Now if you would please, take a minute and go re-read, or read if you happened to have missed it the first time, my post here regarding the coining of the word “Birthmother“. Now in case you happen to be a lazy ass, I will restate the key points:
1)I can imagine CUB coming up with th name based on having to make a good catchy acronym
2) Pearl S. Buck used the word birth first, with mother, way before CUB, though it was two words.
3) CUB had to put it together as one word, or it didn;t sound good! CUBM?? Nah.
So…darling sweet wonderful Wraith is in Florida right now at the National CUB retreat and happened to have the chance to speak to Lee Campbell herself, and he bought up the conflicts around the term. Then this wonderful man also emailed me about it:
“Basically, she says that the name was biological parents but she didn’t like it. She was on the phone with another and talked about it and came up with birth parent. As they discussed it they bean to name CUB and came up with “Birth Parents United in Concern” but the acronym was BPUIC, so she decided to join the first two into one word so that it had the same feel as grandparents and tied it to the family name. The problem with that was the acronym became Buic and she didn’t want it to be associated with a car so the redid the order and came up with Concerned United Birthparents.“
May I rejoice in the truth of my imagination?? BPUIC!!!! LOL.
I, of course, then sent him the informatin that we have dug up on Pearl S Buck using “birth” as a prefix way before CUB pulled it out of the air.
and then he returns with this gem:
“Okay, she clarified that she believes she was the first one to put it together as one word birthparent so as to make it similar to grandparent and give it the same style of family tie.
That’s her story and she is sticking to it.“
So ..out of the mouth of the source folks…CUB DID NOT, I repeat NOT, COIN the WORD!! They deleated the space because it looked and sounded better!!!
To date, again , the first refrence used was by an adoptive mother. Now we are looking to see if it was introduced by Minneapolis social worker Marietta Spencer as “positive adoption language” (PAL) pre CUB “usage”…which is very probably. And if THAT is the case, then indeed CUB did give in to the desires of the industry. If proof of that is found, I promise to update!
Meanwhile, Darling Wraith ( as he ever shall be known as) has passed on my email to Lee. He didn’t get a chance to ask her about how she feels about the term now, in light of it being so bastardized. I hope she does find me..as I am just dying to know what she thinks now.
Wikipedia adoption. Just do it. It totally makes me swim with joy. There is a whole section on adoption reform.
I started reading a section on “positive adoption language” going…yech, but I found right underneath it a section called “honest adoption language” in which they even talk about the debate on “birth terminology!”
GO WIKEPIDIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just IMO. As one word, she coined it. If Lee Campbell had the imagination to join the two words and create a composite to denote a category, I’d call that ‘inventing’ a term.
I would say that Pearl Buck used ‘birth’ as a descriptor, adjectivally.
Interesting Lee Cambell didn’t like ‘bio’, as if biology was something to be ashamed of. Seems to make sense, tho’, considering the zeitgeist then.
Ah Claud, the word is out. Thank you and thank Wraith. It matters not whether Campbell or her cohorts modified the term, the did NOT coin is and it certainly has been used to the detriment of mothers of loss in the US. I love the fact that she had to “clarify.”
Thank you for mentioning Honest Adoption Language. It is heartening to see so many references to the term when one googles it. So many people are realizing that we have been shafted and rendered powerless by an industry that created terms like “birth[_]mother” to denigrate and dehumanize us. As Rickie Solinger said at the conference in her keynote address: Language is a way for a powerless group to reclaim power and fight exploitation and oppression.
Honest Adoption Language is a way for us to reclaim the right to have our truth acknowledged, to name ourselves without worrying about the disapproval of the industry.
As I understand it, the industry said we could only use the terms “birth” and “biological”. CUB chose “birth.” The idea was to not offend adopters so-as to get their support for open records. Most people preferred Natural but adopters didn’t like it, so it was dropped. Power-over by adopters. Natural moms rendered powerless to even chose a collective name for themselves. This is why the “birth terms” represent powerlessness, silence, and polite obedience to the system — shutting up and being good little breeders who won’t make waves, don’t make trouble, and don’t have a voice.
I just found the proof. From BJ Lifton’s letter to Joe Soll (September 12, 2006, circulated on the CUB and OUSA message boards), telling how CUB had to choose between biological and birth because they were rendered powerless by adopters and brokers to choose anything else:
” …. The reform movement tangled with the issue of language as early as the seventies. Lee Campbell, the founder of CUB, just reminded me that I argued for the term ‘natural mother’ because it was the one used in all the historical texts. It was the term I used in my memoir Twice Born, which came out in 1975. And I still prefer it. But somehow the struggle with the agencies and adoptive parent groups narrowed down to ‘birth mother’ and ‘biological mother.’” ….
