"It must be hard to love an adopted child as much as your own."
I heard that line at the end of the preview for The Orphan and it made me cringe and seeth and in the middle of a crowded movie theatre, I shouted: "No it isn't, ASSHOLES!!!"
I had thoughts of boycotts and tersely written letters and blog hammerings, but then I started to wonder why I would dedicate the effort.
Speaking as a horror movie junkie, I am well aware that the majority of these movies get precious little hype and sneak away quietly after a weekend and end up in the previously viewed bin for $3.99, just 2 months later.
The Orphan would be no different.
Now of course, the adoptive parents, prospective adoptive parents, adoptees and first parents who have been so angered by yet another potrayal of a damaged adoptee, have pretty much guaranteed Warner Bros. some HUGE bank.
And I would be holding the picket sign along with them.
But not now.
Why?
It's JUST A MOVIE!!!!
If it were a documentary or a study... something based on science... something damaging based on untruths spouted by psuedo professionals.
Nope, I imagine a couple of people sat in a room and said we need to make some money and the best way to do that would not be to waste time on plot. This is a formulaic story with nothing new here. The only innovation is in the amount of money this movie will make... because of us.
Well, not me. Not anymore.
Don't boost crap, people.
One word: Eminem.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Victimology
It scares me the way that women are often infantalized by other women. We turn ourselves into victims, but only when it suits us. Women claiming rape when they regret having sex. Women claiming sexual harrassment when they grabbed a little ass first. Women claiming past abuse as an excuse to hurt or neglect their children. Women claiming coersion when they relinquish their babies for adoption.
I read The Girls That Went Away so I believe that coersion exists, however, I also think it was it was a product of the social and political construct of the time. In the 50's, single motherhood was simply not acceptable. But in the 21st century... sorry, not buying it. I have read blogs and forums where countless women were claiming they were coerced, pressured or downright forced to relinquish their children... why? Well according to them it was because of the bias against unwed motherhood. Um, where exactly do you live? In the Western world, there is abolutely, positively NO stigma against single motherhood. Hell, even the taboo against teen motherhood is quickly fading. Sure, some family or community members may not be jazzed about it, but it doesn't change that our society as a whole accepts it, which is the inherent difference between the women of the 21st century and the women of the Baby Scoop Era.
People cannot take from you what you do not allow. Human beings are capable of great manipulation and they can turn it on, but it doesn't mean you have to acquiese. And the wireless world we live in where information is out there on the web for the taking, well sorry, ignorance just doesn't cut it either. Young women now are so information savvy and technologically sophisticated that they can get any info they are looking for without solely having to rely on adoption agencies or "birthparent counselllors" who pershaps have an agenda contrary to their own.
I believe that ultimately no one can take from you what you do not allow. This will be an extremely unpopular opinion, however, after reading so many blogs I have come to believe that many women who now claim coercion did in fact relinquish their babies, not because they were forced, but because a part of them wanted it to happen. They wanted life to go back to the way it was before. They wanted to reclaim who they were before the pregnancy. They wanted their families to look at them the way they used to. They wanted a piece of their innocence back. They wanted things to be simple again. Then, when they realized that there really is no such thing as going backwards, they see they've made a mistake and instead of accepting that they made a decision based on what they believed to be true at the time, they claim coercion.
Coercion is more palatable than complacency.
I do not believe that first mothers should feel guilty for placing their children for adoption (regardless of the reasons). Nor do I feel they are saints or sinners or heroes or abandoners. I believe they are women who made the best decision they could with what they knew.
I also do not believe that the majority are coerced. I just don't. Are some? Sure. I am not naive enough to believe it never happens, but if you are part of the cyber adopto-world, you would start thinking that it was an epidemic and I'm not buying it. North American adoption rates of white, healthy newborns is too low for coercion to be such a powder keg. A trip to the mall food court to see the very young mothers doting on their infants is a visual reminder that young women now are not so easily coerced out of their children. So what makes them different from women who ultimately do relinquish? Familial support? A sense of personal strength. Perhaps. But would that make all relinquishing mothers weak women. I don't think so.
