pianist!) His is one voice, not divided.

Maybe so, I find him much more accessible in his less academic work (less
academic in terms of academic psychology). Particularly in Politics of
Experience and Bird of Paradise as well as Knots. I had just read a passage
in The Divided Self where he quotes a patient's account of 'playing at not
playing a game' to hide from the psychiatrist. The patient feared a
leucotomy.

I spent three years in therapy (the first three years of my search) with a
leading Cambridge therapist who disliked him intensely and disliked the fact
that I was re-reading him at the time I started with her (she was much more
of a Freudian than she liked to pretend).

I first read The Divided Self at a time when a friend had just been
diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic and I still think (as totally unqualified
person, except as human being) that his methods of "treating" such patients
were not right for every case.

I still get a lot out of his insights on language, behaviour and the relativity of experience. Here's a good quote for alt.a from 'The Politics of Experience': 'Our behaviour is a function of our experience. We act according to the way we see things - if our experience is destroyed, our behaviour will be detructive. If our experience is destroyed we will have lost our own selves.' Rh.

I find that personaly very relevant, more from losing a mother in later
childhood and not being allowed to experience that loss properly, than from
the adoption experience. Though the experience of not being allowed to
arrange reunions with siblings in my own way, did raise a sense of déjà vu.

Robin

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<rb31tvk36nimmifht4ouffif2jnu3jtdm8@4ax.com>... On 4 Dec 2003 06:47:45 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:Now this is where we disagree.I don't think I do insult her.According to my standards I'm according her proper respect.To pretend other than I feel would be insulting, to her or anyone elsefor that matter. So her life and her belief's are wrong..



That's a sweeping generalization.
You seriously misjudge me ;-)


Put it slightly differently - I don't have to allow my sympathy forher situation to alter my opinion that she isn't dealing with it in agood way. Who are you to know? Who are you to say she is wrong..



I don't claim to *know*.
Anyway, who are you say I'm wrong to think she's wrong?

Her situation may be very different from yours..


No doubt.
I hardly imagine it would be identical.


You feel differently about her situation and respond to itaccordingly. Therefore you're showing her respect too. I do not judge her and find her lacking.


Very confusing.
Do you mean you judge her and find her to be not lacking?
Or do you not judge her, but find her to be lacking?

You take away her dignity..I believe that I respect her dignity by treating her as an adult whohas my sympathy but with whom I also feel free to disagree.I'd hope the same for myself. Disagree with or judge? I disagree with a lot of people.. But I also keep in mind that I could be wrong..


But you're special.
The rest of us mere mortals don't have the same monopoly on virtue
that you do.


>(You know, I suspect it's that kind of >thinking that caused more than a few bmothers to relinquish in the >first place - that they were more concerned for the survival of their >dysfunctional families of origin than for themselves and their unborn >child? They capitulated to pity and fear for the well-being of the >wrong people) Or they were trying to survive themselves.. Women from good homes got husbands.. Women with a good resume and who presented themselves as good good people .. got the jobs.. They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game. R. D. Lang, from KnotsTwo wrongs don't make a right,but they make a good excuse. Thomas Szasz, 'The Second Sin.' If it is a wrong then who judges?


Oh, for goodness sake.
I guess you have to be saying there's no wrong and no right. Just
mush.
Do you think that the people who influenced and orchestrated your
relinquishment were right, Jackie? Or wrong?
(You should read Szasz - he has some good aphorisms)


snipped some. >However, I think that women who *have not* seen their children may >well have reduced feelings of entitlement *upon reunion*. But then all of us are different.. I guess my bottom line theory is that women who have not actually gone through a proper procedure when relinquishing.. may well live in a pretend world where the relinquished child is concerned.. She may continue the pretend.. Or she may fight her way out of the insanity of it..What's a proper procedure? I am sure it is different for everyone.. Each relinquishment is different..One woman is raped.. Another woman is a girl who did not have a clue what she was doing..From your perspective, I mean Finally talking about what happened.. Finally getting someone else's opinion or thoughts to go over and decide about.. But I believe with all my heart that the woman has to decide to deal with it herself.. The woman has to decide to open up and tell the telling.


I'm not saying otherwise.
But I'm sure as hell not going to think that keeping clammed up is
benign or harmless.



Rh. Jackie

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:rb31tvk36nimmifht4ouffif2jnu3jtdm8@4ax.com... On 4 Dec 2003 06:47:45 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:<21qrsvov742nnr6olj17269ueaoplgrtrs@4ax.com>... On 2 Dec 2003 17:11:03 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote: snipped some.. >> >> >Regardless of how this came about (and I can understand why a woman >> >might feel that, because she's lost or forfeited her rights to her >> >child in a climate of secrecy, that child has no right, legal or >> >emotional, to make contact with her or with other blood relatives. >> >It's not logical, but we aren't talking reason) she's joined the
ranks >> >of those who 'fight openess in adoption' >> >> And she is used by them as well.. They haul her out and put her on >> TV. >Sure, she's highly exploitable. Secrets do that to a person.. >But she shares at least *some* responsibility for this. I do not judge her. >Or do you feel she's *entirely* absolved, because of the traumatic >nature of her past experiences? No absolve no judgment.. This is what is going down.. If we recognize it and talk about it maybe we can work towards stopping it.. No one likes being judged and found lacking.. >I feel very sorry for her, and sorry too for what she's come to >represent, but I don't have to allow pity to cloud my judgement that >what she's doing is wrong You insult the woman.. Do you realized you are doing this?Now this is where we disagree.I don't think I do insult her.According to my standards I'm according her proper respect.To pretend other than I feel would be insulting, to her or anyone elsefor that matter. So her life and her belief's are wrong..Put it slightly differently - I don't have to allow my sympathy forher situation to alter my opinion that she isn't dealing with it in agood way. Who are you to know? Who are you to say she is wrong.. Her situation may be very different from yours..You feel differently about her situation and respond to itaccordingly. Therefore you're showing her respect too. I do not judge her and find her lacking. You take away her dignity..I believe that I respect her dignity by treating her as an adult whohas my sympathy but with whom I also feel free to disagree.I'd hope the same for myself. Disagree with or judge? I disagree with a lot of people.. But I also keep in mind that I could be wrong.. >(You know, I suspect it's that kind of >thinking that caused more than a few bmothers to relinquish in the >first place - that they were more concerned for the survival of their >dysfunctional families of origin than for themselves and their unborn >child? They capitulated to pity and fear for the well-being of the >wrong people) Or they were trying to survive themselves.. Women from good homes got husbands.. Women with a good resume and who presented themselves as good good people .. got the jobs.. They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game. R. D. Lang, from KnotsTwo wrongs don't make a right,but they make a good excuse. If it is a wrong then who judges?Thomas Szasz, from The Second Sin. snipped some. >However, I think that women who *have not* seen their children may >well have reduced feelings of entitlement *upon reunion*. But then all of us are different.. I guess my bottom line theory is that women who have not actually gone through a proper procedure when relinquishing.. may well live in a pretend world where the relinquished child is concerned.. She may continue the pretend.. Or she may fight her way out of the insanity of it..What's a proper procedure? I am sure it is different for everyone.. Each relinquishment is different..One woman is raped.. Another woman is a girl who did not have a clue what she was doing..From your perspective, I mean Finally talking about what happened.. Finally getting someone else's opinion or thoughts to go over and decide about.. But I believe with all my heart that the woman has to decide to deal with it herself.. The woman has to decide to open up and tell the telling.

And it just might take the tear in the eye of the counsellor to make that
breakthrough. Right?

Helen

Jackie

"Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:dafc70.0312051215.7a19146b@posting.google.com ... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:<IRKzb.3250$nm6.17883@news.indigo.ie>... "Robin Harritt" <nospam@harritt.net> wrote in message news:BBF5104F.2A97A%nospam@harritt.net... in article 21qrsvov742nnr6olj17269ueaoplgrtrs@4ax.com, Jackie at jdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 3/12/03 2:15 pm: <snip> > > Or they were trying to survive themselves.. > Women from good homes got husbands.. Women with a good resume and
who > presented themselves as good good people .. got the jobs.. > They are playing a game. > They are playing at not playing a game. > If I show them I see they are, > I shall break the rules > and they will punish me. > I must play their game, > of not seeing I see the game. > > R. D. Lang, from Knots He should have stuck to the poetry, and given psychiatry a miss altogether. He was a damn good pianist as well. BTW it's R.D. Laing, not Lang, I've a copy of The Divided Self on the table beside the computer at the moment. I saw him on the Late Late Show many years ago, and he was in a terrible state - I think it was shortly before he died. I felt *deeply* ashamed
that the host seemed unable to handle him with his usual courtesy, and the expertise normally reserved for such circumstances was notably absent. Instead, poor old Laing was shown up for what he appeared to be - a
drunken *** - instead of what he really was - a flawed but decent, talented, thoughtful and rather sad individual. He deserved better. He shouldn't
have been let onto the show in the condition he was in. I agree. That stinks. Didn't he die playing tennis or somesuch?

I can't remember, but you are probably right. Nice way to go, playing.

Seems like an unlikely scenario for the dean of Hip, but I know he didn't die choking on a bowl of Froot Loops.

He had a bit more style than that!
As far as Laing himself is concerned, flawed goes without saying, but meself I think he was a lot more than just decent and talented.

There was. I (unintentionally) trivialised him by putting it like that.
And (to Robin) I don't think one can separate the poet from the psychiatrist (don't know anything about the pianist!) His is one voice, not divided. I still get a lot out of his insights on language, behaviour and the relativity of experience.

You are far ahead of my (ephemeral) understanding what he was about.
Here's a good quote for alt.a from 'The Politics of Experience': 'Our behaviour is a function of our experience.We act according to the way we see things - if our experience is destroyed, our behaviour will be detructive. If our experience is destroyed we will have lost our own selves.'

It is a *true* truth. <s>

Helen Rh. Helen Robin

>I cut and pasted that from the internet I did not think of thespelling.. I was making a point....And again Robin miss the point by doing a critique on the spelling..But then that is what you wish to do.. Isn't it..Jackie

Oh, for God's sake, Jackie. If anyone wanted to find the book, the
correct spelling of the author's name would be a helpful bit of
information. Trust me, I deal with misspelled author's names and garbled
titles every day at work. *

Thank you, Robin for the correct information.

Linda

P.S. If Robin really wanted to go to town on you he could certainly
attack your use of the possessive for the plural.

* The other day I was asked if we had the book about the Greek guy and
his dog, it was something like Eddie and Rex. It took a couple of minutes
but I finally figured out he wanted Oedipus Rex.

lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote * The other day I was asked if we had the book about the Greek guy and his dog, it was something like Eddie and Rex. It took a couple of minutes but I finally figured out he wanted Oedipus Rex.

You've got to be making this up!

Rupa
(Still chuckling, 10 minutes later)

lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote in message news:<bqvp30$vhr@marple.umd.edu>...
ssive for the plural. * The other day I was asked if we had the book about the Greek guy and his dog, it was something like Eddie and Rex. It took a couple of minutes but I finally figured out he wanted Oedipus Rex.



That's so hilarious.
Husband and kids cracked up when I told them.
Can't wait to pass it on to my librarian friend E. She treasures wacky
library stories.


Rh.