Why the huge effort to discredit CUB and demonstrate that they did not coin the stupid term? (And yes, it has a word that has caused damage, and no, I would never use it myself, even as identifying shorthand)
Is the idea to persuade people that CUB was in fact hand-in-glove with the adoption industry? Sort of a conspiracy theory?
Bastardette wrote on her blog, “If it is BJ Lifton and her work or her language that is “forgotten” or excluded now, who is forgotten and excluded next? Jean Paton? Florence Fisher? Lee Campbell? Joe Soll? Helen Hill? Bastard Nation? The AAC? CUB? Origins? You?”
Looks like it’s Lee Cambell who’s up next for the chop.
I honestly DON’T think that any one who has truly aided in the first unsteady steps of adoption reform is on the “chopping block.” This was merely a matter of setting the record straight about a derogatory term.
HOWEVER, CUB is sitting in the midst of and being held hostage by a group of people who seem to be very threatened by anyone who wants to take the fight further than they have. They seem to be too content to rest on their laurels and don’t want to address what I thought was the real purpose of the group..the needs of parents who lost children to adoption. Adopted people have BN…up until recently, I thought that we had CUB. I no longer think that.
Everything seems centered around open records and the needs of the adoptees, and we who are trying to find justice, healing and redress for mothers of loss, equal access to records along with adopted people and who want to prevent future adoption tragedies such as ours, are seen as angry militants and have been characterized as strident and “immature.”
It takes one to know one, I would guess, then. With the strident rantings against people like Joe Soll and others being allowed on the CUB forum, it is hard to see the worth of the group as a whole. There seem to be too many ego and control issues for my taste.
As an organization, CUB no longer meets my needs as a Mother of Adoption Loss. AAC is also way too cozy with “the adoption option” for my comfort zone. We have to pick and choose our directions and mine don’t jibe with theirs. I guess down the line we’ll know what worked best, won’t we?
Kippa, I don’t think you see the point at all. No-one is trying to discredit CUB. Some people like Mirah Riben have been stridently expounding that BECAUSE Lee Campbell “invented” the term birth[ ]mother (with and w/o the space), that exiled mothers MUST keep using it for ourselves in order to “Honour Our Past”. HOWEVER, proof is being uncovered that Lee did NOT “invent” it. You are coming in in the middle of the debate and missing what started it: Mirah’s blog and MAC’s pontifications on the CUB message board.
Again, an adopter tries to tell us what to do, tries to tell us to keep quiet and accept being good little incubators, tries to silence us and make us be only breeders, only incubators, i.e. only birthmothers. Another adopter who wants to deny us any bond, any relationship with our lost children past the birth canal. Because that’s what the term “birthmother” means. A birther, broodmare, and conveniently fertile uterus. A word that tells us “Thanks for the baby and now go away and shut up because the ONLY mother is the one who has adopted your child.” Yeah, right.
I don’t think you realize how dehumanizing it is to be reduced to being a genital (reproductive) function. The term “birthmother” amputates a woman at the waist — amputates all heart, all mind, all voice.
I have no need to discredit anyone, nor that is my intent. What got me annoyed was all the wrangling OVER the term and the questions and mystery around it all..there were really just too many people trying to get this great claim to fame. My answer is usualy..just get to the root of the issue…find out the truth.
I am not trying to put Lee in a bad light at all..and clearly can see what she has done as a pioneer. I am not even blasting her for compromising on a name..but I do think that if we are expected to honor a heritage..then we should know what exactly we are honoring. And I can’t help the industry keep us in a controlling place. It’s kind of like how the US rewrote american history to make them look good..nice story, but not the truth.
I have always said that I do not know the true intentions of the meaning of the word..becasue I was not there…but digging it up..that’s pretty close..at least it works for me. And it is becoming much clearer that the word WAS favored by the adoption professionals..and was to make them and the adopted parents happy and more comfortable. The truth should not hurt people. If I am popping bubbles..so be it..I didn’t blow them up and call them truth.
As far as I see it..things evolve and we have to take things to the next higher level. Maybe having one word like grandparents WAS a great move 30 years ago, but what was atempted to be achieved by that move has been done so and then made into overkill and now used against us. It is time to move on.
