Birth-First Parent Blog

07/25/07

Can We Assign Our Own Titles, Please?

Posted by : Jenna Hatfield in Birth-First Parent Blog at 05:00 am , 1212 words, 504 views  
Categories: Birth/First Parents and Language
Title Me? When I first came to write for AdoptionBlogs, I stated my preference in referring to myself as a first mother. I also stated that I do respond to birth mother and use both terms with some frequency in my writing. I haven't revisited the topic since that time. However, after some recent hubbub on the internet and in the blogosphere, I'm wondering if it isn't time to revisit it in a different manner.

I stated my personal preference. Quite a few people commented with legitimate questions as to how to refer to the general public when writing so as not to offend. I offered up general ideas. However, that was almost nine months ago. In other places (like forums, blogs and general discussion), the terminology subject seems to have resurfaced for many various reasons. People are on edge again. Yet this time, instead of some confusion over which term is appropriate for usage, we're running into another problem:

People who don't belong to a specific side of the triad demanding that the members of that part of the triad accept the name that they deem most appropriate.

I won't claim to speak for the entire relinquishing triad. I know that there are many of us who all prefer to be titled something slightly different. I write about myself by using first mother and first mom. Some are comfortable with birth mother. There are others who, for their specific reasons as one mother stated on the comments of that first post, prefer to be called a biological mother. There are others who do prefer the less socially accepted titles of natural and/or real mother.

I've always basically believed it is akin to the many different names we take on as individuals, parents and family members. I go by Jenna here on the blogs and in most of my real life. However, that is not my given first name. (If you were born in the early 80's, chances are you're related to or know someone who shares my first name.) Certain family members of mine actually still refer to me with my childhood nickname of Jenny; I don't go by that in my everyday life and, honestly, sometimes it makes me cringe. However, I respond to it because I love the people who use it. My everyday son calls me "Mummy." Someday I assume he'll shorten it to Mom/Mum. When he's angry or trying to prove a point, he might use Mother. He refers to my Mother as YiaYia (pronounced Ya-ya), Greek for grandmother, and my Husband's Mother as Nana. There are many names for the same people.

So what is the current issue? A first mother blogger recently addressed these questions in a post entitled, "You are who I say you are, nothing more!" Her questions may leave some feeling uncomfortable. They've left me scratching my chin and pondering why there is some discontent with naming as of late.

No matter your personal preference as a birth parent as to what you call yourself, her words resound loud and clear as to the issues we're currently dealing with and what needs to be heard.

Why is it that society feels that it’s perfectly acceptable for others to tell us who and what we are - rather than listen to our own collective voices shouting from the rooftop to be heard?

I want to foster change. Not because I think adoptive parents are second best and not because I think I am worthy of being first…but because I should have a say in how others refer to me, I’m not a slave to adoption, assigned a label that my owner likes and thinks is worthy. I am a woman with a voice that deserves to be heard.

Adoption professionals and adoptive parents no longer get the task of telling me who I am - I don’t relinquish my ability to think when I relinquish my right to parent my child. If I’m so courageous and wonderful, then listen to my words!

SPONSOR
http://www.omnitrace.com/Birth-Family.html


Her Other Mother is a fan of the term first mother but other mothers who want to be called x, y or z title can also benefit from reading her post and going out to talk in their own spaces (blogs, forums, real life) about the question she is posing: What can we, as those who have to wear and bear the title, do to instill the idea that calling us x, y or z name is not an insult to adoptive parents, adoptees or society at large. Again, it comes down to individual experiences (or, in this case, titles) not negating the individual experiences (or, in this case, titles) of another human being.