I think guilt is a master and rewriting history comes easy when you are surrounded by other women who are telling you to absolve yourself of responsibility; that you in fact are not responsible; you did not make an adoption plan - you were coerced. The idea of being coerced may breed a rage, but a sense of injustice is a lot easier to digest than facing the questions and blame that may come from their adult children who may one day demand answers. Telling your relinquished child that you were forced to give them up instead of telling them that you made the best decision you could, probably feels a lot more weightless, but it doesn't make it any more true.
My motto: You are responsible for your life. Everything is a choice.
I read The Girls That Went Away so I believe that coersion exists, however, I also think it was it was a product of the social and political construct of the time. In the 50's, single motherhood was simply not acceptable. But in the 21st century... sorry, not buying it. I have read blogs and forums where countless women were claiming they were coerced, pressured or downright forced to relinquish their children... why? Well according to them it was because of the bias against unwed motherhood. Um, where exactly do you live? In the Western world, there is abolutely, positively NO stigma against single motherhood. Hell, even the taboo against teen motherhood is quickly fading. Sure, some family or community members may not be jazzed about it, but it doesn't change that our society as a whole accepts it, which is the inherent difference between the women of the 21st century and the women of the Baby Scoop Era.
People cannot take from you what you do not allow. Human beings are capable of great manipulation and they can turn it on, but it doesn't mean you have to acquiese. And the wireless world we live in where information is out there on the web for the taking, well sorry, ignorance just doesn't cut it either. Young women now are so information savvy and technologically sophisticated that they can get any info they are looking for without solely having to rely on adoption agencies or "birthparent counselllors" who pershaps have an agenda contrary to their own.
I believe that ultimately no one can take from you what you do not allow. This will be an extremely unpopular opinion, however, after reading so many blogs I have come to believe that many women who now claim coercion did in fact relinquish their babies, not because they were forced, but because a part of them wanted it to happen. They wanted life to go back to the way it was before. They wanted to reclaim who they were before the pregnancy. They wanted their families to look at them the way they used to. They wanted a piece of their innocence back. They wanted things to be simple again. Then, when they realized that there really is no such thing as going backwards, they see they've made a mistake and instead of accepting that they made a decision based on what they believed to be true at the time, they claim coercion.
Coercion is more palatable than complacency.
I do not believe that first mothers should feel guilty for placing their children for adoption (regardless of the reasons). Nor do I feel they are saints or sinners or heroes or abandoners. I believe they are women who made the best decision they could with what they knew.
I also do not believe that the majority are coerced. I just don't. Are some? Sure. I am not naive enough to believe it never happens, but if you are part of the cyber adopto-world, you would start thinking that it was an epidemic and I'm not buying it. North American adoption rates of white, healthy newborns is too low for coercion to be such a powder keg. A trip to the mall food court to see the very young mothers doting on their infants is a visual reminder that young women now are not so easily coerced out of their children. So what makes them different from women who ultimately do relinquish? Familial support? A sense of personal strength. Perhaps. But would that make all relinquishing mothers weak women. I don't think so.
I think guilt is a master and rewriting history comes easy when you are surrounded by other women who are telling you to absolve yourself of responsibility; that you in fact are not responsible; you did not make an adoption plan - you were coerced. The idea of being coerced may breed a rage, but a sense of injustice is a lot easier to digest than facing the questions and blame that may come from their adult children who may one day demand answers. Telling your relinquished child that you were forced to give them up instead of telling them that you made the best decision you could, probably feels a lot more weightless, but it doesn't make it any more true.
My motto: You are responsible for your life. Everything is a choice.
Must be hard
Today a group of adoptees who have close relationships with their adoptive parents and first parents were complaining about having all these family members and how hard it is.