The past is our foundation, it is what supports us, it is our roots and we need to learn from it…keeping us trapped in a prefix has NOT helped the cause at all..nor had the effect of making us non treatening to adoptive parents, or had them join us in the battles for reform. Oh yeah, progress has been made, but not huge sweeping forces like what can and should be..I would hope that those who broke ground before us can only be happy that others are joining the fight with renewed vigor and dedication. But, if it becomes a pissing match over who did what work and who is not listening to who..please. There is enough things that need to be done that there is room for everyone. Leave the ego at the door. I can’t be bothered..I have work to do!
ARK, I fully understand the negative implications of the “b” word, which is why I don’t use it to describe myself, or any other mother who has lost a child to adoption. And whether I see the point or not is a matter of opinion. Mine differs from yours in that respect.
Perhaps “chopping block” was coming on a bit strong – but WHY, I ask, is it so important to discover exactly what, where, when, and by whom the term was “invented”, if not to show that CUB effectively conspired with the adoption industry? Or, if not actually conspired, at least willfully capitulated?
I’m not a CUB member nor ever have been, but this to me has a quality of muckracking about it.
Yes, the word, however it came about, has been co-opted by the adoption industryand, and no, it wasn’t a good term in the first place. But many people realise that, and gradually, as it should, it will disappear from usage. Maybe it will be possible to find one person to pin it onto, but I can’t imagine that there’ll ever be definitive proof. Sometimes the same word almost magically pops up in different places at the same time without it being possible to clearly attribute it to any one source. That’s the way of the zeitgeist.
I’m not afraid of the truth in any shape or form, and it is clear that there IS a concerted effort being made to find proof that CUB were the pawns of the adoption industry. Guilt by association.
Since I don’t use the term myself, and have even convinced others not to do so, I can hardly be said to be arguing for “getting trapped in a prefix”.
And frankly, I think there’s more than enough ego going round for me not to take kindly to getting chastised for voicing my own opinion.
I joined CUB nearly 20 years ago.It was the only national group of mothers of loss at the time..and the group provided me with a written description of how the organization decided on the name. It was just what has been posted here…they decided on “birthmother” instead of natural mother to appease the adopters, in hopes of getting their support for opening records, and to gain the trust that adopters would not sabotage the reunion relationships.(which, of course, did not work, but with so little knowledge of reunion issues at the time they did not know that).CUB also supported, in writing at that time, open records for mothers as well as adopted people.
I hated the name birthmother and I did not agree with their reasoning…but they offered me wonderful support and search help(which was successful)and they were clearly against adoption.
This was a shock to me because I didn’t know that other mothers felt the same way I did,having been conditioned to think that everyone but me liked adoption. It was hard for me to even trust that they really meant what they said…that families like mine should have been preserved, but they did mean that and I saw how they encouraged young mothers to keep their children and offered them help.
CUB leaders like now-deceased Carole Anderson and Janet Fenton will always have my respect.Carole Anderson even went on tv and was interviewed by arch-adopter Barbara Walters, during the baby Jessica war, in which CUB supported the natural parents and referred them to their lawyer.All CUB groups got a lot of hate mail during that time…which can be frightening.But the natural family did win that custody battle.
There are many anti-adoption people in CUB…there always have been.
I think the birth words were a mistake and that there was never any chance that adopters would “accept reunions better” if we called ourselves beemoms, nor did it help us to demean ourselves. Early CUB people also tried to work with adoption agencies, hoping to gain respect that way..another mistake..but one which other mothers who came years later into reform work have also made. CUB leaders were guilty only of being naive, from what I can see.( I am not talking here about the known bullies..we know who they are..they do not represent the thousands of mothers who have been CUB members over the past 30 years)
Now, it is clear that the name no longer fits …but they should not be attacked for decisions that were made 30 years ago, and which they have always been open about.
Now if the name would change, and many CUB members do want that, it would be a step in the right direction in fully reclaiming what was supposed to be ours from the beginning..our motherhood, unadulterated.
momkat, I really hope that what you say is a realistic assessment of CUB, the organization. The fact is, however, that on their forum, there are a few very strident voices who have more or less let us know that people who are anti-adoption are unwelcome and “misguided” in THEIR exalted opinions. If a Mom dares to debate or refute anything they say, she faces moderation or being bumped right off the board. Right now, these strident and self-important folks are CUB’s biggest liability along with the fact that there are those who adopt, at least one known adoption facilitator and one or two really Mom-hating adoptees working the organization and the forum.