A birth parent's title, no matter the wording chosen, doesn't remove the fact that the (adoptive) mother is still the everyday, in-and-out mother of the child they both love and adore. I can't ever, in my wildest dreams, imagine telling a mother, of adoptive nature or otherwise, that she wasn't allowed to use the name that she wanted to with her child. I am not going to tell a mother who cares for her husband's children, who are not biologically hers, that she always has to use the determiner of "step." I am not going to demand that a mother who adopted her children never use the familiar term of "mommy." I am not a woman in those roles. Instead, I am a mother who relinquished my child for adoption. I prefer to be called first mother. To be so forward as to try to call me something that removes the word mother completely from my title, such as incubator, is to disrespect not only my entire being but the child as well.

In the end, I think we've listened for far too long to agencies who tell us how to refer to expectant mothers and mothers who have placed a child for adoption. I think it's time to start asking mothers, individually, what they would like to be called. If you're writing a general piece, consider using more than one term (as I frequently do). If you don't want to call an individual birth/first mother what she prefers to be called, don't expect that she will refer to you as you wish to be referred.

I think it's high time that birth parents, on an individual level, start assigning their own titles instead of feeling as though we have to roll over and accept whatever society or another group of people is demanding we wear and bear. Perhaps once we start demanding that respect, society will realize that we don't all fall under the stereotypes that have been in existence for far too long; we are individuals with different stories, different experiences and different desires in what to be called. Ask us about all of that and you may learn something not only about us but something about yourself as well.

//
For more on terminology, read:

1. Adoption Language: Titles and My Preference.

2. When To Use the Term "Birthmother" by Jan Baker.

3. More Terminology: Gave Up What?

4. Or join in the poll and new conversation at the forums: What Do You, as a Birth Parent, Prefer to Be Called?

//
Photo Credit.

Comments, Pingbacks:

Comment from: Sandra Hanks Benoiton [Member] Email · http://international.adoptionblogs.com/
Sounds good to me.

I think I'd like to be called Sam and Cj's "Enduring Mother". It takes the crass legal angle out and replaces it with something that sounds a bit like endearing.
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 08:02
Comment from: erin_d_a [Member] Email
There are frequently big debates on this message board I frequent over this very subject. Many of these women think it is okay to refer to woman as BM, which is a bowel movement.
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 08:06
Comment from: Christine [Member] Email
First mother? Surely you are aware of the perjorative nature of that term? First for the child? Not necessarily in their life going forward.
Reading your blog post, I respect your wish for self determination, and I understand the pain of labels.
Young children don't deal with the esoteric - so 'birth mum' serves very well. There are lovely descriptions and conversations to be had with little ones about babies in birth mummies' tummies and why birth mummies love them and see them.
I see much confusion when children feel insecure about all the 'mothers' - who they live with, who they visit, who gave birth to them, who cares for them, who will be there for them. The adults always say 'they'll work it out'.
Please think of the children. If ever there was a time to put your ego aside, it is now. Just ask yourself what is best for them.
I know we all feel battered, and unloved, and unappreciated sometimes. Often that's when what we are called matters most. Agree with that - just make sure it is not at the child's expense.
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 08:21
Comment from: AdoptionBlogs Editor [Member] Email · http://editor.adoptionblogs.com
I beg to disagree, Christine. It seems to me that First Mum should be just as easy to use. The first mother is the one that eats right and exercises and makes sure that the growing child inside her has everything they need to get a good start in life. They do much more than just give birth.

Is not a pregnant woman a mother?

Certainly, the adoptive mother or "enduring mother", as Sandra so nicely put, is in all the child's memories but the fact that somebody mothered that child long before they had memories should give them the right to be called the first mother.

By denying this, you are denying the right of any pregnant woman to call herself a mother and that, in my mind, is simply ridiculous!
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 08:23
Comment from: soblessed [Member] Email
I like your idea, Sandra :)
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 08:40
Comment from: AdoptionBlogs Editor [Member] Email · http://editor.adoptionblogs.com
Well said, Heather.
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 09:49
Comment from: Heather [Member] Email · http://unproductivereproduction.blogspot.com
I can understand the feelings of adoptive parents who are uncomfortable with the term "first mom" (although I still think they should consider using it out of respect to the women who prefer that title). But I fail to see how "first mom" is pejorative for the child.

