This might go down in the “adoption history” timeline as the year that the adoption activists had the great rift.

What started out as a gentle reminder, grew into a misunderstanding, adding some hurt feelings ,a bruised ego or two, mix in some folks who are adding a biased spin with darker motivations and WALA! You have a great rift, lines drawn in the sand, and everyone is a talking about it. Who the bad guys are, if there really are any, depends on who you get your information from.

And really, the final outcome is that this is just very sad. It is most unfortunate that a) the issue happened in the first place and b) it has taken on a life of its own because, the bottom line is that we all want the same things. And when we fight each other, we are too busy to fight the industry. I bet they just love this. Bill Pierce must be laughing in hell.

Now I do not claim to know all the players personally. I know some and know of all. We are talking about the “biggies” in adoption reform, books, writing, etc. Oddly, the kind of name recognition that I would love to have. Like mentors., those great ones that have come before me, I am suppose to aspire to be like them?

Right now, I feel ashamed that people are acting like this.

I’m not going to lead you to them from a links. Find it yourself if you would like too. So if you want half the story…and half the private emails..go for it.

In a nutshell though, it looks like this:
Origins and Adoption Crossroads are having a big conference next week. They do not like the term Birthmother, don’t use it, make no bones about it.
Betty Jean Lifton was invited to speak and agreed.
Joe Soll, from AC, sent out a reminder to all not to use the term because it is hurtful to many moms who would be attending.
Lifton said she would be using her language no matter what feelings were about it. She didn’t care.
Joe replied that if that was the case then, really just would not work. It would not be appropriate for her to speak.
Then, when it became obvious though other people that she was upset with this, it was decided that fine, they would deal somehow, maybe it would be a good way to discuss the whole label issue. Other possible prefixes were offered.
And Lifton again said no.

So now we have a few key issues that have come into question.

The first being…well what the hell is a big deal about one little word?? Now my last post touched on the origins of the word birthmother and how we got stuck with it to begin with. So we know now that it was first used by Pearl S. Buck, an adoptive parent in 1956. It was used in the UK by social workers:
“The term ‘birthmother’ was coined by social workers in United Kingdom maternity prisons in the 1950’s to replace the term ‘natural mother.’ It was further promoted by social workers in the United States in the 1970’s. This word was coined to define us as having been mothers at the time of birth, but not after, and thus to diminish us to having a solely reproductive purpose in our children’s lives. In order to sell adoptive parents on the idea of adoption providing them ‘a child of their own‘ , social workers must first eliminate our motherhood in their clients’ eyes.”
We also know that This article,” Identity Conflicts in Adoptees”/American Journal of Orthopsychiatry/ ,45(1) January 1975. by Arthur Sorosky, Annette Baran, Reuben Pannor, published in Jan 1975, but submitted for publication in March 1974, contains the b-word in its introduction.

Now with the birth of CUB in 1976, I can understand that the intent to have a universal recognizable name, an identity, was necessary. What we do have hear though is conflict on the choice of the word. The word “birth” as a description was already coined and used by proponents and endorsers of the separation of mother and child. According to Lee, in the summer of 1976 “we agreed on `birth parent’ and birthparenthood. ‘ We didn’t want to upset adoptive parents with `natural.‘ And `biological’ now made us gag. `Biological, ‘ we felt, was descriptive of a mechanical incubator or unfeeling baby machine. `Birth’ was the key. With `birth parents’ as one word;.. we were like other one-word progenitors, like grandparents. Here lies one of the main issues with the word..it was used to NOT upset the adoptive parents. It is commonly pointed out by legions who are now, unwittingly birthparents, that their actual legal paperwork has them declared as “mothers” and “natural mothers”, but those words were dumped for the comfort level of the ones who had oppressed them. “Natural” made adoptive parents feel “unnatural”, but they couldn’t complain if the label kept our role to the one time event of birth. So many object that, while it might have been a necessary political move to use a word to compromise with the adoption proponents, it still took away from how many moms see themselves. And not all of us got to vote on this issue either…so a small minority making a grand decision for a rather large group based on a political maneuver, rubs some the wrong way too.

Now Lee totally understood and felt the obsession of not being able to self identify. In Rickie Solinger’s Beggars and Choosers, Lee describes her feelings with meeting the federal level adoption panel…”She described her frustration with the panel’s members insensitivity in terms she knew would resonate with her sister birth mothers. After only a few meetings, Lee had felt put down by the group; she believed they thought she was too uppity for an unwed mother and wanted to put her back in her place. To do this, she believes, panel members rejected the term “birth mother”. Lee was “stricken” by the members disregard for her preference.” It was as though I was an African American, surrounded by dominant powers who were callously insensitive to what I preferred to be called”……Lee’s identification with the oppressed deepened. “Now I was not only an African American surrounded by insensitive, I was also an African American surrounded by those who called me the N-word”

So the feelings are the same, it is just what word invokes said feelings. That part has morphed and this is obviously very different for many different people.The same folks that mock moms now for having issue with the word are the same ones who say we should respect the fight that has gone on before. So Lee’s feelings of “stricken” have more value because they happened first? Due to the vast embrace that the adoption community has had with the word “birthmother”, the victory is now hollow. The very word that was suppose to give us rights has backfired, and now we are “only birthmothers”, just the one to give birth and any animal can do that. We become birthmothers the minute we think about adoption and call an agency, allowing us to be pelted with “Dear Birthmother” letters, and hailing us for our wisdom and selfishlessness. And then, only a birthmother will we ever more be, while to many, we still are and always have been the Mother. The word has outlived its usefulness. Now it is a liability.