Robin Harritt <nospam@harritt.net> wrote in message news:<BBF6A907.2AC8D%nospam@harritt.net>... in article dafc70.0312051215.7a19146b@posting.google.com, Rhiannon at sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca wrote on 5/12/03 8:15 pm: "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:<IRKzb.3250$nm6.17883@news.indigo.ie>... "Robin Harritt" <nospam@harritt.net> wrote in message news:BBF5104F.2A97A%nospam@harritt.net...> in article 21qrsvov742nnr6olj17269ueaoplgrtrs@4ax.com, Jackie at> jdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 3/12/03 2:15 pm:>> <snip>>>>> Or they were trying to survive themselves..>> Women from good homes got husbands.. Women with a good resume and who>> presented themselves as good good people .. got the jobs..>> They are playing a game.>> They are playing at not playing a game.>> If I show them I see they are,>> I shall break the rules>> and they will punish me.>> I must play their game,>> of not seeing I see the game.>>>> R. D. Lang, from Knots>>> He should have stuck to the poetry, and given psychiatry a miss altogether.> He was a damn good pianist as well.>> BTW it's R.D. Laing, not Lang, I've a copy of The Divided Self on the table> beside the computer at the moment. I saw him on the Late Late Show many years ago, and he was in a terrible state - I think it was shortly before he died. I felt *deeply* ashamed that the host seemed unable to handle him with his usual courtesy, and the expertise normally reserved for such circumstances was notably absent. Instead, poor old Laing was shown up for what he appeared to be - a drunken *** - instead of what he really was - a flawed but decent, talented, thoughtful and rather sad individual. He deserved better. He shouldn't have been let onto the show in the condition he was in.>> I agree. That stinks. Didn't he die playing tennis or somesuch? Seems like an unlikely scenario for the dean of Hip, but I know he didn't die choking on a bowl of Froot Loops. As far as Laing himself is concerned, flawed goes without saying, but meself I think he was a lot more than just decent and talented. And (to Robin) I don't think one can separate the poet from the psychiatrist (don't know anything about the pianist!) His is one voice, not divided. Maybe so, I find him much more accessible in his less academic work (less academic in terms of academic psychology). Particularly in Politics of Experience and Bird of Paradise as well as Knots. I had just read a passage in The Divided Self where he quotes a patient's account of 'playing at not playing a game' to hide from the psychiatrist. The patient feared a leucotomy. I spent three years in therapy (the first three years of my search) with a leading Cambridge therapist who disliked him intensely and disliked the fact that I was re-reading him at the time I started with her (she was much more of a Freudian than she liked to pretend).


Sounds like she was playing games with Freud!
I hope she was helpful though.

I first read The Divided Self at a time when a friend had just been diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic and I still think (as totally unqualified person, except as human being) that his methods of "treating" such patients were not right for every case.


I agree with you, as far as I know. But in his defence I don't think
he ever denied the existence of mental illness (as some people now
seem to think) or the distress caused by it. It seems to me more like
he wanted to challenge the core values of contemporary psychiatric
treatment, and the abuses that were routinely commited in its name. I
think that (sometime in the early 70's) he acknowledged that
medication was appropriate under certain circumstances.
IMO, unfortunately a lot of the ideas of the 'anti-psychiatric
movement' were co-opted by cost cutting conservative politicians who,
by cutting funding for the care of the mentally ill, put people
ill-equiped to cope out onto the streets - which I'm sure was not at
all what compassionate (even if sometimes misguided) individuals like
Szsasz, Laing and others intended. I still get a lot out of his insights on language, behaviour and the relativity of experience. Here's a good quote for alt.a from 'The Politics of Experience': 'Our behaviour is a function of our experience. We act according to the way we see things - if our experience is destroyed, our behaviour will be detructive. If our experience is destroyed we will have lost our own selves.' I find that personaly very relevant, more from losing a mother in later childhood and not being allowed to experience that loss properly, than from the adoption experience.




I can see that.


Though the experience of not being allowed to arrange reunions with siblings in my own way, did raise a sense of déjà vu.


It would.




Rh. Robin

"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:<7WbAb.3458$nm6.18334@news.indigo.ie>... "Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message news:dafc70.0312051215.7a19146b@posting.google.com ... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:<IRKzb.3250$nm6.17883@news.indigo.ie>... "Robin Harritt" <nospam@harritt.net> wrote in message news:BBF5104F.2A97A%nospam@harritt.net... > in article 21qrsvov742nnr6olj17269ueaoplgrtrs@4ax.com, Jackie at > jdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 3/12/03 2:15 pm: > > <snip> > > > > Or they were trying to survive themselves.. > > Women from good homes got husbands.. Women with a good resume and who > > presented themselves as good good people .. got the jobs.. > > They are playing a game. > > They are playing at not playing a game. > > If I show them I see they are, > > I shall break the rules > > and they will punish me. > > I must play their game, > > of not seeing I see the game. > > > > R. D. Lang, from Knots > > > He should have stuck to the poetry, and given psychiatry a miss altogether. > He was a damn good pianist as well. > > BTW it's R.D. Laing, not Lang, I've a copy of The Divided Self on the table > beside the computer at the moment. I saw him on the Late Late Show many years ago, and he was in a terrible state - I think it was shortly before he died. I felt *deeply* ashamed that the host seemed unable to handle him with his usual courtesy, and the expertise normally reserved for such circumstances was notably absent. Instead, poor old Laing was shown up for what he appeared to be - a drunken *** - instead of what he really was - a flawed but decent, talented, thoughtful and rather sad individual. He deserved better. He shouldn't have been let onto the show in the condition he was in. > > I agree. That stinks. Didn't he die playing tennis or somesuch? I can't remember, but you are probably right. Nice way to go, playing.

Yes. The Divine Whatever says, 'Anyone for tennis?', and you're lobbed from here to eternity.

Seems like an unlikely scenario for the dean of Hip, but I know he didn't die choking on a bowl of Froot Loops. He had a bit more style than that! As far as Laing himself is concerned, flawed goes without saying, but meself I think he was a lot more than just decent and talented. There was. I (unintentionally) trivialised him by putting it like that. And (to Robin) I don't think one can separate the poet from the psychiatrist (don't know anything about the pianist!) His is one voice, not divided. I still get a lot out of his insights on language, behaviour and the relativity of experience. You are far ahead of my (ephemeral) understanding what he was about.



Not me!
I live in a state of perpetual confusion about everything. It's quite
entertaining though.
Here's a good quote for alt.a from 'The Politics of Experience': 'Our behaviour is a function of our experience.We act according to the way we see things - if our experience is destroyed, our behaviour will be detructive. If our experience is destroyed we will have lost our own selves.' It is a *true* truth. <s>

Aye, yup and indeed.



Rh. Helen Rh. Helen > > Robin >

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:07:24 -0500, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 09:42:44 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:I'm leaving for New York in a few hours and don't have timeto answer this as thoroughly as I'd like, but I'll take ashot. Snipping again...Have a wonderful trip..Or.. Welcome back from your trip and how was New York?

Thanks. The trip was great, New York was snowy and freezing
cold.On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 08:30:30 -0500, Jackie<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:>>They give the other parents that kind of respect.. Separate families..>>>>So when the adoptee comes knocking they do not understand IMO what is>>really going on.. They have managed to completely agree with the>>state..>>That's all well and good, but doesn't the basic respect for>another person's needs also enter into it?IMO they (some of them) were not shown that kind of respect when theyrelinquished..You learn what you live..They can respect the state and the adoptive family but theycan't respect the adoptee?The state is a power mechanism.. The adoptive parents in my time werenot there.. Just like the baby was not there..They were not respected by either the state or the aparents..(aparents could not show respect that is a given)

Why is it a given that the aparents were disrespectful?The adoptee does not have a position of power..Or should not IMO.

IYO, the adoptee should remain powerless in the whole
equation? They should forever consider their needs last?
****, if I had known that, I would never have allowed myself
to be relinquished... Oh, wait, I didn't have any say in
that either--never mind.
Some women cut off their primal need.. Will not acknowledge it..Were told they must not acknowledge it.. Were told they must not speakof it..If it's indeed primal, it's still in there somewhere.Yes.. and the question is.. How does one help a person explore allthat messed up primal stuff..I ended up locked in my house.. I ended up afraid that I could notsurvive if my husband got sick..I forced myself to go for therapy..

Ok, you went to therapy, others figure it out in other ways.
Therapy isn't a magical "cure", it's a treatment whereby the
person in need is guided through the process of healing
him/herself. It's not the place of the adoptee to help the
birthmother explore her dysfunction, she's got to do it
herself, and either she wants to change or she doesn't. You
(generic) are just setting the adoptee up when you speak of
helping her explore.
> If she agrees with the state, he's>just a stranger, just another asshole invading her space.By saying asshole IMO you are setting the conversation up to make avictim of the adoptee.. And IMO you are belittling the birthmomsreaction to contact..Not at all. He is an intruder, an annoyance, an interloperout to do damage to the cocoon she's built around herself.IMO, that's an asshole.He is not an annoyance.. or an interloper..He is the whole ball of wax.. He is the cocoon..

No. The cocoon is that wall she's built around her
feelings.He is the insanity.. One does not sort that in a day..When I walked down the hill and asked for therapy I did not even tellthem I had given my son up.. I did not think it important..I did not understand my insanity..

When you say "he is the insanity" you are putting the
responsibility for the birthmother's mental health on him.
That is very wrong--he had *nothing* to do with it.
Then the adoptee need not feel any obligation to stickaround?If the adoptee leaves then she may be shocked into understanding thatshe needs help..

So you think it can be a positive thing for the birthmother
if adoptee just walks away? Screw the adoptee, right? He
becomes the bad guy again, this time abandoning his needy
mother. And if the birthmother is subsequently shocked into
understanding and spends a few years pulling herself
together, is the adoptee then supposed to just gratefully
come back, or is he again disrespectful for refusing to have
anything more to do with her after 2 rejections?
Now take that to her telling everyone that she has a long lost child.Take that to her telling everyone that her life has been a lie..Take that to her having to deal with this with her husband or mate..Plus she is expected to explain herself..Yikes.. She can not do that because she has not sorted anything..

She can start sorting or she can reject the kid altogether.
The kid is going to react. He's going to be angry and/or
hurt, and he's going to either give up or approach it from a
different direction. How he approaches it is probably going
to largely depend on how she treated him in the rejection.
If, as you say, she has no need to be respectful of his
feelings, there's a good chance he'll be disrespectful of
hers in kind, don't you think?
I take responsibility for putting myself in situations where I mightget pregnant.. Where I did get pregnant..I take responsibility for my actions..But I should have seen my child.. I should have been told of the longterm effects of giving a child up.. For him and me..There are many shoulds in this..

You didn't and you weren't. You can't unscramble the egg,
you can only deal with it as it is in the here and now.
>I don't know what to make of this statement. The adoptee>gets to do whatever he decides, but your wording sounds like>you don't approve but just can't think of a way to stop it.Yes.. That is exactly what I meant..The adoptee has freedom of association....and often, a need to know.Information should be exchanged.. Records should be open..And as Marley so aptly says.. People should get over themselves..

Mere information isn't/wasn't enough for you, but it should
satisfy the adoptee? He's the one who should accept
whatever crumbs are tossed his way and get over himself?
My point exactly. Open or closed, it's not just theinformation, it goes much deeper. On both sides.Yes..I sought my son.. I learned everything I could about what it was likefor him..