I wasn't my son's first mom. She was loving him and taking care of him before we even knew he existed. Then when he was born she decided that he would live with me and I would be his mom. It's simple language that a young child can understand.
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 10:01
Comment from: happygmom [Member] Email
I had never heard the "birth" terms used to refer to a child's first family until my daughter experienced an unplanned pregnancy and explored adoption as a possibility. She found the terms demeaning and off-putting with the implication that her only role as a mother was the act of giving birth. The "birth" terms really opened our eyes to the reality of attitudes of the adoption industry toward first parents.

Janet
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 10:28
Comment from: Jenna Hatfield [Member] Email · http://birthparents.adoptionblogs.com/
Sandra; Enduring mother has a nice ring for adoptive moms. I like it. Thanks for sharing that one!

Erin; if you want to make me angry, refer to me as a BM. Oh, that's one of my biggest pet peeves. Other than people who don't use turn signals. ;)

Christine; I did think of my daughter when picking a title for which to use for myself. I mothered her, first. I made all of the mothering decisions, including keeping myself healthy during a VERY tumultuous and complicated pregnancy and, oh, you know, that big parenting decision of letting someone else parent my child for a lifetime. Yes, I was and always will be her first mother... something that she has absolutely no confusion over. She isn't confused; why are you?

HeatherS; thank you for speaking up.

Janet; Especially in today's era of open adoptions, many "birth" mothers don't have an ending of a role with that birth experience. James Gritter put it well in describing an open adoption birth parent's role as continuously affirming the child's life. (I will be writing more on this next month!) Furthermore, even for birth parents of the closed adoption era, upon reunion, the role becomes something much more than just the act of birth. At that point it may be another mothering role or just a friend but more than just giving birth.
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 10:57
Comment from: SnazzlePup [Member] Email
Be careful with demanding people start calling you by your preferred term. It's one thing to invent terminology for your own personal use. It's quite another to start trying to force it down other people's throats.

In addition, it sets a bad precedent. How would you like it if the response were: "Ok, I'll start calling you the First Mother but you must start calling me the Real Mother"?
Offensive? Absolutely. Demanding others confirm to one's own word choice is always offensive.

A better approach would be to politely point out why the other person's word choice is (unintentionally) offensive to you and suggest, rather than demand, mutually acceptable alternatives.
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 11:17
Comment from: Jenna Hatfield [Member] Email · http://birthparents.adoptionblogs.com/
I've written before that we're ALL real moms so, really, I'm not offended by it. :) Nice try though. :)
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 11:20
Comment from: Sunbonnet Sue [Member] Email
Jenna,

the tone in some of your recent posts is puzzling to me. What are your goals in writing this blog?
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 12:11
Comment from: Jenna Hatfield [Member] Email · http://birthparents.adoptionblogs.com/
My tone hasn't ever changed since I began writing here. The only difference you're seeing is that OTHER bloggers are beginning to speak out as well and I'm able to link to others who share the same opinions. But thanks! :)
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 12:11
Comment from: Sunbonnet Sue [Member] Email
Do you have a goal in mind for writing this blog?
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 12:17
Comment from: Jenna Hatfield [Member] Email · http://birthparents.adoptionblogs.com/
This particular blog was addressing the way that some birth parents feel being forced into "owning" a title that does not adequately describe who they are or what they do.

Do you have a goal in repeating your questions?
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 12:18
Comment from: Sunbonnet Sue [Member] Email
My apologies for not clarifying. What is/was your goal when you first began blogging? When you think of the birth/first parent blog in it's entirety, what are you trying to accomplish?
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 12:21
Comment from: Jenna Hatfield [Member] Email · http://birthparents.adoptionblogs.com/
The goal morphs as it goes, no? Shouldn't we all be changing and growing? Isn't that the goal we should all have in mind, no matter the platform? I continue to be a challenging voice for birth parents in open adoption and will do so even after my time on this particular blog is spent.