Now the second issue is who has the right to self-identify and self-define? Truthfully to me, this is a moot point. Anyone has the right to name themselves whatever works for them and feels comfortable. Some women do embrace the Bterm. Whether that is what they always knew and they just don’t feel the negative connotation, or whether they remember when it was a victory and it still works for them despite it being misused to death now. But for many, they just hate it and it is a very important sticking point. The majority of Origins and Crossroads members fall into the last category and they have decided to not be birthmothers. So here we have a group, self defined, coming together to discuss things in a perceived safe arena and someone else, who is not identifiable to that group, saying that she doesn’t care what they want to call themselves, she is using HER words no matter what they have decided works for them and if they don’t like it, then they are uneducated about what the word really meant as far as victory for others who feel differently.

She took away the choice for a group to self identify by saying that she would not respect their choice. Because Lifton is an ADOPTEE. Not a mom. So she has no right to identify others in this arena. She might call her own mother whatever works for her, but to address a group that has clearly said “No, please do not call us that. It is hurtful.” is just that…hurtful.

Now, I think Lifton knows this and understands it. In my hunting about, I have found places that claim “Although author Betty Jean Lifton is credited with “coining” the term “birthmother,” which she later stated she regretted,”.

Then we have, “Adoption has a language all its own (apart from the terminology imposed by the system–which many of us reject–such as “birth” parent, “adoptive” parent, “illegitimate, ” “bastard,” “can of worms” and “chosen child”). [NOTE: The term, “birth” mother was coined not by the adoption industry per se, but by psychologist Betty Jean Lifton, in her book, “Lost and Found” about 20 years ago. Lifton later stated that she has since lived to regret stigmatizing mothers. The terms “birth” mother, “birth” father, “birth” parents and “adoptive parents” were used by authors of a few poems according to adoption language at the time” from Lori Carangelo here. So I don’t understand how Lifton can regret something that she didn’t do, but I can take it as she regret using such terminology that she sees now as oppressive and populating it’s use. So why did she object to dropping the regreful term and just use natural or first as requested?

Another big issue here is the idea of censorship. Defined as the control of speech and other forms of human expression with free speech and all, we do not have the right to silence anyone. It is said that OUSA and AC do not have the right to sanitize what Lifton might say and that would be true. I don’t see any book burning going on. But this is their conference, so it is also well within their right to create an environment appropriate for their audience. To do that, than this one word does not work. Is it more than one word? We know that the word means allot more than just the five letters designated to many people it applies to and is considered very hurtful when used.

Technically she was asked to drop just one word and even given other words to sub in. “It would be a kindness”..not a decree, not a ban, a kindness. Would the expression still be the same? Could she have said the same message without using the Bterm? I think yes, and even more so, her message would have been heard better if folks were not recoiling in the bad feelings that come from the use of it. Now what expression was needed to be given by insisting on using whatever terminology she wished? Personally, I have trouble saying that this is censorship unless she knows that using Birthmother makes relinquishing mothers feel degraded and ashamed and wants to do this. And if that is the case, then why would she agree to speak in the fist place? Really, if that is what she was about, then no, she should not have been a keynote speaker. But who saw that she was a adversary to adoption reform, open records, and rights of mothers? I would never have guessed.

Now we can get to the who knew what the other was about and when. OriginsUSA and Adoption Crossroads have not just now decided on their feelings on the Birth prefix usage and sprung the concept on all. It is one of the foundations of their work and is shared by many other groups also not just OUSA. The Canadian Council for Natural Mothers uses, obviously, natural mothers. Even on Soul of Adoption, many of the adoptive parents can understand and respect the moms and don’t use birthmother. All this hoopla about “word police” is just silly to me. There are just too many who identify with the word being negative and those will be the people who join and participate with both groups. I would say that there is a great measure of trust in the members that the word is not used and would not be subjected to it at their own conference at their own emotional expense. Heck, I am in Origins and I don’t use the word there because I understand and respect those who feel the pain from it, yet, no one stops me from saying it outside. I never got kicked out of the clubhouse. If you like being called a birthmother then I would say OriginsUSA is not the place for you..don’t go to the conference.

It can also be said that since Lifton has used birthmother in her work that OUSA and AC should have been more aware. I am more along the thoughts that she does use for the same reason I do when speaking to politicians and media..it is recognizable and we, her and I, perhaps don’t have the huge emotional investment in it, but understand the need not to use it in certain company that does. Plus not all of her work is current, much of it being published previous to the word being so corrupted. I am not going to fault her for using it in her work. No one is saying she must republish because the meaning and connotation of the word has evolved, but perhaps I wrongly assumed that she was aware of that evolution? Nah, she is a smart lady, right? She knew, if she didn’t know than how could she have regretted it?