You could have gotten that in one letter without ever
meeting him. You've already acknowledged that that wouldn't
have been adequate, but you seem to imply that information
without a relationship should be acceptable to the adoptee.
It's not our society, it's the world we live in. I thinkall societies are like that and always have been to someextent. As far as I can tell, there's always beenfigurative totem poles with someone at the bottom, andthere's always been competition to succeed and those whoattempt to save face. It's only the standards that differand change. If you don't like our society, take a look atJapan; these things are magnified nearly beyond imagination,yet those are the values and it seems to work, by and large.What happened to me and others was cruel..Inhuman and cruel..That is in injustice.. it should be acknowledged..

What kind of acknowledgement would you specifically like to
see? And exactly by whom?
Maybe, maybe not. I think it's sometimes a catharsis to getit out in the open. By the standards of our currentsociety, knowing that your mom relinquished a kid isn't theworst thing you could learn.But if the adoptee betrays the birth mom.. What then?

"Betrays" is an interesting choice of words. It implies
that he "owes" her loyalty and the sacrifice of his own
rights. And while he might actually feel such loyalty, he's
probably not going to if she treats him like **** and then
demands loyalty from him anyway.
That adds another issue into the mix.. Protection of the one who isweak.. I know Naomi and Davie will follow my lead..

The adoptee is also very vulnerable going into reunion. Who
protects him in this mix? Which brings up the question of
whether "weakness" should be "protected" at all. Do we
protect the alcoholic or the addict, for example,
sacrificing our own needs just because they're "weak", or is
there a more productive way to handle it? Hypothetical
question.
The probability exists that she would have had thatsame reaction even if your son had turned up and told her.I don't think you're giving people enough credit for beingreasonable.But if he had of decided to out me against my wishes.. She would haveprobably helped me..She would have probably have gotten angry at bson..But I really do not know what she would have done..An interesting question..

I'm pretty sure I know how I would have felt if a bson of my
parents had shown up. It wouldn't have been anger.
>Makes no difference to whom? My bmom died 6 years after we>reunited. She had early onset (fast moving) Alzheimer's>Disease for the last 3 years. Time is very precious.I was addressing the issue of the woman sorting her 'stuff'.I was saying that a woman who has not sorted her 'stuff' in thirtyfive years may never sort it..I was trying to address what the woman in hiding is thinking and orfeeling and IMO time will make no difference to her.. And yes I agreethe adoptee does not have that time.But you can not get blood from a stone..I agree. That's why I think the adoptee eventually needs todo whatever he needs to do.Yes.. And I do my best to help women out of the closet..and I do that by sharing my experience every way I can..

Great. We can only do our best.
Who is anyone to tell anyone else anything? Sometimes itneeds to be done, and sometimes someone will get through.Or someone may read about what it was like back then..Really understand how cold the world was for women like me..Really understand the why of it.. and then act accordingly..

That's what everyone here has been advocating--the adoptee
should understand why it's happening and give her some time,
then act accordingly; I think it's unanimous. You're
preaching to the choir. Yet it's enlightening that you've
consistently overlooked the possibility that the adoptee
should be understood as well. Maybe the birthmother should
read about what it's like to be adopted, really understand
why they search and what they need, and then act accordingly
in a timely manner.
> A birthmother only has 1 person missing>from her life (usually); I, as an adoptee, also had a>birthfatherWho only she can name..Usually. Or possibly her parents or siblings or friends,which is sometimes why she is ultimately bypassed.And the world passes on without her..

If necessar. The world doesn't stop for anyone, not even
for those who think they have the power and the right to
make it stop for others.
Nothing new there..
Even after she did, she refusedto tell 2 of us anything about our youngest brother (exceptthat he existed) and refused to tell him about us at all.She was possessive of him and somehow decided he'd be "hurt"to know he wasn't her only child. [I still don't know whereshe got that idea--he's not exactly Mr. Sensitive...]That is the conclusion of a woman who is living in a vacuum..

No it's not. Only one tiny piece of my bmom was in the
vacuum. Otherwise she was perfectly ok.
It's a bit different, but the same themes apply. I think alot of birthmothers keep their kept kids apart from theadoptee for no other reason than because they think they'llbe "hurt" to know she isn't/wasn't perfect. And I alsothink most adult children figure that out anyway and careless about their parents wayward youth than the parentsthink. LOLYes.. I look at my moms insanity.. I got caught up in it..

And eventually you saw it as such, accepted it as part of
your mother, and rejected it as an option for your own
behavior. That's what adult children do as they separate
from their parents. It's a very rare person who reaches
adulthood still thinking their parents have never made a
mistake.
> There were no kingpins when I searched, I wasn't>just out looking for a mommy, it was a package.I know that..

Yet you think that's wrong? You really think the
birthmother should be the star of the show?
Why weren't they told that the adoptee might wonder abouthis entire biological family?Not wonder.. Information is easily given in secrecy..I was thinking of the need to know the siblings the blood..The connection on a very deep level..Until Di posted that missive I honestly believe that it really was notthat important..I know a blank in my mind.. A misunderstanding..But it was something I needed to sort..

It seems to me that you still might not be accepting it,
given some of your statements in the rest of this dialog.
I dunno...I think that'srather self-evident if you think about it.There are studies out there about everything, and some ofthem are really off the wall.This one rang true to me.

Sure it does, 50 years later and knowing what we know now it
rings very true. But this one study contradicted everything
everyone knew as truth in that day and it's no surprise that
it slipped through the cracks. This study came out before I
was born; as far as I'm concerned, it could have come out in
the year 1445 and I'm also not too worked up by the fact
that people thought the earth was flat back then. I can't
waste my time raging about the ignorances of the past, I'm
only concerned with the present and the future. Some studies are done byobscure academics, some are done by total whackos and/orespouse whacko theories, and not every study in the world is(or should be) taken seriously. The fact that this onestudy that Di produced fell between the cracks isunfortunate, but the thinking of the day was prettyentrenched and lots of other studies reinforced thatthinking. I just don't think we can get too worked up aboutthis--it was done over 50 years ago when behavioral sciencewas far less sophisticated and far less accepted than it isnow.The study about the clean slate theory changed my life..

And mine. And pretty much all of us. But that's how it was
and there's nothing I can do to undo what happened to me. I
prefer to spent my energy being thankful for what has been
salvaged rather than dwelling on and cursing the events that
caused the problem.
But you still knew they were out there and these thingshappened to other people.I quit Alma because of an article written in their newsletters..It was an article about a woman dying just before the bson connected..A real tear jerker..

Well someone else might have read that article, slapped
herself on the forehead, and realized she wanted to come out
of the closet before it was too late. Maybe lots of people
had that reaction. Maybe you were the *only* person in the
history of Alma who read it and rejected it. Ya never know.
I was not ready to actively seek out my son.. I knew I was not ready..A hurry up tear jerker put me off totally..I stopped looking for a few years.. Just to darn painful..> When>I say "come to grips", the first step is to take the bananas>out of her ears.If I could I would take the bananas out of all the ears..People sometimes take their own bananas out.LOL LOLI remember a song called Beans in my Ears..

LOL! I also remember that song. But I was thinking of that
dumb old kid's joke about the person who sees a guy with a
banana in his ear and tells him about it, and the guy says
"Speak up, I can't hear you, I have a banana in my ear".
That joke used to just kill me when I was 5 or 6 years old.
Where does a woman who cannot watch/read about reunion findthose who share their experience? Is this the onlycatalyst? I think more often than not, the appearance ofthe adoptee is the "come to Jesus" moment.And maybe they might turn to the web..But you are probably right.
But the initiative in Oregon passed despite these 6 usedwomen and it seems to be working relatively smoothly. Youmaintain that the only answer to the woman in secrecy isopen records,If all women know the world is open.. then maybe they may start on thejourney to tell the telling.Know they can no longer stay in the secret keeping..They may walk down the hill and seek therapy like it did..That is my hope.

They may. Or they may do what you did when you read the
Alma article. There's no one-size-fits-all solution to
anything. If closet birthmothers are so deeply shut down
that they are as incapable of feelings and understanding as
you've said, if their family is as unforgiving as you claim,
this could probably just drive them to the point of no
return.
yet you believe the process drove other womenin Oregon into the closet and into emotional shut down?I don't understand what you are saying here..The secrecy and the emotional shut down started well before the Oregoninitiative...

Yes. I was referring to this, which I must have cut:
:If we have shows like the show that happened in Oregon then
:women may seek to just forget about it.. Or ask the state for
:protection.. I am sure the secret keepers depend on this..

I took that to mean that these already shut down, secretive
women were being successfully used to disseminate the
message that birthmothers belong in the closet. And that
birthmothers were still heeding that message.
>You said: "How can someone who has totally shut down her>feelings care?" "How can someone when has totally shut down>her feelings understand :caring?" Anyone who can't care or>even understand caring is pretty far gone.But no one sees how far she is gone.. (low grade depression)An actor on a stage.. The training some of us women got when young..This sounds rather all-encompassing, hardly "low grade".It was the word used.
You are not really depressed.. You are just not happy.No laughing no crying.. no anger.. Anger not allowed.

Well, "low grade depression" doesn't define the condition
you've described heretofore whereby someone becomes
completely devoid of all feeling.
You had *no* capacity to understand or care when you were inthe closet? To love, sympathize, function, be happy? DearGod...I did not understand love.. I did not understand how to do this..Once Naomi got mono.. I stood in the emergency ward with her allday..She was put in the hospital and I went the very minute I woke thenext morning..Hubby said let her be she is fine..We had a fight..But I still did not know about the feeling of love.. Not conscious..

Ok, but you were still able to love and to feel concern even
if you didn't understand it. But then, who really
understands love anyway?
Because I don't know him.. There is no emotional history..IMO this is what happens in reunion..That is why there is cut off and neglected feelings..You're probably right, and I'm not judging that. But isn'tit fair to accept that the adoptee bypassing the bmothercould be coming from the same place and afford him the sameprivilege?I can not know if bypassing is the right thing to do or not..All I can do is express my thoughts on this..Folks can take what they want and leave the rest..

That's right. Unfortunately, your apparent apathy and
antipathy for the adoptees in this situation makes it
difficult for me to take anything positive away from what
you say. I understand your underlying message--people
should be sensitive to the birth mother's trauma, her
feelings and her needs--I think everyone here understands it
and accepts it--but it would be nice if you would try to
understand that the adoptee matters just as much.

The irony is that you are doing to the adoptee exactly what
you accuse others of doing to the birthmother--denigrating
his feelings and his needs. The reality is, reunion is an
interaction between 2 people (or more), both have things to
give and things to take, and you can't present a cogent
argument on a one-dimensional level to a 3-dimensional
situation. It's not the good guys vs. the bad guys here,
it's 2 people who have been screwed over who are trying to
make the best of a less than ideal situation.

Please understand that I'm not trying to insult you, I'm
trying to explain. As I said earlier, you're preaching to
the choir--we've all (those of us who have participated in
this discussion) agreed in one voice that the birthmother
must be given time and consideration. The problem is, you
seem to be coming from the position that this particular
choir is against you on this particular issue.

We're not. I'm not. I agreed with you months ago, I've
always agreed with you. But right now, on 10 December 2003,
*I'm* feeling a bit insulted because I've put forth the
effort--taken the time and trouble to understand the
birthmother's position, sympathized and agreed--but I've
seen no evidence that you acknowledge that or that you've
even considered the adoptee's needs realistically at all.
So the solution is to sit back and hope the birthmother diesbefore everyone else?No.. I think the solution is knowledge and understanding..

I do too. Who doesn't?