While I don’t see every adopter as irredemable (I can’t say the same about facilitators), I don’t think that any organization that wants true and effective reform for the Parents of Adoption Loss can attain that reform while sleeping with the enemy. Let’s face facts..it is simply not in the adopter’s best interests to make the kind of reform possible that will even more drastically reduce the number of healthy infants available for adoption on the domestic level. It is also NOT in an adopter’s best interests to endorse true familial relationships between adoptees and their found families.
Right now, there is a desperate need for real education directed at the general public on the many problems of adoption. That education can’t be of the milktoast, watered-down variety if it is to be effective. If you have an adoption facilitator, a known mom-hater and a “good beemommie” running the show at the organization’s forum and advocating the status quo, anything else that CUB might try to do is drowned out in their noise.
I know several anti-adoption folks who also have CUB memberships. A couple are resigning soon and others just stay there to see how that particular wind is blowing. They tend to keep their lips zipped because of the experiences they have had of being summarily blown off should they speak up.
I don’t debate the fact that CUB has made some important progress in the past, but in the here and now, their message is, in my opinion, being sadly diluted by a kind of timidity and their seeming need to be all things to all people. You can’t make an omelet if you don’t break a few eggs. The tippy-toeing on eggshells, that I have observed, to try to keep everyone (including adopters and facilitators) “happy” isn’t going to do the job.
Support is only a part of their purported purpose. The rest is languishing by the wayside, IMO.
MomKat…I think that is a very realitic view of CUB as a whole..and I agree..some things did not work and some things should be changed. To me that is progress.
Again, I am not attacking..I understand the decisions…I just don’t want to be bound to them…nor do I want them to be made legondary based on what sounds good.
Ah Kippa…you know I love ya! And it boggles me honestly that we differ in this respect, but I can agree to disagree with you! I know you know the scoop and walk the walk..so hey..we ain’t all the same..I can deal!!
And mudracking? Nah..I think it does make sense to know the truth of the word..if it was used/ capulated/ compromised whatever..becasue when someway says “Well why don’t you want to be called a birthmother? What is wrong with that?” I CAN say..well it was a term made up to appease adoptive parents, by an adoptive parent ( even if I think I can rather like ol’Pearl..she also said some good things about keeping moms and kids togther)and fostered by an adoption preofessional, and then compromised by moms who were trying to get the professinals and adopters to respct them and work wth them but that didn’t come to pass”..and I WANT to be able to say that with confidence..I want to speak the truth..and I want the facts to back me up..
And you know..this is all jackies fault anyway..lol She got me going on this!
Robin,
I am aware of the CUB internet forum which was started a couple of years ago. I was on it briefly and left for exactly the reasons you have stated. There were rude mom-hating BN members(I already knew who they were) and a couple of bullying mothers whom I have never liked.This is not the organization CUB. It is simply an internet forum, which was open to the public, including mom-hating BN members.(and I also know some mom-loving BN members..but they were not on the forum.)
None of the CUB members from my group were on the forum. Our group is run by mothers of loss, and most members do not participate in forums. We work with face to face support and also in policy and legislation..we participate in local politics.
Here are some recent quotes from the most recent CUB newsletter, in answer to a survey taken of members and their interests, activist feelings and wishes for change:
From Patty Collings CUB national treasurer:
“[I am turned off by]the belief that todays open adoption is the solution [and]the blind acceptance that adoption “will never go away.” My larger wish is that communities would support pregnant women so that they would not have to consider adoption .I think that Rickie Solinger is correct when she says that”adoption exists on the backs of resourceless women.”
Another typical comment from CUB member Linda:”I hope others will realize how corrupt the adoption agencies really are. Adoption reform is still only about the adoptive parents and their rights.”
From CUB member Joy, a former CUB leader, when asked what she is “turned off by’: “People agree that adoptees should have access to records when they are an adult but generally they have a big problem allowing that same opportunity to the surrendering parents.”and “I got burnt out mostly by adoptees.They all seem to talk a good talk while searching and then as soon as their found mother starts to really warm up to the reunion and opens the door..those same adoptees start backing away and making excuses. I saw it happen too many times.”
From CUB member and former regional director Delayn: “We b…parents deserve completely open records on our children all through their lives.”
From CUB member and author/searcher Sandy Musser: “I went to prison'[for doing adoption searches ]
All of the above comments were taken from the current summer/fall issue of the CUB Communicator newsletter. CUB also has a closed internet CHAT for members, not the same as the CUB-all forum.