What is your goal? What is your attachment to adoption?
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 12:23
Comment from: Sunbonnet Sue [Member] Email
Thanks for the clarification.
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 12:26
Comment from: miriam [Member] Email · http://www.growingjwards.blogspot.com
This is great food for thought. I had adopted (sigh) the term birthmother because I thought it was respectful.

I'll have to think carefully about this, and about why "first mother" isn't doing it for me. Thanks for the post.
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 12:43
Comment from: Jenna Hatfield [Member] Email · http://birthparents.adoptionblogs.com/
Miriam; I think, for many, birth mother is used with respectful intention and undercurrents. However, it is when agencies use it specifically to subtly coerce mothers into believe that they are already a "birth mother" and thus they needn't attach to their child that the word begins to take on sinister qualities. It is in situations like those, when people are specifically wanting to remove the mothering qualities from the expectant mother, that the word loses all respect and becomes a way of disrespecting the mother and child.

At the same time, there are those who use the determiner of "birth" to quantify the things we have given our child: just the act of birth. As I said, in today's changing era, that's not exactly the case!

The list goes on whether or not people are using it with respect or without. If you ARE using it with respect, I encourage you not to worry as long as you are respecting an individual's wishes. If it made you rethink whether or not you are using it with respect, well then, post well done.

Thanks for your comment. :)
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 12:49
Comment from: magicpointeshoe [Member] Email · http://www.magicpointeshoe.com/
On my blog I use birthmother, and yesterday I was thinking about changing the title over. I know search engine wise I would get more hits by leaving it as birthmother. But I have a fondness for mother of origin now.
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 12:58
Comment from: dawnf [Member] Email · http://www.openadoptionsupport.com
I just don't even get the controversy here. I don't see how "first mother" can ever be offensive to an adoptee or to an adoptive parent. I'm all for people respectfully choosing their own titles and how they handle it within their own family is their choice but to me it's no different than any other group choosing what to be called. That people are offended by this discussion is NUTS.
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 13:41
Comment from: Sunbonnet Sue [Member] Email
Oops, I had moved on to a different task, and did not notice the questions you had directed at me.

There are many goals I have as an adoptive parent. I suppose the first that comes to mind is to learn as much as possible, so our family can do the best job possible for our son.

So far as my connection to adoption goes, My husband and I are the adoptive parents of a boy, aged 10.5 years old. We are in the process of gathering paperwork to complete a second adoption.
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 14:55
Comment from: John [Member] Email
Adoptionblogseditor, there are various titles that include mother, birthmother, biological mother, first mother and 'mother of origin'. Each meets the requirement that the pregnant mom be recognized as a mother.

Unsing a title that is a put down of another part of the triad is simply not ok. First is followed by ______. Adoptive parents are not second best, afterthoughts, or of less consequence than birthparents, those are reasonable inferences from the title first parent. The birthparent should not insist on a title that puts the adoptie family in that box.

It works both ways, imagine the reaction if the adoptive parents insisted on being refered to as the 'responsible parents'.
terribly offensive, and just plain wrong, birthmothers go through great anguish and intense deliberation to make the decision to place. No, it is not ok to insist on a title that puts someone else down. John
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 15:18
Comment from: AdoptionBlogs Editor [Member] Email · http://editor.adoptionblogs.com
Sue, perhaps I can add some clarification as to the purpose of this blog (and by blog, I mean the Birth/First Parent Blog within the AdoptionBlogs.com system of blog topics).

1. To provide an area where birth/first parents may connect with others who have gone through what they have and understand that they are not alone.

2. To provide articles on issues facing birth/first parents so that the rest of the triad may better understand their particular point of view.

3. To provide articles on issues facing birth/first parents so that women (and men) who may be considering offering their child(ren) for adoption may consider all of the many issues they would be facing if they chose to do so.

Ultimately, it is my job to choose writers like Jenna who are first parents and can write compellingly about their situation and experiences so as to better inform the public at large on this particular group of people who have been marginalized in eras past.