Nancy
Jackie

"nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:lo0gtvo1qk0vj1k20bibca4eb302slpk80@4ax.com... On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:07:24 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 09:42:44 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:
<snip for brevity only>

>Because I don't know him.. There is no emotional history..>IMO this is what happens in reunion..>That is why there is cut off and neglected feelings..You're probably right, and I'm not judging that. But isn'tit fair to accept that the adoptee bypassing the bmothercould be coming from the same place and afford him the sameprivilege?I can not know if bypassing is the right thing to do or not..All I can do is express my thoughts on this..Folks can take what they want and leave the rest.. That's right. Unfortunately, your apparent apathy and antipathy for the adoptees in this situation makes it difficult for me to take anything positive away from what you say. I understand your underlying message--people should be sensitive to the birth mother's trauma, her feelings and her needs--I think everyone here understands it and accepts it--but it would be nice if you would try to understand that the adoptee matters just as much. The irony is that you are doing to the adoptee exactly what you accuse others of doing to the birthmother--denigrating his feelings and his needs. The reality is, reunion is an interaction between 2 people (or more), both have things to give and things to take, and you can't present a cogent argument on a one-dimensional level to a 3-dimensional situation. It's not the good guys vs. the bad guys here, it's 2 people who have been screwed over who are trying to make the best of a less than ideal situation. Please understand that I'm not trying to insult you, I'm trying to explain. As I said earlier, you're preaching to the choir--we've all (those of us who have participated in this discussion) agreed in one voice that the birthmother must be given time and consideration. The problem is, you seem to be coming from the position that this particular choir is against you on this particular issue. We're not. I'm not. I agreed with you months ago, I've always agreed with you. But right now, on 10 December 2003, *I'm* feeling a bit insulted because I've put forth the effort--taken the time and trouble to understand the birthmother's position, sympathized and agreed--but I've seen no evidence that you acknowledge that or that you've even considered the adoptee's needs realistically at all.So the solution is to sit back and hope the birthmother diesbefore everyone else?No.. I think the solution is knowledge and understanding.. I do too. Who doesn't?

Really excellent response, Nancy. [And I'm not 'getting at' Jackie :-) ]

Helen

NancyJackie

"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:<pz5Cb.409$HR.1431@news.indigo.ie>... "nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:lo0gtvo1qk0vj1k20bibca4eb302slpk80@4ax.com... On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:07:24 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 09:42:44 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote: <snip for brevity only>>>Because I don't know him.. There is no emotional history..>>IMO this is what happens in reunion..>>That is why there is cut off and neglected feelings..>>You're probably right, and I'm not judging that. But isn't>it fair to accept that the adoptee bypassing the bmother>could be coming from the same place and afford him the same>privilege?I can not know if bypassing is the right thing to do or not..All I can do is express my thoughts on this..Folks can take what they want and leave the rest.. That's right. Unfortunately, your apparent apathy and antipathy for the adoptees in this situation makes it difficult for me to take anything positive away from what you say. I understand your underlying message--people should be sensitive to the birth mother's trauma, her feelings and her needs--I think everyone here understands it and accepts it--but it would be nice if you would try to understand that the adoptee matters just as much. The irony is that you are doing to the adoptee exactly what you accuse others of doing to the birthmother--denigrating his feelings and his needs. The reality is, reunion is an interaction between 2 people (or more), both have things to give and things to take, and you can't present a cogent argument on a one-dimensional level to a 3-dimensional situation. It's not the good guys vs. the bad guys here, it's 2 people who have been screwed over who are trying to make the best of a less than ideal situation. Please understand that I'm not trying to insult you, I'm trying to explain. As I said earlier, you're preaching to the choir--we've all (those of us who have participated in this discussion) agreed in one voice that the birthmother must be given time and consideration. The problem is, you seem to be coming from the position that this particular choir is against you on this particular issue. We're not. I'm not. I agreed with you months ago, I've always agreed with you. But right now, on 10 December 2003, *I'm* feeling a bit insulted because I've put forth the effort--taken the time and trouble to understand the birthmother's position, sympathized and agreed--but I've seen no evidence that you acknowledge that or that you've even considered the adoptee's needs realistically at all.>>So the solution is to sit back and hope the birthmother dies>before everyone else?No.. I think the solution is knowledge and understanding.. I do too. Who doesn't? Really excellent response, Nancy. [And I'm not 'getting at' Jackie :-) ]



Ditto to that.
And then some.




Rh.


Helen NancyJackie

"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:<pz5Cb.409$HR.1431@news.indigo.ie>... "nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:lo0gtvo1qk0vj1k20bibca4eb302slpk80@4ax.com... On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:07:24 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 09:42:44 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote: <snip for brevity only>>>Because I don't know him.. There is no emotional history..>>IMO this is what happens in reunion..>>That is why there is cut off and neglected feelings..>>You're probably right, and I'm not judging that. But isn't>it fair to accept that the adoptee bypassing the bmother>could be coming from the same place and afford him the same>privilege?I can not know if bypassing is the right thing to do or not..All I can do is express my thoughts on this..Folks can take what they want and leave the rest.. That's right. Unfortunately, your apparent apathy and antipathy for the adoptees in this situation makes it difficult for me to take anything positive away from what you say. I understand your underlying message--people should be sensitive to the birth mother's trauma, her feelings and her needs--I think everyone here understands it and accepts it--but it would be nice if you would try to understand that the adoptee matters just as much. The irony is that you are doing to the adoptee exactly what you accuse others of doing to the birthmother--denigrating his feelings and his needs. The reality is, reunion is an interaction between 2 people (or more), both have things to give and things to take, and you can't present a cogent argument on a one-dimensional level to a 3-dimensional situation.

The reality is that the reunion only begins once both parties want it
and are 'both' ready. The unfortunate fact is that the searcher (be it
mother or adoptee) is always on the back foot waiting for the sought
party to reach that stage of readiness. Until that occurs we deal with
the issues that might help the searcher understand why the
mother/adoptee is likely to be hesitant and what they may be
processing in the interim. I believe this is what Jackie has been
trying to share.

Di

It's not the good guys vs. the bad guys here, it's 2 people who have been screwed over who are trying to make the best of a less than ideal situation. Please understand that I'm not trying to insult you, I'm trying to explain. As I said earlier, you're preaching to the choir--we've all (those of us who have participated in this discussion) agreed in one voice that the birthmother must be given time and consideration. The problem is, you seem to be coming from the position that this particular choir is against you on this particular issue. We're not. I'm not. I agreed with you months ago, I've always agreed with you. But right now, on 10 December 2003, *I'm* feeling a bit insulted because I've put forth the effort--taken the time and trouble to understand the birthmother's position, sympathized and agreed--but I've seen no evidence that you acknowledge that or that you've even considered the adoptee's needs realistically at all.>>So the solution is to sit back and hope the birthmother dies>before everyone else?No.. I think the solution is knowledge and understanding.. I do too. Who doesn't? Really excellent response, Nancy. [And I'm not 'getting at' Jackie :-) ] Helen NancyJackie

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:55:27 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:

I wrote..Have a wonderful trip..Or.. Welcome back from your trip and how was New York?Thanks. The trip was great, New York was snowy and freezingcold.

I love New York..
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 08:30:30 -0500, Jackie<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:>>>They give the other parents that kind of respect.. Separate families..>>>>>>So when the adoptee comes knocking they do not understand IMO what is>>>really going on.. They have managed to completely agree with the>>>state..>>>>That's all well and good, but doesn't the basic respect for>>another person's needs also enter into it?>>IMO they (some of them) were not shown that kind of respect when they>relinquished..>You learn what you live..They can respect the state and the adoptive family but theycan't respect the adoptee?The state is a power mechanism.. The adoptive parents in my time werenot there.. Just like the baby was not there..They were not respected by either the state or the aparents..(aparents could not show respect that is a given)Why is it a given that the aparents were disrespectful?

The state kept the aparents separated from the pregnant woman.
She was not given the dignity of knowing how her baby was doing.
There was no respect given (by anyone) on terms of her emotional well
being.. IMO

So the aparents are disrespectful by default.. But maybe they like it
like that.. Or some do and some do not..
The adoptee does not have a position of power..Or should not IMO.IYO, the adoptee should remain powerless in the wholeequation?

Equal..

An adoptee is sometimes a person with a lot of emotional baggage.. As
are other persons in the triangle..

But what if the adoptee rules the day?
What if the adoptee is far too immature to deal with the situation..
What if he or she misses the subtle messages given out?

Is that okay? Should they be able to decide on how this reunion is
going to go down?
They should forever consider their needs last?

No.
****, if I had known that, I would never have allowed myselfto be relinquished... Oh, wait, I didn't have any say inthat either--never mind.

Ha ha..
>Some women cut off their primal need.. Will not acknowledge it..>Were told they must not acknowledge it.. Were told they must not speak>of it..If it's indeed primal, it's still in there somewhere.Yes.. and the question is.. How does one help a person explore allthat messed up primal stuff..I ended up locked in my house.. I ended up afraid that I could notsurvive if my husband got sick..I forced myself to go for therapy..Ok, you went to therapy, others figure it out in other ways.Therapy isn't a magical "cure", it's a treatment whereby theperson in need is guided through the process of healinghim/herself. It's not the place of the adoptee to help thebirthmother explore her dysfunction, she's got to do itherself, and either she wants to change or she doesn't. You(generic) are just setting the adoptee up when you speak ofhelping her explore.

The adoptee is not expected to help the woman explore her issues on
terms of having a baby taken against her wishes..
That is not what I meant..
All I say is that understanding should be a part of this..
Understanding the why of it.. Rather than running over a person with a
mac truck.
>> If she agrees with the state, he's>>just a stranger, just another asshole invading her space.>>By saying asshole IMO you are setting the conversation up to make a>victim of the adoptee.. And IMO you are belittling the birthmoms>reaction to contact..Not at all. He is an intruder, an annoyance, an interloperout to do damage to the cocoon she's built around herself.IMO, that's an asshole.He is not an annoyance.. or an interloper..He is the whole ball of wax.. He is the cocoon..No. The cocoon is that wall she's built around herfeelings.

There is no separation.. You separate it.. but there is no
separation..
He is the insanity.. One does not sort that in a day..When I walked down the hill and asked for therapy I did not even tellthem I had given my son up.. I did not think it important..I did not understand my insanity..When you say "he is the insanity" you are putting theresponsibility for the birthmother's mental health on him.That is very wrong--he had *nothing* to do with it.

He is the insanity in her mind.. Nothing to do with the flesh and
blood relinquished son or daughter.. It is what it is..
The child is a fantasy child.. The lost baby is a fantasy baby..
The unrequited love..
That does not say that reunion is going to fix her.
That does not say the adoptee has to fix her..
Then the adoptee need not feel any obligation to stickaround?If the adoptee leaves then she may be shocked into understanding thatshe needs help..So you think it can be a positive thing for the birthmotherif adoptee just walks away? Screw the adoptee, right? Hebecomes the bad guy again, this time abandoning his needymother.

This is a very complicated human condition going down IMO.
Some jerk thought closed adoptions were a good thing.. Some jerk
thought it right that the woman was totally cut off from seeing her
feeling or hearing her baby..
Some jerk put a word on this and made it so..
And if the birthmother is subsequently shocked intounderstanding and spends a few years pulling herselftogether, is the adoptee then supposed to just gratefullycome back, or is he again disrespectful for refusing to haveanything more to do with her after 2 rejections?