Now, I do not believe for one minute that the “reminder” was planned and manipulated to hook speakers in and then change the conditions of the speaking. For one, it is clearly stated from the beginning. The website for the conference had the request stated in red all along. Plus the application for presenters had it as well, also in red. If anyone has a copy of the actual “invitation” for keynotes, that would be helpful as opposed to assuming it was all trickery on the part of Joe Soll. And if it truly was not there, then let’s just damn a person to hell for an assumption of like mindedness and understanding coupled with an oversight of clarification because how dare anyone not be perfect. Can we say misunderstanding and miscommunication..hallmarks of human relations.

Another thing to take into consideration is politics and egos…I am going to try my best not to bash anyone here since I strongly feel it hurts us all and I am not out to make enemies and call out those I disagree with, but I do see this as coming into play big time. Joe does have a huge following of people who adore him…why?? Because he has helped them. He focuses in healing work and assisting in making reunions positive and because they need that, and it works, they believe in him. Since when is helping people a bad thing? And are people bad for needing that help? How can people effectively work for change if they are still too wounded and broken to function. How effective can any movement be if you have bleeding-broken-angry-crying-half-dead-issue-plagued marchers? What a mess that would be..or is, for that matter. Maybe one of the reasons all this is getting so out of hand. Tons of unresolved hurts, perhaps?. Dare I say the “angry” adoptee punishing the cyber moms for abandonment? Or maybe just a case on bad PMS and catty women? Yuck. Gosh, maybe we all just need a big group hug, a little cry and some chocolate!

For whatever reason there are some that don’t like Joe and by association AC and OUSA. I don’t know why. It doesn’t make sense to me..to me we shuld all be working together and finding bonds, not issues. But it is there, and has been before this incident. Maybe because OUSA/AC have upped the anti and been very clear and vocal in their efforts? Maybe because they are the young “upstarts” and don’t bend to the will of the “old guard”? Maybe that they don’t accept the word decided 30 years ago as legitimate and still maintaining value and others see that as taking away something from them? Why, because so many love him and just like supposedly we can only have one mother, we can only have one official movement? Ummm, duh! Is he really that horrible because he says “please don’t use the word birthmother..it is hurtful” and many people agree, but not everyone…. and since when does everyone ever agree on everything? Too many big fish in a small pond? Are big fish are taking bites out of the little fish and exerting their dominance?. Who is the bully? The ones who dare something different or the ones who call them stupid for daring? Oh, ego rears its ugly head. It’s just not the principles of this particular issue, it is the motivations behind it that are disturbing. Too many have jumped on a minor occurrence and made the mountain out of a molehill. And truthfully, I am guilty for even adressing this issue and adding my pile of dirt on top.

Who was suppose to have foreseen this issue? A simple request among like minded gone awry. A reminder taken the wrong way as a insult and control has blossomed into a full scale mud slinging match that hurts all involved. To me, that it very sad and honestly, I can’t even fault the direct players for having a human conflict and standing by their own personal integrity. That OUSA and AC have a foundation of avoiding the word Birthmother as a label for their moms is not a bad thing. That Lifton feels that her prerogative to use her own choice of words and it overrides that avoidance is also OK and in her right. I am not going to damn her for doing what works for her. Nor, will I damn OUSA and AC for attempting to compromise and avoid all this crap by reissuing the invite when it began to look like this. I credit OUSA and Joe for not getting involved in playing he said/she said and really wish Lifton could have tried to work with them also. I wonder how did only half the private emails come to light and why were they not all exposed then for people to draw their own conclusions? That’s a sign or damage control and political maneuvering done behind the scenes, but at whose cost and why, what motivation? Isn’t this all about something much more than who looks good and who blundered? Aren’t we all really about changing the industry, reform and open records, and preventing unnecessary adoptions and family loss?

A conflict yes, but not a war. And now just a mess. The rumor mills are calling that other presenters cancelled due to this, when in truth some workshops just had not enough interest and the speakers had a choice to continue or not. No one else is freaking because they can’t say birthmother and that the fear of the censorship shackles if they slip up. I’m still going and I tell you, it will be very nice to sit with other like minded folks and talk about adoption while not being called a birthmother. Imagine that..an adoption conference with NO BIRTHMOTHERs….just moms! I would have like to hear Lifton again, but I don’t want her calling me a Birthmother. I will be there next week and it is not to be made to feel like crap and see my other sisters hurt. And while it is her right to use whatever words she wants, thankfully, I don’t have to listen.

I say end all the prefixes and lables..let us just be mothers.
Plus, with the age old “the opposite of natural is unatural” then the opposite of birth is death.

I will be a BirthMother when adoptive parents become the DeathParents. Like a “forever family“..until death? Totally ridiculous isn’t it?

Yeah, that’s my point.