Although there are still CUB members who are naive and think we can be friends with adopters, that adoption cannot be abolished or at least chnged to guardianship, and that we ‘owe’ adoptees ….I think that the average CUB mother wants rights for parents and family preservation…which is best for us. I know many others whose thinking is very similar to yours. The ones you have been talking to are the mouthy bullies and, I agree with you, they are the greatest liability that CUB has. And I have voiced my opinion on this to CUB leaders…BN members should not speaking for CUB and bullying mothers do not belong on such a forum.
I like Momkat!
I like you too, Claud. and I like Robin…and any of the mothers who are working for change in this country to overcome the adoption monster machine. Personally, I do not wish to have much contact with adopters or agencies but I have come to realize that if we work in public policy we will be facing the enemy,… NCFA, adopters groups , and so-called childrens advocates groups like Hear My voice. We have to devise and develop our own strategies and activism to try to wake up the country to the fact that every natural family is at risk. The government wants to be the parent and have control over who raises the children. It is really frightening.
Unfortunately, the CUB-all forum is perceived to be “the public face of CUB.” Joined it. Was screamed at by Cohen. Saw that antiadoption people aren’t welcome there. Left it. Hope their board of directors either “cuts it loose” entirely or moderates it according to the CUB mandate, as right now it obviously give people the wrong idea about CUB.
ARK,
I totally agree and I know a CUB leader who has also said that Cohen is the biggest liability.She screams and ridicules people.And you are right that the public forum gives the idea that the whole organization is like that, but it is not.
I don’t think that those that are damaging Cub’s rep by speaking through the forum are just Cohen and angry BN adoptees. There is also a known adoption facilitator and Moms in denial who work for agencies on that board and too many of the posts are way too adoption-friendly for my tastes.
I still have to disagree (as Claud knows I do) on the necessity of including the adopters in the fight for reform. My trust level is very low, there. I truly believe that it is a very non-productive “partnership.” Just as I see adopters involving themselves in reunions in order to control the outcome and keep the adoptee in line with their own agenda, so I also see many adopters that become interested in “adoption reform.” I think that beneath the “reform efforts” of many (not all) adopters is the priority to control the reform agenda in order to see that adoption, especially THEIR adoption, continues to exist.
I would like to think that CUB is not defined by the more vicious members of the forum, but there still seems to be that faction within the heirarchy of the organization that truly seems to have a problem with moving forward. I also think that, if CUB were to live up to its purpose and potential, there would be a lot more education for the Mother of Loss and help for the kind of low slef-esteem and deep denial I have observed on the forum. “Good Beemommies” don’t make for effective reformers.
RIGHT ON ROBIN! The fact that the word “birthmother” was chosen by CUB at all indicates that adopters got their agendas in there right from the start. That CUB got to “play the game” only if they used a name that erased our motherhood. You are right on about many adopters wanting control, because that’s what most are used to. Power and control. They had the power to take our babies. We were rendered powerless to keep our babies. They have emotional control over reunions much of the time while we are powerless to do anything but wait for crumbs to be thrown our direction. In open adoptions they have TOTAL control over how much contact a mother can have with her child. She has to dance like a puppet for them to ensure that they don’t close the adoption.
In my last blog post (Sept 9) i covered this topic. What is and have been the goals of adoption reform as practiced by adopters? Pre-birth consents, shorter (or no) revocation periods, sealed records, amended (falsified) birth records, infant adoption awareness act, etc. Adopters lobbied for all of these. The NCFA represents adopters and agencies. That is THEIR national lobby group.
Having said that, I have no problem with former adopters, those that have given back the child and apologized for their part in the coercion.
But I see few adopters though lobbying for laws that help annul adoptions, allow a child to have more than two legal parents, or fighting the practice of issuing false birth records or sealing-up records to begin with, so I’m not convinced that those who say they are in favor of reform are sincere. They still want that child as their own and no-one else’s.
“Having said that, I have no problem with former adopters, those that have given back the child and apologized for their part in the coercion.”
I understand a lot of what is being said here, but this comment above, from ARK, makes me curious. What of adoptees like me whose mom’s wouldn’t have taken us back? We do exist.
hi joy — to clarify: i believe that the adult adoptee should of course “get the last word” on any decision about who their family is. when the child is a minor, the adults involved of course would have to be responsible for annulment or re-adoption.
i’m sorry to hear that your mother feels this way. i hope things improve for you.