Its about two people who have been separated and may be having a very
hard time getting back together..
Its understanding on both parts..
Pride should not be involved in this.. I have had more than two
rejections.. Or what I consider two rejections in my reunion.
I know that issues need to be sorted on terms of my bson.
But I know that this is the nature of the beast..
Now take that to her telling everyone that she has a long lost child.Take that to her telling everyone that her life has been a lie..Take that to her having to deal with this with her husband or mate..Plus she is expected to explain herself..Yikes.. She can not do that because she has not sorted anything..She can start sorting or she can reject the kid altogether.

I have no control over what the generic she does..
The kid is going to react. He's going to be angry and/orhurt, and he's going to either give up or approach it from adifferent direction.

Or he is going to understand..
How he approaches it is probably goingto largely depend on how she treated him in the rejection.If, as you say, she has no need to be respectful of hisfeelings, there's a good chance he'll be disrespectful ofhers in kind, don't you think?

I did not say she has no need to be respectful of his feelings.. That
is your interpretation of what I have said..
Your conclusion..

And if he is disrespectful I wonder where that is coming from.
Lack of understanding?
I take responsibility for putting myself in situations where I mightget pregnant.. Where I did get pregnant..I take responsibility for my actions..But I should have seen my child.. I should have been told of the longterm effects of giving a child up.. For him and me..There are many shoulds in this..You didn't and you weren't. You can't unscramble the egg,you can only deal with it as it is in the here and now.

Exactly.
Its how I deal with it.. or how the adoptee deals with it is what we
are discussion..
And if it is dealt with in reactions as opposed to actions then we
have a problem.
>>I don't know what to make of this statement. The adoptee>>gets to do whatever he decides, but your wording sounds like>>you don't approve but just can't think of a way to stop it.>>Yes.. That is exactly what I meant..>The adoptee has freedom of association....and often, a need to know.Information should be exchanged.. Records should be open..And as Marley so aptly says.. People should get over themselves..Mere information isn't/wasn't enough for you, but it shouldsatisfy the adoptee?

Excuse me?
How do you know information wasn't enough for me..
He's the one who should acceptwhatever crumbs are tossed his way and get over himself?

You are reacting.
My point exactly. Open or closed, it's not just theinformation, it goes much deeper. On both sides.Yes..I sought my son.. I learned everything I could about what it was likefor him..You could have gotten that in one letter without evermeeting him.

You are not reading what I am saying.. You are reading what you think
I am saying..
You've already acknowledged that that wouldn'thave been adequate, but you seem to imply that informationwithout a relationship should be acceptable to the adoptee.

I learned from other adoptees what it was like for him.
I accept how my bson wants to interact with me..
I honor who he is.. If he cuts off I am understanding that he wants to
cut off knowing me.. I respect his wishes..
It's not our society, it's the world we live in. I thinkall societies are like that and always have been to someextent. As far as I can tell, there's always beenfigurative totem poles with someone at the bottom, andthere's always been competition to succeed and those whoattempt to save face. It's only the standards that differand change. If you don't like our society, take a look atJapan; these things are magnified nearly beyond imagination,yet those are the values and it seems to work, by and large.What happened to me and others was cruel..Inhuman and cruel..That is in injustice.. it should be acknowledged..What kind of acknowledgement would you specifically like tosee? And exactly by whom?

From you.. I would like a person like you to acknowledge what happened
was cruel. Lip service not accepted..

IMO you do not do this.. IMO you still think on terms of one person
getting his or her needs met..
You IMO think the woman should fix herself post haste..
And if she does not fix herself the adoptee can just roll over her and
contact the other members of the family.
Maybe, maybe not. I think it's sometimes a catharsis to getit out in the open. By the standards of our currentsociety, knowing that your mom relinquished a kid isn't theworst thing you could learn.But if the adoptee betrays the birth mom.. What then?"Betrays" is an interesting choice of words. It impliesthat he "owes" her loyalty and the sacrifice of his ownrights. And while he might actually feel such loyalty, he'sprobably not going to if she treats him like **** and thendemands loyalty from him anyway.

So much for understanding..
She treats him like ****.. you say.. Again a reaction.
No understanding of what she may be going through..
That adds another issue into the mix.. Protection of the one who isweak.. I know Naomi and Davie will follow my lead..The adoptee is also very vulnerable going into reunion. Whoprotects him in this mix?

If the birth mom does not want the reunion then the adoptee is
deciding to do something that may end up with hard emotional
consequences..
His or her decision IMO.
His or her consequences..
Which brings up the question ofwhether "weakness" should be "protected" at all. Do weprotect the alcoholic or the addict, for example,sacrificing our own needs just because they're "weak", or isthere a more productive way to handle it? Hypotheticalquestion.

We don't protect them.. we understand them..
There are things in life that we cannot change..

dividing this letter into two parts..

Jackie

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:55:27 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:
part two..
I think we are talking about my daughter..The probability exists that she would have had thatsame reaction even if your son had turned up and told her.I don't think you're giving people enough credit for beingreasonable.But if he had of decided to out me against my wishes.. She would haveprobably helped me..She would have probably have gotten angry at bson..But I really do not know what she would have done..An interesting question..I'm pretty sure I know how I would have felt if a bson of myparents had shown up. It wouldn't have been anger.

We all react differently..
You did not live my daughters life..
>>Makes no difference to whom? My bmom died 6 years after we>>reunited. She had early onset (fast moving) Alzheimer's>>Disease for the last 3 years. Time is very precious.>>I was addressing the issue of the woman sorting her 'stuff'.>>I was saying that a woman who has not sorted her 'stuff' in thirty>five years may never sort it..>I was trying to address what the woman in hiding is thinking and or>feeling and IMO time will make no difference to her.. And yes I agree>the adoptee does not have that time.>But you can not get blood from a stone..I agree. That's why I think the adoptee eventually needs todo whatever he needs to do.Yes.. And I do my best to help women out of the closet..and I do that by sharing my experience every way I can..Great. We can only do our best.Who is anyone to tell anyone else anything? Sometimes itneeds to be done, and sometimes someone will get through.Or someone may read about what it was like back then..Really understand how cold the world was for women like me..Really understand the why of it.. and then act accordingly..That's what everyone here has been advocating--the adopteeshould understand why it's happening and give her some time,then act accordingly; I think it's unanimous.

That's a diversion from the issue.
You'repreaching to the choir. Yet it's enlightening that you'veconsistently overlooked the possibility that the adopteeshould be understood as well.

Your interpretation of my words..
Maybe the birthmother shouldread about what it's like to be adopted, really understandwhy they search and what they need, and then act accordinglyin a timely manner.

That is what I did.. That is why I continually give my bson the space
he needs without getting upset..
That is why I say to him.. Knowing you are okay is enough.. the rest
is gravy..
>> A birthmother only has 1 person missing>>from her life (usually); I, as an adoptee, also had a>>birthfather>>Who only she can name..Usually. Or possibly her parents or siblings or friends,which is sometimes why she is ultimately bypassed.And the world passes on without her..If necessary. The world doesn't stop for anyone, not evenfor those who think they have the power and the right tomake it stop for others.

Survival of the fittest..
Nothing new there.. Even after she did, she refusedto tell 2 of us anything about our youngest brother (exceptthat he existed) and refused to tell him about us at all.She was possessive of him and somehow decided he'd be "hurt"to know he wasn't her only child. [I still don't know whereshe got that idea--he's not exactly Mr. Sensitive...]That is the conclusion of a woman who is living in a vacuum..No it's not. Only one tiny piece of my bmom was in thevacuum. Otherwise she was perfectly ok.

According to you...
It's a bit different, but the same themes apply. I think alot of birthmothers keep their kept kids apart from theadoptee for no other reason than because they think they'llbe "hurt" to know she isn't/wasn't perfect. And I alsothink most adult children figure that out anyway and careless about their parents wayward youth than the parentsthink. LOLYes.. I look at my moms insanity.. I got caught up in it..And eventually you saw it as such, accepted it as part ofyour mother, and rejected it as an option for your ownbehavior. That's what adult children do as they separatefrom their parents. It's a very rare person who reachesadulthood still thinking their parents have never made amistake.

Some sort this and some do not..
IMO the issue is what happens to the ones who do not sort this..

Do we beat them like a dog?
>> There were no kingpins when I searched, I wasn't>>just out looking for a mommy, it was a package.>>I know that..Yet you think that's wrong? You really think thebirthmother should be the star of the show?

I think the birth mom was used and abused in those long ago days..
*Some of them.*
Why weren't they told that the adoptee might wonder abouthis entire biological family?Not wonder.. Information is easily given in secrecy..I was thinking of the need to know the siblings the blood..The connection on a very deep level..Until Di posted that missive I honestly believe that it really was notthat important..I know a blank in my mind.. A misunderstanding..But it was something I needed to sort..It seems to me that you still might not be accepting it,given some of your statements in the rest of this dialog.

And it seems to me you are still not accepting that the birth mom may
be traumatized when her baby is taken from her.
I dunno...I think that'srather self-evident if you think about it.There are studies out there about everything, and some ofthem are really off the wall.This one rang true to me.Sure it does, 50 years later and knowing what we know now itrings very true. But this one study contradicted everythingeveryone knew as truth in that day and it's no surprise thatit slipped through the cracks. This study came out before Iwas born; as far as I'm concerned, it could have come out inthe year 1445 and I'm also not too worked up by the factthat people thought the earth was flat back then. I can'twaste my time raging about the ignorances of the past, I'monly concerned with the present and the future.

Misinformation is the nature of the beast..
Some people knew that what was going down was wrong..
Some people know that what is going down today on terms of adoption is
wrong..
If no one acknowledges that women were misinformed and used in the old
days.. Then no one sees what is really happening..
And if no one sees what is really happening.. Then we have people
being neglected.. Their feelings being neglected..
This on all sides of the triangle..
Some studies are done byobscure academics, some are done by total whackos and/orespouse whacko theories, and not every study in the world is(or should be) taken seriously. The fact that this onestudy that Di produced fell between the cracks isunfortunate, but the thinking of the day was prettyentrenched and lots of other studies reinforced thatthinking. I just don't think we can get too worked up aboutthis--it was done over 50 years ago when behavioral sciencewas far less sophisticated and far less accepted than it isnow.The study about the clean slate theory changed my life..And mine. And pretty much all of us. But that's how it wasand there's nothing I can do to undo what happened to me. Iprefer to spent my energy being thankful for what has beensalvaged rather than dwelling on and cursing the events thatcaused the problem.

Accept the reasons why a woman has not told her husband..
How about that one..
Accept the reason why a woman was sent off with miss information..
Miss information that she has based her life on..
You can't shake her and tell her to change her thinking..
Especially if you do not even accept the extent of th trauma..
Or the trauma..
But you still knew they were out there and these thingshappened to other people.I quit Alma because of an article written in their newsletters..It was an article about a woman dying just before the bson connected..A real tear jerker..Well someone else might have read that article, slappedherself on the forehead, and realized she wanted to come outof the closet before it was too late. Maybe lots of peoplehad that reaction. Maybe you were the *only* person in thehistory of Alma who read it and rejected it. Ya never know.

I hate being manipulated..
That letter was an obvious manipulation IMO.
I was not ready to actively seek out my son.. I knew I was not ready..A hurry up tear jerker put me off totally..I stopped looking for a few years.. Just to darn painful..>> When>>I say "come to grips", the first step is to take the bananas>>out of her ears.>>If I could I would take the bananas out of all the ears..People sometimes take their own bananas out.LOL LOLI remember a song called Beans in my Ears..LOL! I also remember that song. But I was thinking of thatdumb old kid's joke about the person who sees a guy with abanana in his ear and tells him about it, and the guy says"Speak up, I can't hear you, I have a banana in my ear".That joke used to just kill me when I was 5 or 6 years old.