Personally, I think it is wonderful that Jenna addresses these issues that take people just a bit out of their comfort zones because it makes us all think, discuss and learn a great deal more.
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 15:21
Comment from: AdoptionBlogs Editor [Member] Email · http://editor.adoptionblogs.com
John, in this case, I have to respectfully disagree with you. Parenting is not a race or a contest. In this case, you don't win when you're first.
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 15:27
Comment from: erin_d_a [Member] Email
I have no problem calling my daughters mom her firstmom. The queen was her first mother. I am her second mother. There is an amazing bloggy mom out there who refers to herself as her children's third mom, bio mom to foster mom to her.

Personally I don't like qualifiers when we are talking about the queen. She is the bee's mom, thats it. I have to use qualifiers sometimes because I get funky looks when I'm talking to new people who don't know the bee is adopted and get freaky when I talk about her mom. They think I'm pulling a Bob Dole and refering to myself in third person. At home and with friends we refer to the queen as the bee's plain old mom. Nothing needs qualifying.

I would take offense if the term firstmom was pushing me to a second place in my childs life, but I don't think that is the purpose. It gives a mother more of a link than just the birth instrument. It reminds us that a mother was pregnant, caring for herself and made parenting decisions that a mother makes. It reminds us that the parenting of a child doesn't end with relinquishment. Jenna is a great example of this. She is a mother to her daughter, despite not doing the day to day mothering. Her parenting responsibility didn't end with birth, it was the first in a lifetime of parenting decisions of Munchkin.

I'm not second in my daughters life, even if her mother chooses to call herself firstmom, or natural mother, or whatever. Just because some moms want to be called first mom rather than birthmom doesn't change who is who in the relationships. I think people who really oppose the change to first mom are insecure in their role as parent, and the role of their childs first/birth/biological/natural parents.
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 15:31
Comment from: AdoptionBlogs Editor [Member] Email · http://editor.adoptionblogs.com
Very nicely put, Erin!

"It reminds us that the parenting of a child doesn't end with relinquishment."

It also reminds us that the parenting of a child does not begin at birth.
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 15:44
Comment from: JudyK [Member] Email · http://justenjoyhim.wordpress.com/
My disclaimer here is that I have not read all of these comments. I was also going to try to stay out of adoption-related posting for awhile, but after reading the first part of the comments, I just had to put in my $0.02 (or more).

I wrote a post awhile back that talked about some of this, and part of it said the following:

I am not bestowing the title of “Mother” upon her; she IS my son’s mother. If anything, she is sharing the title with me. How dare those [adoptive] parents think that they can take the title of parent away from their children’s first parents! They don’t have the right! It’s not up to them. Like it or not, the people who gave their children life are their children’s parents. Not just their children’s parents, but their children’s first parents.

Maybe if I’m ever confronted with this type of situation in person, that’s what I’ll say:

That it’s not up to you. That you don’t have the right. That you don’t bestow or take away the title. That the title is theirs just by virtue of giving your child life. Not only are those people your child’s parents, they are your child’s first parents. You come second.

As do I. As do I.


There's much more to the post, but that part is specifically about Nate's first mother's title. I've written several posts about how much I respect her and how we both share the title of mother.

I respect her, and as far as I'm concerned, by respecting her, I respect him. And that includes how I refer to her.
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 19:20
Comment from: John [Member] Email
Lisa, you are right, it is not a race. The words first or second do not belong here. Bowlby said that the child must be able to see the parents as "the supreme arbitrator of his fate". Any adoption where the child percives the adoptive parents as less than that is in serious trouble.

JudyK, if you want to see yourself as second, that is your right. Children process information much more simply than adults, hopefully your child will always see that second means second, but not second. John
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 19:32
Comment from: Heather Lowe [Member] Email · http://unplanned-pregnancy.adoptionblogs.com/
"Unsing a title that is a put down of another part of the triad is simply not ok."