Robin and ARK,I also agree that adopters have no place in “reform” for parental rights….they are not parents…and they have participated in the government’s program to steal other peoples children.They hate us natural parents….they only want to take our children…and then obliterate us.
I have made it a personal practice in my life to never become friends with any adopters, starting nearly 40 years ago(when I was very young), when I lost my child.. Many of my mother friends have not lived their lives this way, having acquired adopters as friends, and then when the mothers reunited with their stolen children they found themselves in great conflict with their adopter friends..usually the friendships ended, of course.
Regarding CUB groups, there are a number of them around the country and each one can run itself independently. WE do not have to allow adopters to participate.CUB supports natural family preservation(in its mission statement) and when lobbying for parents rights, adopters have no CUB role whatsoever, at least not here in my group. CUB does not represent adopters’ rights. The only part of the mission statement that has any relevance to adopters is the part that says that CUB has a goal to “educate the public on the life-long impact of adoption on all who are touched by adoption”. At this point, adoption is so widepread that nearly everyone is touched by adoption..it is a very general practice.
The CUB forum, in my opinion, is a liability to the organization, because it gives the impression that the group is proadoption, when it is not.Its mission statement, which is filed with the government(IRS), clearly states its goals to prevent unnecessary family separations, which in my opinion, is nearly all family separations. The fact that a west coast?facilitator? is on the public CUB forum, has no effect on the work we do here. I do not even know her….
Another erroneous statement made by a CUB person on that forum was that CUB supported adopters in its mission statement..this is false..the statement says “the mission” is “to provide support for all family members separated by adoption” This excludes adopters, who are not separated by adoption but are actually the ones who caused the separation.
I am curious to know how many CUB members you know who are gainfully employed by adoption agencies?This is worth exploring.
I do know of some who have spoken to agencies..I have had to do that myself, because of my work in legislation and policy. It is impossible not to, because they will be there in the legislature , whether we like it or not.It is also necessary to know what the enemy’s position is in order to fight it.This is simply strategy. I have spoken, in person,to family court judges, NCFA, LDS family services,hundreds of adopters,Health and Human Services adoption program officials, and many other enemies of natural family preservation.I get regular hate mail and hate calls(from adopters and their supporters) This is all part of the war.
The internet is good for helping to connect people, but the battle will be fought where the policies are made..in the government..and that requires personal appearances and face to face battle with the enemies.
Just a question for you.. CUB does have a number of younger mothers who are in “open adoptions” and between a rock and a hard place.How would you advise them to deal with the adopters of their children? I do get phone calls and emails from these mothers, and their situation is even more conflicted than ours was, even though they know where their children are. They are walking on eggshells all of the time, hoping the adoption won’t close.I think this is why some mothers want to include adopters, even though it actually undermines us.I think they beleive that by including adopters they will be seen as less of a “threat” and therefore be able to keep their open adoption open.At this point in their lives, keeping in contact with their young children now is the only hope they have for a better future.
What would you tell them?
CUB has recently gone thru a lot of changes and I can tell you the forum and the need for moderating the anger was discussed (and is being done as of recently) as well as the possiblity of more activism. There are a LOT of members who would love to completely banish adoption as well as many who would like to see it be more open and NOT a FIRST choice response to pregnancy as well as make it criminal to coerce a perspective mother from her child.
As an adoptee, I have had many arguments with other CUB members about the inclusion/exclusion of adoptees in the group. The way we are asked to be a part as members but not allowed to sit on the board. It’s not a perfect group but it is a supportive group.
As for the term, if we would stop arguing about the language and jsut make it our own and then get on to the real fight of Equal Access for EVERYONE.
Hi Kim.Kim: on the bio thing, it was becuase it was the common social worker term and had a clinical sound to it.
Momkat, Isn’t Brenda R. affiliated with an adoption agency or group? She has made no bones about it elsewhere. And I hold suspect ANY Mom that is awarded an “Angel In Adoption” kudo by the AAC. That’s what really gets my dander up…when Mothers of Loss become poster children for the industry or Judas Goats for agencies.
As for younger moms in “open” adoption situations, I agree that they do have to, at least, have a working relationship with the people who adopted their children. I know a couple of them who post very anonymously on other groups in order to keep their anti-adoption sentiments out of the adopter’s view. The way most of these “agreements” are constructed, and in most states, these Moms do have to tread very carefully or they will lose all contact. Even in the states where such an agreement is enforcable, the legal and popular sentiment supports the adopters. Theirs is a very problematic situation and I don’t expect them to do anything but try to work with the adopters.