But no one ever walked up and took the banana out..
They laughed and maybe accepted the person is not listening..
Where does a woman who cannot watch/read about reunion findthose who share their experience? Is this the onlycatalyst? I think more often than not, the appearance ofthe adoptee is the "come to Jesus" moment.And maybe they might turn to the web..But you are probably right.But the initiative in Oregon passed despite these 6 usedwomen and it seems to be working relatively smoothly. Youmaintain that the only answer to the woman in secrecy isopen records,If all women know the world is open.. then maybe they may start on thejourney to tell the telling.Know they can no longer stay in the secret keeping..They may walk down the hill and seek therapy like it did..That is my hope.They may. Or they may do what you did when you read theAlma article. There's no one-size-fits-all solution toanything. If closet birthmothers are so deeply shut downthat they are as incapable of feelings and understanding asyou've said, if their family is as unforgiving as you claim,this could probably just drive them to the point of noreturn.

Yes.. And IMO the point of no return is complete cut off..
yet you believe the process drove other womenin Oregon into the closet and into emotional shut down?I don't understand what you are saying here..The secrecy and the emotional shut down started well before the Oregoninitiative...Yes. I was referring to this, which I must have cut::If we have shows like the show that happened in Oregon then:women may seek to just forget about it.. Or ask the state for:protection.. I am sure the secret keepers depend on this..I took that to mean that these already shut down, secretivewomen were being successfully used to disseminate themessage that birthmothers belong in the closet. And thatbirthmothers were still heeding that message.

And that leads to them being used..
Their secrecy is encouraged..

People using people for their own gain..
>>You said: "How can someone who has totally shut down her>>feelings care?" "How can someone when has totally shut down>>her feelings understand :caring?" Anyone who can't care or>>even understand caring is pretty far gone.>>But no one sees how far she is gone.. (low grade depression)>An actor on a stage.. The training some of us women got when young..This sounds rather all-encompassing, hardly "low grade".It was the word used.You are not really depressed.. You are just not happy.No laughing no crying.. no anger.. Anger not allowed.Well, "low grade depression" doesn't define the conditionyou've described heretofore whereby someone becomescompletely devoid of all feeling.

I probably can not describe it adequately.
You had *no* capacity to understand or care when you were inthe closet? To love, sympathize, function, be happy? DearGod...I did not understand love.. I did not understand how to do this..Once Naomi got mono.. I stood in the emergency ward with her allday..She was put in the hospital and I went the very minute I woke thenext morning..Hubby said let her be she is fine..We had a fight..But I still did not know about the feeling of love.. Not conscious..Ok, but you were still able to love and to feel concern evenif you didn't understand it. But then, who reallyunderstands love anyway?

I think I do now.. but I have done a lot of work on my feeling issues.
>Because I don't know him.. There is no emotional history..>IMO this is what happens in reunion..>That is why there is cut off and neglected feelings..You're probably right, and I'm not judging that. But isn'tit fair to accept that the adoptee bypassing the bmothercould be coming from the same place and afford him the sameprivilege?I can not know if bypassing is the right thing to do or not..All I can do is express my thoughts on this..Folks can take what they want and leave the rest..That's right. Unfortunately, your apparent apathy andantipathy for the adoptees in this situation makes itdifficult for me to take anything positive away from whatyou say.

You read my posts the way you want to read them..
I cannot change that..
I understand your underlying message--peopleshould be sensitive to the birth mother's trauma, herfeelings and her needs--I think everyone here understands itand accepts it--but it would be nice if you would try tounderstand that the adoptee matters just as much.

I am living that understanding Nancy..
Do you have any understanding how hard it is to not know my only
grandbabies?

I hate that I do not have a cozy relationships with my son.
I get jealous when I read about someone having a cozy relationship..

Damn it.. You are not hearing me..
The irony is that you are doing to the adoptee exactly whatyou accuse others of doing to the birthmother--denigratinghis feelings and his needs.

No..

The reality is, reunion is aninteraction between 2 people (or more), both have things togive and things to take, and you can't present a cogentargument on a one-dimensional level to a 3-dimensionalsituation. It's not the good guys vs. the bad guys here,it's 2 people who have been screwed over who are trying tomake the best of a less than ideal situation.Please understand that I'm not trying to insult you, I'mtrying to explain. As I said earlier, you're preaching tothe choir--we've all (those of us who have participated inthis discussion) agreed in one voice that the birthmothermust be given time and consideration. The problem is, youseem to be coming from the position that this particularchoir is against you on this particular issue.

Your opinion.
We're not. I'm not. I agreed with you months ago, I'vealways agreed with you. But right now, on 10 December 2003,*I'm* feeling a bit insulted because I've put forth theeffort--taken the time and trouble to understand thebirthmother's position, sympathized and agreed--but I'veseen no evidence that you acknowledge that or that you'veeven considered the adoptee's needs realistically at all.

I give up..
So the solution is to sit back and hope the birthmother diesbefore everyone else?No.. I think the solution is knowledge and understanding..I do too. Who doesn't?

Again.. I give up.


Jackie

On 12 Dec 2003 00:28:02 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:
The reality is that the reunion only begins once both parties want itand are 'both' ready. The unfortunate fact is that the searcher (be itmother or adoptee) is always on the back foot waiting for the soughtparty to reach that stage of readiness. Until that occurs we deal withthe issues that might help the searcher understand why themother/adoptee is likely to be hesitant and what they may beprocessing in the interim. I believe this is what Jackie has beentrying to share.


And if we have an immature searcher then we have the problem of a
youth not really understanding the hard hard issues of life..

Jackie

in article 5fgjtv0ak7bhjoj0fo35c9p3kki9sefp1j@4ax.com, Jackie at
jdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 12/12/03 1:28 pm:
On 12 Dec 2003 00:28:02 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote: The reality is that the reunion only begins once both parties want it and are 'both' ready. The unfortunate fact is that the searcher (be it mother or adoptee) is always on the back foot waiting for the sought party to reach that stage of readiness. Until that occurs we deal with the issues that might help the searcher understand why the mother/adoptee is likely to be hesitant and what they may be processing in the interim. I believe this is what Jackie has been trying to share. And if we have an immature searcher then we have the problem of a youth not really understanding the hard hard issues of life.. Jackie

Yep, that's what I thought you were *really* trying to share Jackie, your
view that adoptees searching, even though they may be in their thirties,
forties or older, are necessarily likely to be immature. Whereas of course
in your perception the birthmother can do no wrong in reunion and everything
and everyone must always bow to her wishes.

What Jackie seems quite unable to grasp is, that it is far more likely to be
the emotionally stuck birthmother who has the entirely distorted
understanding of 'the hard hard issues of life'. Jackie herself makes an
excellent demonstration of that fact again and again here. And in addition
she seems entirely unable to grasp that reunion is a 'whole family' issue.

Robin

On 12 Dec 2003 00:28:02 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au
(Dian) wrote:
"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:<pz5Cb.409$HR.1431@news.indigo.ie>... "nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:lo0gtvo1qk0vj1k20bibca4eb302slpk80@4ax.com... On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:07:24 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote: >On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 09:42:44 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote: > <snip for brevity only> >>>Because I don't know him.. There is no emotional history.. >>>IMO this is what happens in reunion.. >>>That is why there is cut off and neglected feelings.. >> >>You're probably right, and I'm not judging that. But isn't >>it fair to accept that the adoptee bypassing the bmother >>could be coming from the same place and afford him the same >>privilege? > >I can not know if bypassing is the right thing to do or not.. >All I can do is express my thoughts on this.. >Folks can take what they want and leave the rest.. That's right. Unfortunately, your apparent apathy and antipathy for the adoptees in this situation makes it difficult for me to take anything positive away from what you say. I understand your underlying message--people should be sensitive to the birth mother's trauma, her feelings and her needs--I think everyone here understands it and accepts it--but it would be nice if you would try to understand that the adoptee matters just as much. The irony is that you are doing to the adoptee exactly what you accuse others of doing to the birthmother--denigrating his feelings and his needs. The reality is, reunion is an interaction between 2 people (or more), both have things to give and things to take, and you can't present a cogent argument on a one-dimensional level to a 3-dimensional situation.The reality is that the reunion only begins once both parties want itand are 'both' ready. The unfortunate fact is that the searcher (be itmother or adoptee) is always on the back foot waiting for the soughtparty to reach that stage of readiness. Until that occurs we deal withthe issues that might help the searcher understand why themother/adoptee is likely to be hesitant and what they may beprocessing in the interim. I believe this is what Jackie has beentrying to share.Di

I see your point, Di. I absolutely agree that the searcher
has the greater burden of empathy and understanding since
s/he has taken the other person unaware, and I think
patience is warranted. I've never said otherwise. However,
I would say reunion happens at the moment of contact, it's
the relationship that begins at the point of readiness, and
all parties to any relationship need to behave with
sensitivity and consideration. I simply don't think we can
isolate one party's feelings and needs without considering
the feelings/needs of the other--that's the nature of a
"relationship".

Nancy

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:51:33 -0000, "helicon"
<helicon@eircom.net> wrote:
"nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in messagenews:lo0gtvo1qk0vj1k20bibca4eb302slpk80@4ax .com... On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:07:24 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 09:42:44 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:<snip for brevity only>>>Because I don't know him.. There is no emotional history..>>IMO this is what happens in reunion..>>That is why there is cut off and neglected feelings..>>You're probably right, and I'm not judging that. But isn't>it fair to accept that the adoptee bypassing the bmother>could be coming from the same place and afford him the same>privilege?I can not know if bypassing is the right thing to do or not..All I can do is express my thoughts on this..Folks can take what they want and leave the rest.. That's right. Unfortunately, your apparent apathy and antipathy for the adoptees in this situation makes it difficult for me to take anything positive away from what you say. I understand your underlying message--people should be sensitive to the birth mother's trauma, her feelings and her needs--I think everyone here understands it and accepts it--but it would be nice if you would try to understand that the adoptee matters just as much. The irony is that you are doing to the adoptee exactly what you accuse others of doing to the birthmother--denigrating his feelings and his needs. The reality is, reunion is an interaction between 2 people (or more), both have things to give and things to take, and you can't present a cogent argument on a one-dimensional level to a 3-dimensional situation. It's not the good guys vs. the bad guys here, it's 2 people who have been screwed over who are trying to make the best of a less than ideal situation. Please understand that I'm not trying to insult you, I'm trying to explain. As I said earlier, you're preaching to the choir--we've all (those of us who have participated in this discussion) agreed in one voice that the birthmother must be given time and consideration. The problem is, you seem to be coming from the position that this particular choir is against you on this particular issue. We're not. I'm not. I agreed with you months ago, I've always agreed with you. But right now, on 10 December 2003, *I'm* feeling a bit insulted because I've put forth the effort--taken the time and trouble to understand the birthmother's position, sympathized and agreed--but I've seen no evidence that you acknowledge that or that you've even considered the adoptee's needs realistically at all.>>So the solution is to sit back and hope the birthmother dies>before everyone else?No.. I think the solution is knowledge and understanding.. I do too. Who doesn't?Really excellent response, Nancy. [And I'm not 'getting at' Jackie :-) ]

Thanks, Helen. The point seems to have whizzed by Jackie
(again) and she's now "given up" in exasperation after
accusing me of unspeakable insensitivity and ignorance.