Well if you're going to take that point of view, I object to adoptive parents' using "enduring mother," because it implies that my motherhood doesn't endure. (See how slippery this gets?)

How 'bout we each define ourselves for ourselves? Oh wait, that was Jenna's entire point.
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 20:00
Comment from: Crazed [Member] Email
Hi Jenna (and others),

I had an interesting conversation with my daughters mom tonight regarding this topic.

I asked her to do two things for me, first, listen to what I was going to tell her and give me her knee jerk reaction, then think about it and email me later (tomorrow?) after she's had more time to think about it.

I asked her, "What is your opinion of the use of 'first mother' in reference to a birth mother in adoption?"

She said, "Uh, well, I wish you could see my face, it's kinda crinkled up. Gosh, I don't know, my gut reaction is that a birth mother is no where near a 'first mother'. To me, to say that a birth mother is a 'first mother' kinda indicates that she was 'first', but that now things are different. I think of it in terms of like a divorce. Like a first wife, she was a wife for a while, but now she's not in the picture at all. That isn't how I see it. A birth mother is very much still in the picture. To say that she was or is the 'first mother' almost seems demeaning to her role in the child's life."

I thought her response was very interesting. Interesting enough to share it here, so that others could tell me what their thoughts were.
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 20:33
Comment from: KatjaMichelle [Member] Email
Maybe some of ya'll have yet to notice but there is no title that will make everyone happy. There is no title that will not offend someone.

Jenna NEVER said that she was first BEST and that D was second BEST just that she is her daughters first mom. This is a fact. Just like the first day of the month comes before the second. Does that mean that July 1st is BETTER than July 2nd? 1st Avenue is BETTER than 2nd Avenue?

She never implied anything insulting if others chose to infer it well thats their problem.

Why should she have to sugar coat her opinions on the birth-first parent blog? Why can't birth-first parents speak freely even here?

btw I'm one who prefers birth mom (two words) but when speaking about Jenna I'll use first mom because it's what she prefers is that really so difficult?
PermalinkPermalink 07/25/07 @ 20:36
Comment from: JudyK [Member] Email · http://justenjoyhim.wordpress.com/
John,

At 5, my son actually calls her "tummy mummy," a phrase that many first mothers abhor but that works for him now. Since he was adopted internationally, there's no open adoption at this point -- something that may change in the future if at all possible. What he actually calls her will be up to him and what he's comfortable with.

In my language and writings, I refer to my son's Vietnamese mother in various ways -- his "mother," his "Vietnamese mother," and/or his "first mother." I don't believe this is anything that puts me down. She was first in his life, I was second. It's a chronological fact that actually can't be disputed.

She mothered him for the first two days of his life. I've mothered him since he was four months old. She was his mother first. I've been his mother actually not second, but third as there was a foster mother and other caretakers at the orphanage between his first mother and me.

But the fact remains that I'm his day-to-day mother. I'm not in a contest here. He calls me "Mom" or "Mommy."

There's actually a blogger who calls herself "Third Mom" whose son came up with that name at age five. Give her a read sometime.

http://thirdmom.blogspot.com/

I wake up with my son in my house and go to sleep with him here too. Where's the issue? Where's the threat?

I respect and honor his first mom and by doing so, I respect and honor my son and his heritage.

And I'll call others what they ask to be called. If I don't know, my fallback preference is "first mom."

~ Judy

PermalinkPermalink 07/26/07 @ 05:28
Comment from: JudyK [Member] Email · http://justenjoyhim.wordpress.com/
And in that spirit, maybe I should edit my post to say that
"you came second."

Good point, John. Thanks for that.

PermalinkPermalink 07/26/07 @ 05:31
Comment from: AdoptionBlogs Editor [Member] Email · http://editor.adoptionblogs.com
"I respect and honor his first mom and by doing so, I respect and honor my son and his heritage."

That is the most important point here, isn't it, Judy?