There’s an awful lot of educating the public that needs to be done, isn’t there? *sigh
Robin, I have only spoken with Brenda R one time, but I have heard her speak at a conference on open adoption…a number of years ago(not a CUB conference). I think she has some affiliation with Jim Gritter, the adoptionist who works with Catholic Charities in Michigan(he was at the same conference). I think that Brenda lived in Michigan when I talked to her.She is well aware of the serious flaws in open adoption, but her child is now legally an adult, I think, and probably at one time, she had high ideals for open adoption …
I never thought open adoption would work, because it is still adoption and adopters don’t really want us around. And just like you have said, Robin, the mothers have to be sooooo careful…or the adoption will close. I have received quite a number of calls from mothers whose open adoptions have closed(one of them is now a close friend of mine and her child is an adult…her struggle to reopen the adoption was years long and very painful to her).Her/their sense of betrayal is perhaps worse than ours. And very few states honor open adoption agreements.Adopters are still considered the “only parents’ under the law.
I so agree with you about the “angels in adoption” awards!!…I would be insulted if anyone nominated me for one…but if they did, it would probably be because I worked for access to records..for mothers and adoptees.
Wraith: CUB was started as a natural parents support group in 1976.We were the “‘secret side of adoption.” Access to records is only one issue that CUB supports. And yes, we should all have access to the records which identify our lost relatives.CUB supported a CA bill several years ago which would have done that, if it had not been defeated.CUB members have worked for many of he access to records bills.
But CUB has always stood for natural family preservation first and that is not one of the goals of many adoptee’s groups.That is why CUB is different in its goals and why adoptees are not allowed on the board. At our CUB meetings we talk freely about how we wanted our children, how we lost them, and were not allowed to keep them. We do not want to have to allow for “‘equal representation” for the adoptees who would say that they are glad they are adopted and only want open records, even if they say they love their natural mothers.. Adoptees are invited to join and attend meetings, but our agenda is somewhat different from that of adoptees.We listen to the adoptees respectfully, we are glad to be able to share our experiences with them/you,but we are a natural parents group…and we want our pain/tears to be fully heard and supported….not debated nor mitigated by adoptees love for their adopters, or the adopters love for our children. We heard about that when we were pregnant….over and over.
I also belong to adoptee groups which are fighting for access to OBCs and I support that.But I have noticed that these adoptees are not interested in helping fight for natural parents rights in keeping their children(I have asked them many times). I have never been able to get any adoptees to support that, except for one adoptee I know, who testified for mothers in the legislature here.
Adoptees generally do love their adoptive family and honor their relationship with them, even though they want to have access to their OBC and natural family: natural mothers(fathers too) lost their children in illegal and unconstitutional schemes, which violated our motherhood and our human and civil right to be parents. We did not *gain* anything from adoption. We really have a very different perspective, and that is why we need parents’ rights groups to represent our perspective.
“As for the term, if we would stop arguing about the language and jsut make it our own and then get on to the real fight …”
So, Wraith, is this the FINAL WORD and POLICY of CUB regarding the word “birthmother”? That we should all just shut up and love that word?
I guess that we should also just shut up and love being called sluts and whores also because that’s what they called us for having sex outside marriage. And maybe African Amercans should have shut up fifty years ago and “made the n-word” their own too?
A word that pegs me as being a walking uterus with NO relationship with my lost child past the birth canal is NOT a word I ever will “claim as my own.”
If I am a “birthmother” then my fiance was the “ejaculation father” and you as an adoptee are NOTHING more than a product of conception. Pretty dehumanizing, isn’t it?
yes, because I said CUB states.. oh wait I didn’t say CUB said it I said it.
We aren’t atlking about the words sluts and whores, we were talking about birthmother and birthparents as one word. My point was that keeping birth in it as in the beginning of a person and the link to the past as an honored name is valid but instead of all the infighting about the word, let’s work on abolishing the NEED for the word to even exist. As for African American, growing up and even today I have heard many people of color call another negro without consequences so I think in many cases they have made it their own.
See you feel that birthmom is “pegs me as being a walking uterus with NO relationship with my lost child past the birth canal” whereas I see it as a word that denotes the important role my birthmother has in my life. Without her I wouldn’t exist. My birth to her is my link to my history, family, blood, and genetics. (which is a description I got from a birthmother.)
However, my point was that instead of arguing which word we want to use, just use the one you are comfortable with and let’s go after equal access for everyone, no matter what the wording.