Nancy

On 11 Dec 2003 19:33:02 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca
(Rhiannon) wrote:
"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:<pz5Cb.409$HR.1431@news.indigo.ie>... "nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:lo0gtvo1qk0vj1k20bibca4eb302slpk80@4ax.com... On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:07:24 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote: >On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 09:42:44 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote: > <snip for brevity only> >>>Because I don't know him.. There is no emotional history.. >>>IMO this is what happens in reunion.. >>>That is why there is cut off and neglected feelings.. >> >>You're probably right, and I'm not judging that. But isn't >>it fair to accept that the adoptee bypassing the bmother >>could be coming from the same place and afford him the same >>privilege? > >I can not know if bypassing is the right thing to do or not.. >All I can do is express my thoughts on this.. >Folks can take what they want and leave the rest.. That's right. Unfortunately, your apparent apathy and antipathy for the adoptees in this situation makes it difficult for me to take anything positive away from what you say. I understand your underlying message--people should be sensitive to the birth mother's trauma, her feelings and her needs--I think everyone here understands it and accepts it--but it would be nice if you would try to understand that the adoptee matters just as much. The irony is that you are doing to the adoptee exactly what you accuse others of doing to the birthmother--denigrating his feelings and his needs. The reality is, reunion is an interaction between 2 people (or more), both have things to give and things to take, and you can't present a cogent argument on a one-dimensional level to a 3-dimensional situation. It's not the good guys vs. the bad guys here, it's 2 people who have been screwed over who are trying to make the best of a less than ideal situation. Please understand that I'm not trying to insult you, I'm trying to explain. As I said earlier, you're preaching to the choir--we've all (those of us who have participated in this discussion) agreed in one voice that the birthmother must be given time and consideration. The problem is, you seem to be coming from the position that this particular choir is against you on this particular issue. We're not. I'm not. I agreed with you months ago, I've always agreed with you. But right now, on 10 December 2003, *I'm* feeling a bit insulted because I've put forth the effort--taken the time and trouble to understand the birthmother's position, sympathized and agreed--but I've seen no evidence that you acknowledge that or that you've even considered the adoptee's needs realistically at all. >> >>So the solution is to sit back and hope the birthmother dies >>before everyone else? > >No.. I think the solution is knowledge and understanding.. I do too. Who doesn't? Really excellent response, Nancy. [And I'm not 'getting at' Jackie :-) ]Ditto to that.And then some.

Thanks, Rh--though I wish I'd proofread it before sending.
However, it proved to be yet another exercise in futility.

Nancy

In article <70pjtvsdrgi2njoe8ipjn1jgrd384hhur9@4ax.com>, nancy says...On 11 Dec 2003 19:33:02 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca(Rhiannon) wrote:"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:<pz5Cb.409$HR.1431@news.indigo.ie>... "nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:lo0gtvo1qk0vj1k20bibca4eb302slpk80@4ax.com... > On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:07:24 -0500, Jackie > <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote: > > >On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 09:42:44 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote: > > <snip for brevity only> > >>>Because I don't know him.. There is no emotional history.. > >>>IMO this is what happens in reunion.. > >>>That is why there is cut off and neglected feelings.. > >> > >>You're probably right, and I'm not judging that. But isn't > >>it fair to accept that the adoptee bypassing the bmother > >>could be coming from the same place and afford him the same > >>privilege? > > > >I can not know if bypassing is the right thing to do or not.. > >All I can do is express my thoughts on this.. > >Folks can take what they want and leave the rest.. > > That's right. Unfortunately, your apparent apathy and > antipathy for the adoptees in this situation makes it > difficult for me to take anything positive away from what > you say. I understand your underlying message--people > should be sensitive to the birth mother's trauma, her > feelings and her needs--I think everyone here understands it > and accepts it--but it would be nice if you would try to > understand that the adoptee matters just as much. > > The irony is that you are doing to the adoptee exactly what > you accuse others of doing to the birthmother--denigrating > his feelings and his needs. The reality is, reunion is an > interaction between 2 people (or more), both have things to > give and things to take, and you can't present a cogent > argument on a one-dimensional level to a 3-dimensional > situation. It's not the good guys vs. the bad guys here, > it's 2 people who have been screwed over who are trying to > make the best of a less than ideal situation. > > Please understand that I'm not trying to insult you, I'm > trying to explain. As I said earlier, you're preaching to > the choir--we've all (those of us who have participated in > this discussion) agreed in one voice that the birthmother > must be given time and consideration. The problem is, you > seem to be coming from the position that this particular > choir is against you on this particular issue. > > We're not. I'm not. I agreed with you months ago, I've > always agreed with you. But right now, on 10 December 2003, > *I'm* feeling a bit insulted because I've put forth the > effort--taken the time and trouble to understand the > birthmother's position, sympathized and agreed--but I've > seen no evidence that you acknowledge that or that you've > even considered the adoptee's needs realistically at all. > > >> > >>So the solution is to sit back and hope the birthmother dies > >>before everyone else? > > > >No.. I think the solution is knowledge and understanding.. > > I do too. Who doesn't? Really excellent response, Nancy. [And I'm not 'getting at' Jackie :-) ]Ditto to that.And then some.Thanks, Rh--though I wish I'd proofread it before sending.However, it proved to be yet another exercise in futility.

Can't blame you for trying, but I know how you feel :)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

"nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:mpojtv01fqi5jfh6nc028qop7rcubfcji8@4ax.com... On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:51:33 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:"nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in messagenews:lo0gtvo1qk0vj1k20bibca4eb302slpk80@4ax .com... On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:07:24 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote: >On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 09:42:44 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote: ><snip for brevity only> >>>Because I don't know him.. There is no emotional history.. >>>IMO this is what happens in reunion.. >>>That is why there is cut off and neglected feelings.. >> >>You're probably right, and I'm not judging that. But isn't >>it fair to accept that the adoptee bypassing the bmother >>could be coming from the same place and afford him the same >>privilege? > >I can not know if bypassing is the right thing to do or not.. >All I can do is express my thoughts on this.. >Folks can take what they want and leave the rest.. That's right. Unfortunately, your apparent apathy and antipathy for the adoptees in this situation makes it difficult for me to take anything positive away from what you say. I understand your underlying message--people should be sensitive to the birth mother's trauma, her feelings and her needs--I think everyone here understands it and accepts it--but it would be nice if you would try to understand that the adoptee matters just as much. The irony is that you are doing to the adoptee exactly what you accuse others of doing to the birthmother--denigrating his feelings and his needs. The reality is, reunion is an interaction between 2 people (or more), both have things to give and things to take, and you can't present a cogent argument on a one-dimensional level to a 3-dimensional situation. It's not the good guys vs. the bad guys here, it's 2 people who have been screwed over who are trying to make the best of a less than ideal situation. Please understand that I'm not trying to insult you, I'm trying to explain. As I said earlier, you're preaching to the choir--we've all (those of us who have participated in this discussion) agreed in one voice that the birthmother must be given time and consideration. The problem is, you seem to be coming from the position that this particular choir is against you on this particular issue. We're not. I'm not. I agreed with you months ago, I've always agreed with you. But right now, on 10 December 2003, *I'm* feeling a bit insulted because I've put forth the effort--taken the time and trouble to understand the birthmother's position, sympathized and agreed--but I've seen no evidence that you acknowledge that or that you've even considered the adoptee's needs realistically at all. >> >>So the solution is to sit back and hope the birthmother dies >>before everyone else? > >No.. I think the solution is knowledge and understanding.. I do too. Who doesn't?Really excellent response, Nancy. [And I'm not 'getting at' Jackie :-) ] Thanks, Helen. The point seems to have whizzed by Jackie (again) and she's now "given up" in exasperation after accusing me of unspeakable insensitivity and ignorance.

<sigh> We *must* care, or we'd all have given up trying long ago.

Helen
Nancy

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:47:03 -0000, "helicon"
<helicon@eircom.net> wrote:
"nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in messagenews:mpojtv01fqi5jfh6nc028qop7rcubfcji8@4ax .com... On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:51:33 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:"nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in messagenews:lo0gtvo1qk0vj1k20bibca4eb302slpk80@4ax .com...> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:07:24 -0500, Jackie> <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:>> >On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 09:42:44 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:> ><snip for brevity only>> >>>Because I don't know him.. There is no emotional history..> >>>IMO this is what happens in reunion..> >>>That is why there is cut off and neglected feelings..> >>> >>You're probably right, and I'm not judging that. But isn't> >>it fair to accept that the adoptee bypassing the bmother> >>could be coming from the same place and afford him the same> >>privilege?> >> >I can not know if bypassing is the right thing to do or not..> >All I can do is express my thoughts on this..> >Folks can take what they want and leave the rest..>> That's right. Unfortunately, your apparent apathy and> antipathy for the adoptees in this situation makes it> difficult for me to take anything positive away from what> you say. I understand your underlying message--people> should be sensitive to the birth mother's trauma, her> feelings and her needs--I think everyone here understands it> and accepts it--but it would be nice if you would try to> understand that the adoptee matters just as much.>> The irony is that you are doing to the adoptee exactly what> you accuse others of doing to the birthmother--denigrating> his feelings and his needs. The reality is, reunion is an> interaction between 2 people (or more), both have things to> give and things to take, and you can't present a cogent> argument on a one-dimensional level to a 3-dimensional> situation. It's not the good guys vs. the bad guys here,> it's 2 people who have been screwed over who are trying to> make the best of a less than ideal situation.>> Please understand that I'm not trying to insult you, I'm> trying to explain. As I said earlier, you're preaching to> the choir--we've all (those of us who have participated in> this discussion) agreed in one voice that the birthmother> must be given time and consideration. The problem is, you> seem to be coming from the position that this particular> choir is against you on this particular issue.>> We're not. I'm not. I agreed with you months ago, I've> always agreed with you. But right now, on 10 December 2003,> *I'm* feeling a bit insulted because I've put forth the> effort--taken the time and trouble to understand the> birthmother's position, sympathized and agreed--but I've> seen no evidence that you acknowledge that or that you've> even considered the adoptee's needs realistically at all.>> >>> >>So the solution is to sit back and hope the birthmother dies> >>before everyone else?> >> >No.. I think the solution is knowledge and understanding..>> I do too. Who doesn't?Really excellent response, Nancy. [And I'm not 'getting at' Jackie :-) ] Thanks, Helen. The point seems to have whizzed by Jackie (again) and she's now "given up" in exasperation after accusing me of unspeakable insensitivity and ignorance.<sigh> We *must* care, or we'd all have given up trying long ago.