Thank you for putting it so simply!
PermalinkPermalink 07/26/07 @ 06:53
Comment from: SnazzlePup [Member] Email
Jenna: While I'm glad you didn't find my example offensive (sorry, I guess I didn't try hard enough :)), my poor example apparently obscured the point I was trying to make...

Which is: Demanding to be called by a particular term is not only unnecessarily confrontational for little or no actual purpose, it also sets an unfortunate precedent wherein you're claiming that people have the right to put words in others' mouths.

You must all now address me as Supreme Being Snazzlepup The Always Right And Perfect.
PermalinkPermalink 07/26/07 @ 15:09
Comment from: Jenna Hatfield [Member] Email · http://birthparents.adoptionblogs.com/
Supreme Being Snazzlepup The Always Right and Perfect; (WOO, that's a long one), I encourage you to look at it from any other title-age we have seen over the centuries. If people hadn't demanded that certain terms be laid to rest, we'd still be walking around using racist and bigoted names for just about every one of our neighbors. I'm no different. I'm tired of rolling over and accepting what agencies and society want me to be called as are others. I'm no different a part of this group than any other member of any other group who got fed up with the status quo.

:)
PermalinkPermalink 07/26/07 @ 16:29
Comment from: SnazzlePup [Member] Email
While I understand your point, I don't think it is a correct analogy for one crucial reason: Intent. Racist and bigoted terms were used for generations with the intent of subjugation and dehumanization. In fact, those terms originally had no such meaning attached and it was only through repeated usage with malicious intent that an insulting meaning eventually "tainted" the words beyond redemption.

If you're claiming that a significant number of people who use the term "birthmother" intend it pejoratively, then I completely agree with you that it is now tainted and needs to be quashed. I personally haven't witnessed such, but I fully admit that might be due to personal circumstances and lack of broad-reaching experience.

(And while I'm sure it's obvious and that you're just having fun with me by actually using it... I really was kidding about the silly title).
PermalinkPermalink 07/26/07 @ 17:07
Comment from: Jenna Hatfield [Member] Email · http://birthparents.adoptionblogs.com/
I said somewhere in the comments above (somewhere!) that most general people don't mean it with a lack of respect and I do understand that and it doesn't bother me. However, I do believe that agencies (and attorneys alike) use it specifically to remove the motherhood attachment from the expectant mother, to further diminish their role and thus make them believe that they have no crucial connection to their child. THEY are why I am personally opposed to widespread use of the word. There are some singular people as well who use it as a way of putting us in our place which, in their opinion, isn't much of a place to be in the first place! It can be discouraging and disheartening trying to fight both groups.

But I like your long title. LOL. :)
PermalinkPermalink 07/26/07 @ 18:58
Comment from: mariah [Member] Email
I was sorting out some papers tonite and ran across this:

When my DD was 12, she was showing her "star attraction" poster to the class. There was an article from the paper where she had been interviewed about adoption. She also had a picture of her first mother's new baby on it. One of the kids asked her if she'd ever met her real mom. She told me that she just said 'yes' because "it's too hard to make kids understand that you're my real mom, too."
PermalinkPermalink 07/26/07 @ 21:15
Comment from: Nicole [Member] Email
"The words first or second do not belong here. Bowlby said that the child must be able to see the parents as "the supreme arbitrator of his fate". Any adoption where the child percives the adoptive parents as less than that is in serious trouble."

Why do you think adoptees who call their kids "first mom" or "natural mom" or "other mom" or even just "mom" are in danger of being unable to see the adoptive parents as the supreme aribrators?

Do you really think semantics define a kids' attachment?

My god.

Please read more Bowlby. I do not think you are understanding him fully.
PermalinkPermalink 07/26/07 @ 22:10
Comment from: Shell [Member] Email
I would never refer to my mother as anything but my mother. The woman that raised me is my adoptive mother. It's about reality for me - I wouldn't exist if it weren't for my mother, father and the generations of mothers and fathers before them.

Adoption temporarily replaced my parents who sadly lost me to the system of adoption. Many children lose their parents for one reason or another, adoption is one of those reasons.