Wraith, i respect the historical and genetic link that birth provides, the link with the human race, but i think it can be done with a term that is more respectful than one that says that i’m NOT the mother of the adult child who now calls me “Mom”.
the word “birthmother” is part of the “Respectful Adoption Language” campaign and RAL contrasts “birthmother” with “mother” saying that a “birthmother” WAS the mother at birth, until the surrender, but the adoptee’s [SOLE] mother and father are the people who adopted. thus, we’re reduced to reproduction functions only. thus calling a woman a “birthmother” tells her that she is not a mother any longer, was a mother for birthing-purposes-only, and is thus nothing more than an incubator. that the only mother is the adoptive mother.
the term was created and defined by the adoption industry to label us.
i wish that CUB had not chosen to use it. it looks like the industry told them they were allowed to use either ‘birth’ or ‘biological’ but nothing else. gee, a coerced choice by the industry – this sounds familiar. even this is reason not to use it as even the name choice by CUB was an example of coercion.
Two examples of R.A.L. and WHY the term “birthmother” makes us into walking reproductive organs, denying that we are mothers:
1) a social worker (baby broker) promotes “R.A.L.” http://www.perspectivespress.com/pjpal.html
“Those who raise and nurture a child are his parents: his mother, father, mommy, daddy, etc. Those who conceive and give birth to a child are his birthparents: his birthmother and birthfather.” [i.e. incubator and fertilizer!]
2) an “adoption facilitator” (baby broker) again promotes R.A.L.: http://www.coopadopt.com/birthmothersupport.html
“Birthmothers are just that and no more or less.”
I.e. all we are are incubators. only there for the birth, not mothers, no connection or relationship at ALL with our lost children. Only a womb, vagina, placenta, and circulatory system.
Just like the car industry has terminology, so does the adoption industry. “birthmother” is one of their terms in the “Respectful Adoption Language” campaign. And it does not show respect for anyone other than adopters. This word circumscribes our role as beginning with conception and ending on the delivery table.
I wish CUB hadn’t been suckered into using this term.
Wraith, I assume that you are talking about ‘equal access to records”…to be frank with you, I would rather see families kept together in the first place. Equal access to records, after the fact of a family split, is hardly going to fix the damage.
If the US had a family preservation policy, we wouldn’t have to be so concerned with records access or with what words to call mothers.
I agree, Momkat. Where i live, we have had “equal access to records” since 1996. This enabled me to find my son when he was 19.
The problem IS, that birth records are STILL falsified in the first place and the real ones sealed for 19 years. As well, it also means “equal opportunity to file disclosure vetoes.” Why do any of this to begin with?
The problem also is that fear of poverty is forcing many young jobless mothers to surrender their infants. So, many MORE families are being broken up for adoption. If you apply for welfare you only get it for 3 years max and a minimum wage job won’t cover a place to live, daycare, food etc.
I agree that if records are opened for one party, they should be opened for both. Alberta, Newfoundland, B.C. and soon Ontario will all have this system. It doesn’t take away from the damage that the original human-rights-abusing crime did in the first place though.
Open Records is a Motherhood Issue.
This is a belated comment. I came from Wraith’s post (found Wraith via KimKim). THANK you for this historical overview of the term. It is really enlightening, not just about the term but about how PAL is really just spin and marketing.
After a year or so of reading adoptee and first parent blogs, adoption dot com’s instructions for speaking PAL really strikes. My favorite word jam is birthmother/father. (But she doesn’t believe in using the term birthfather because of the obvious lack of vaginal canal, however, the baby cannot be born without his sperm–omg what a convoluted mess.)
I have read this PAL essay as a waiting AP (during my homestudy, no family assessment, no preadoption counseling) and totally missed how utterly condescending it is toward first parents. If you really love your “birthchild” (another odd word merger), you will forgo the use of “natural” parents? WTF?
Also, I had forgotten it was unPC to say renunion! Even if the first mom did not get to hold her infant, they had at the very minimum met via uterus and umbilical cord for pete’s sake.
I am trying to eliminate the use of birthmother from my language but it is toughest when talking to people who think it is the only appropriate word. It’s been well sold. KImKim really got through to me when she eliminated the B part from a comment I left her, and I realized that just saying mom, mother, parent without a preceding word (including first) made me feel really defensive. Bingo! This is how the language serves adoptive parents–it protects us from the reality that the child was not ours before the judge said and buffers us from the possibility of having to share what can never be totally ours.
Sorry I do tend to go on when someone lights one of my bulbs.