I especially care that there's an immature, mean-spirited,
adopted straw man at the center of this argument who just
won't go away. But I'll tell you what--the hypothetical
birthmother in this discussion has been around for a very
long time; she still refuses to get a grip, she still won't
consider anyone's needs but her own, she just keeps getting
more and more dysfunctional and self-absorbed. GR is
right--6 months is long enough for anyone to wait for
someone else to get their act together. :-)

Nancy

patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<c599139c.0312120028.5bc2f874@posting.google.com>... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:<pz5Cb.409$HR.1431@news.indigo.ie>... "nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:lo0gtvo1qk0vj1k20bibca4eb302slpk80@4ax.com... On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:07:24 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote: >On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 09:42:44 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote: > <snip for brevity only> >>>Because I don't know him.. There is no emotional history.. >>>IMO this is what happens in reunion.. >>>That is why there is cut off and neglected feelings.. >> >>You're probably right, and I'm not judging that. But isn't >>it fair to accept that the adoptee bypassing the bmother >>could be coming from the same place and afford him the same >>privilege? > >I can not know if bypassing is the right thing to do or not.. >All I can do is express my thoughts on this.. >Folks can take what they want and leave the rest.. That's right. Unfortunately, your apparent apathy and antipathy for the adoptees in this situation makes it difficult for me to take anything positive away from what you say. I understand your underlying message--people should be sensitive to the birth mother's trauma, her feelings and her needs--I think everyone here understands it and accepts it--but it would be nice if you would try to understand that the adoptee matters just as much. The irony is that you are doing to the adoptee exactly what you accuse others of doing to the birthmother--denigrating his feelings and his needs. The reality is, reunion is an interaction between 2 people (or more), both have things to give and things to take, and you can't present a cogent argument on a one-dimensional level to a 3-dimensional situation. The reality is that the reunion only begins once both parties want it and are 'both' ready. The unfortunate fact is that the searcher (be it mother or adoptee) is always on the back foot waiting for the sought party to reach that stage of readiness. Until that occurs we deal with the issues that might help the searcher understand why the mother/adoptee is likely to be hesitant and what they may be processing in the interim. I believe this is what Jackie has been trying to share.



You're right that the searcher is always going to be readier than the
sought, but what if the found party is *never* going to be ready?

Jackie wrote 'I believe the solution is knowledge and understanding'

But knowledge and understanding of (and even sympathy for) the
birthmothers predicament, while it's likely to help in the short term,
doesn't solve the problem in the long term. It is not a 'solution'.

How self-effacing can (or should) an adoptee (or bparent, for that
matter) be when faced with this kind of situation?
Until the time comes when both parties are receptive to the needs of
the other we deal with issues that might help the found person
understand the searcher's needs, and what *they* might be processing
in the interim.
I believe this is at least part of what Nancy is saying.





Rh. Di It's not the good guys vs. the bad guys here, it's 2 people who have been screwed over who are trying to make the best of a less than ideal situation. Please understand that I'm not trying to insult you, I'm trying to explain. As I said earlier, you're preaching to the choir--we've all (those of us who have participated in this discussion) agreed in one voice that the birthmother must be given time and consideration. The problem is, you seem to be coming from the position that this particular choir is against you on this particular issue. We're not. I'm not. I agreed with you months ago, I've always agreed with you. But right now, on 10 December 2003, *I'm* feeling a bit insulted because I've put forth the effort--taken the time and trouble to understand the birthmother's position, sympathized and agreed--but I've seen no evidence that you acknowledge that or that you've even considered the adoptee's needs realistically at all. >> >>So the solution is to sit back and hope the birthmother dies >>before everyone else? > >No.. I think the solution is knowledge and understanding.. I do too. Who doesn't? Really excellent response, Nancy. [And I'm not 'getting at' Jackie :-) ] Helen Nancy > > >Jackie

In article <480ktvgqtjquchperfggbba537ec3s3mgv@4ax.com>, nancy says...
snip
I especially care that there's an immature, mean-spirited,adopted straw man at the center of this argument who justwon't go away. But I'll tell you what--the hypotheticalbirthmother in this discussion has been around for a verylong time; she still refuses to get a grip, she still won'tconsider anyone's needs but her own, she just keeps gettingmore and more dysfunctional and self-absorbed. GR isright--6 months is long enough for anyone to wait forsomeone else to get their act together. :-)

Shoot, even my bmom finally came around - and I certainly never thought that was
going to happen. Seems the hypothetical bmom has bigger issues ;)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <dafc70.0312121016.6482f27@posting.google.com>, Rhiannon says...
snipBut knowledge and understanding of (and even sympathy for) thebirthmothers predicament, while it's likely to help in the short term,doesn't solve the problem in the long term. It is not a 'solution'.

Exactly!! This is one main point I just could NOT get across to Jackie two years
ago when my bmom stopped communicating with me because I had asked for my bdad's
last name. She just kept telling me to "find out what it was like that then,
read so-and-so's book, be more understanding", etc., etc. And while I do agree
that doing so probably would have helped me understand my bmom's reasons for
keeping this secret, the bottom line is that "I" would still be the one denied
information.
How self-effacing can (or should) an adoptee (or bparent, for thatmatter) be when faced with this kind of situation?Until the time comes when both parties are receptive to the needs ofthe other we deal with issues that might help the found personunderstand the searcher's needs, and what *they* might be processingin the interim.I believe this is at least part of what Nancy is saying.

I agree. Well said (as usual)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <BBFF91C1.2B86B%nospam@harritt.net>, Robin Harritt
<nospam@harritt.net> writes:
in article 5fgjtv0ak7bhjoj0fo35c9p3kki9sefp1j@4ax.com, Jackie atjdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 12/12/03 1:28 pm: On 12 Dec 2003 00:28:02 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote: The reality is that the reunion only begins once both parties want it and are 'both' ready. The unfortunate fact is that the searcher (be it mother or adoptee) is always on the back foot waiting for the sought party to reach that stage of readiness. Until that occurs we deal with the issues that might help the searcher understand why the mother/adoptee is likely to be hesitant and what they may be processing in the interim. I believe this is what Jackie has been trying to share. And if we have an immature searcher then we have the problem of a youth not really understanding the hard hard issues of life.. JackieYep, that's what I thought you were *really* trying to share Jackie, yourview that adoptees searching, even though they may be in their thirties,forties or older, are necessarily likely to be immature. Whereas of coursein your perception the birthmother can do no wrong in reunion and everythingand everyone must always bow to her wishes.What Jackie seems quite unable to grasp is, that it is far more likely to bethe emotionally stuck birthmother who has the entirely distortedunderstanding of 'the hard hard issues of life'. Jackie herself makes anexcellent demonstration of that fact again and again here. And in additionshe seems entirely unable to grasp that reunion is a 'whole family' issue.Robin

Maybe it's just me, but I get the feeling that Jackie seems to see the adoptee
as an eternal infant. Like you say, she seems to see the adoptee as always
immature.

KL

In article <20031212205630.25815.00005180@mb-m07.aol.com>, KL says...In article <BBFF91C1.2B86B%nospam@harritt.net>, Robin Harritt<nospam@harritt.net> writes:in article 5fgjtv0ak7bhjoj0fo35c9p3kki9sefp1j@4ax.com, Jackie atjdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 12/12/03 1:28 pm: On 12 Dec 2003 00:28:02 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:> The reality is that the reunion only begins once both parties want it> and are 'both' ready. The unfortunate fact is that the searcher (be it> mother or adoptee) is always on the back foot waiting for the sought> party to reach that stage of readiness. Until that occurs we deal with> the issues that might help the searcher understand why the> mother/adoptee is likely to be hesitant and what they may be> processing in the interim. I believe this is what Jackie has been> trying to share. And if we have an immature searcher then we have the problem of a youth not really understanding the hard hard issues of life.. JackieYep, that's what I thought you were *really* trying to share Jackie, yourview that adoptees searching, even though they may be in their thirties,forties or older, are necessarily likely to be immature. Whereas of coursein your perception the birthmother can do no wrong in reunion and everythingand everyone must always bow to her wishes.What Jackie seems quite unable to grasp is, that it is far more likely to bethe emotionally stuck birthmother who has the entirely distortedunderstanding of 'the hard hard issues of life'. Jackie herself makes anexcellent demonstration of that fact again and again here. And in additionshe seems entirely unable to grasp that reunion is a 'whole family' issue.RobinMaybe it's just me, but I get the feeling that Jackie seems to see the adopteeas an eternal infant. Like you say, she seems to see the adoptee as alwaysimmature.

I personally see it as Jackie does, and will always, see it as the bmom has
suffered much more than the adoptee - which is why her needs will ALWAYS come
first.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:51:02 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Thanks, Helen. The point seems to have whizzed by Jackie(again) and she's now "given up" in exasperation afteraccusing me of unspeakable insensitivity and ignorance.Nancy

Thats not true.


Jackie

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<5fgjtv0ak7bhjoj0fo35c9p3kki9sefp1j@4ax.com>... On 12 Dec 2003 00:28:02 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:The reality is that the reunion only begins once both parties want itand are 'both' ready. The unfortunate fact is that the searcher (be itmother or adoptee) is always on the back foot waiting for the soughtparty to reach that stage of readiness. Until that occurs we deal withthe issues that might help the searcher understand why themother/adoptee is likely to be hesitant and what they may beprocessing in the interim. I believe this is what Jackie has beentrying to share. And if we have an immature searcher then we have the problem of a youth not really understanding the hard hard issues of life.. Jackie

Immaturity may be a factor in some, but I personally blame the myths
and ignorance perpetrated about past adoptions as the cause of such
problems wiht reunions. They shut the mother down and piss the adoptee
off. And nobody wins in that scenario. Prepatory education is key when
entering a reunion and that can't come from either party involved.
Where I come from, in the early stages of open records adoptees
recieved an information booklet declaring a list of negative reasons
why a mother might not want contact. It also listed all the
supposed reasons why she "made the decision to relinquish him fo
radoption." All based on lies and myths. Many reunions failed. In 1998
the book let was revised and they begain telling the truth of how
society, social workers pressured and coerced mothers into adoption.
Adoptees began seeing the cause of their adoption in a different
light. They approached their reunions differently. The mothers
finally began being freed of the anxiety of being blamed by society
and their child. The fear and anxiety of being judged began falling
away and they began opening up because the truth was beginning to be
told. Reunions then began on the right foot and are now likely to be
more successful and open. When post adoption counsellors begin telling
adoptees what society was like back then and stop putting the onus
solely on the mother for how society treated her, you'll have fewer
situations like the one under discussion. Hense the importance of we
'whining' mothers who are now able to speak out, telling it like it
was.

Di

Robin Harritt <nospam@harritt.net> wrote in message news:<BBFF91C1.2B86B%nospam@harritt.net>... in article 5fgjtv0ak7bhjoj0fo35c9p3kki9sefp1j@4ax.com, Jackie at jdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 12/12/03 1:28 pm: On 12 Dec 2003 00:28:02 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote: The reality is that the reunion only begins once both parties want it and are 'both' ready. The unfortunate fact is that the searcher (be it mother or adoptee) is always on the back foot waiting for the sought party to reach that stage of readiness. Until that occurs we deal with the issues that might help the searcher understand why the mother/adoptee is likely to be hesitant and what they may be processing in the interim. I believe this is what Jackie has been trying to share. And if we have an immature searcher then we have the problem of a youth not really understanding the hard hard issues of life.. Jackie Yep, that's what I thought you were *really* trying to share Jackie, your view that adoptees searching, even though they may be in their thirties, forties or older, are necessarily likely to be immature. Whereas of course in your perception the birthmother can do no wrong in reunion and everything and everyone must always bow to her wishes. What Jackie seems quite unable to grasp is, that it is far more likely to be the emotionally stuck birthmother who has the entirely distorted understanding of 'the hard hard issues of life'. Jackie herself makes an excellent demonstration of that fact again and again here. And in addition she seems entirely unable to grasp that reunion is a 'whole family' issue. Robin

Reality check, Robin. Reunion is only a "whole family' issue if those
involved wish it to be. Many do and just as many don't. At least
initially. It can take years if not decades before an adoptee wants to
meet more extended relatives, if they ever do. It can take years
before the mother is ready to introduce her child to other family
members, if they ever do. It all depends on their part in the adoption
'decision' and the way that family member treated them at the time.
More than many bridges will never be rebuilt. Many siblings embrace
their newly found sibling and many don't. While you might think its
your right to demand your right to