Yea, having so many people love you, wow, that's really gotta suck.
P.S. I think the web breeds a lack of perspective.
Yea, having so many people love you, wow, that's really gotta suck.
P.S. I think the web breeds a lack of perspective.
Happy Mother's Day
I have the best mom in the world. I hope her special gifts of being empathetic and kind and supportive have passed along to me and I can be the same kind of mother to my children.
LUV YA, MOM!!!!!
LUV YA, MOM!!!!!
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Octumom didn't screw me over
Ever since Nadya Suleman popped out a litter, a bevy of duchess-lovers are lighting up the torches. They apparently "feel for me."
"It's not fair," they say.
Because they love me, they have decided that no one, anywhere, ever, deserves a child quite like I do.
I appreciate the sentiment, I really do. But I am fairly certain that Nadya Suleman has never heard of me. So I have to believe that while she was getting jacked up, embryo-wise, she wasn't cackling about screwing me over.
They regale me with rumours of CPS raids and auction blocks and that I should "get in there." Hmmmm, me thinks not.
I'm keeping my cute paws off her progeny. I don't want her children. She wants her children. I am irritated that she decided spending her disability checks on new lips and new mouths to feed instead of attending to the small soccer team she already had, but as deluded and in denial and scared she must be (and she's gotta be scared, folks), she wants those kids. She'll find a way to raise them... and the Discovery Channel I am sure will lend a hand.
I know my daughter is in China. I know I have a son or daughter in foster care as well. I don't know who they are or where exactly they are, but I do know that they do not have parents that are willing or able to parent them.
My Duchess-lovers do not understand this of course, but no worries, Nadya, you have nothing to fear from me.
"It's not fair," they say.
Because they love me, they have decided that no one, anywhere, ever, deserves a child quite like I do.
I appreciate the sentiment, I really do. But I am fairly certain that Nadya Suleman has never heard of me. So I have to believe that while she was getting jacked up, embryo-wise, she wasn't cackling about screwing me over.
They regale me with rumours of CPS raids and auction blocks and that I should "get in there." Hmmmm, me thinks not.
I'm keeping my cute paws off her progeny. I don't want her children. She wants her children. I am irritated that she decided spending her disability checks on new lips and new mouths to feed instead of attending to the small soccer team she already had, but as deluded and in denial and scared she must be (and she's gotta be scared, folks), she wants those kids. She'll find a way to raise them... and the Discovery Channel I am sure will lend a hand.
I know my daughter is in China. I know I have a son or daughter in foster care as well. I don't know who they are or where exactly they are, but I do know that they do not have parents that are willing or able to parent them.
My Duchess-lovers do not understand this of course, but no worries, Nadya, you have nothing to fear from me.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Labels are for Campbell's Soup
So much of adoption is a bitch contest. I am a woman and I have no illusions about our sex: we are territorial. Not so much over things - someone do the dishes, please - but rather over people. My husband. My friends. My kids. In adoption, where emotions have been rubbed raw and dressed with a lemon wedge, well, MY kids becomes more of a threat than anything endearing. I have read blogs and forums where perfectly rational and sane adults de-evolve into high school bitches tearing off their tops in a cat fight over who gets to wear the sash of "real mother." First mothers claim that they own the title and have the stretch marks and episiotomy scars to prove it: "their blood runs through my veins." While adoptive mothers slap back that 9 months of eating snicker doodles by the gallon does not make one a mother. After all, adoptive moms are the ones who near insanity from crying, wiping pee from the walls, making 300 cookies for the school bakesale with 20 minutes notice and taking the heat when they say no way in hell are you going out wearing those fuck-me boots. But who threw down the gauntlet in the first place? Who is challenging our motherhood? Does it devalue your motherhood to recognize another mother? Mothers give birth. Mothers raise. First and adoptive mothers are 2 halfs of the whole with equally important roles. I've always said: "if it walks like a duck and loves like a duck..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)