Any pre-fix to my mother or father is not necessary. It's splits my identity in two - a birth one and an adoptive one (and for me the birth one was not known). Part of the confusion for many adoptees is trying to understand why they are calling strangers mom and dad when they already have parents. There is only one set of parents, other people are caring for the child until that child is ready to go home and back to their people.
PermalinkPermalink 07/27/07 @ 05:48
Comment from: Jenna Hatfield [Member] Email · http://birthparents.adoptionblogs.com/
Nicole; if semantics determine how you attach to someone, we're in trouble over here because our son just learned that "Daddy" also responds to "Josh" (after some of my yelling from the basement to throw me down the laundry) and is amused at Josh's reaction to the name from his own son. I wonder if it means that he's not attached to him because he calls him by his first name. I mean, after their ALL DAY cuddle and wrestle fest yesterday... it could be "possible," right? Pfft.

Shell; as I've said in the past and will say until I'm blue in the face, adoptee input is so vital on these various topics (while realizing that all adoptees are different and therefore have different experiences and reactions). I thank you, immensely, for sharing that with us. While I'm sure there are some people who will be made to feel insecure by your own opinion, I think it shows a nice spin on the whole topic and this string of discussion is made better by having shared it. Thank you. :)
PermalinkPermalink 07/27/07 @ 07:34
Comment from: Jan Baker [Member] Email · http://birthparents.adoptionblogs.com/
Whew, I have to write a post too to talk about this!
PermalinkPermalink 07/27/07 @ 11:30
Comment from: Heather Lowe [Member] Email · http://unplanned-pregnancy.adoptionblogs.com/
Snazzlepup,
"If you're claiming that a significant number of people who use the term "birthmother" intend it pejoratively, then I completely agree with you that it is now tainted and needs to be quashed."

Not perjoratively, but coercively. As Jenna explained, agencies use this term before it is factual in order to detach us from our children so that we are more likely to surrender them.
PermalinkPermalink 07/27/07 @ 13:37
Comment from: Julie Crowley [Member] Email · http://stepparent.adoptionblogs.com/
Wow I wrote one post about this, already this week...

http://stepparent.adoptionblogs.com/index.php/weblogs/adoption-label-debate-original-vs-new-an

but I may have to write another one! Jenna I think you did a great job on your blog, as usual.
PermalinkPermalink 07/27/07 @ 14:14
Comment from: Shell [Member] Email
Heather, I agree. We never see ads by adoption agencies that say, "Are you a mother or an expentant mother considering adoption?" She is labled a Birth Mother right away. Why? As if she has already made the decision to surrender. It is absolutely a coersive term.

How does this make a woman feel about being a mother to her own child when others have decided before her baby is even born that she is only the birth mother to her daughter or son.

I didn't grow up with the birth mother term - I heard biological mother every now and then, but that never sat right with me. I always knew my mother was my mother - how could she not be? You can't change nature.

Thanks, Jenna. Glad you liked hearing my perspective.
PermalinkPermalink 07/27/07 @ 16:35
Comment from: Jenna Hatfield [Member] Email · http://birthparents.adoptionblogs.com/
How does this make a woman feel about being a mother to her own child when others have decided before her baby is even born that she is only the birth mother to her daughter or son.

For me? Very confused. I was bonded to my daughter because I loved her, so very much and with my complicated pregnancy, laying in bed hooked to monitors for much of the time listening to her heartbeat, I couldn't NOT recognize how important she was to me in those ways. But hearing from my agency that I wasn't anything more than a way for her to be born into another family was so confusing and diminishing. I mean, they were the adults who hadn't screwed up and should know more than me, right? So they must have been saying something of merit, right?

Gah. *beats self with broom stick* The things we learn too late.
PermalinkPermalink 07/27/07 @ 20:24
Comment from: Shell [Member] Email
Yeah, jenna....sorry you and your daughter were sucked in by the adoption machine.

That's it exactly - the adults who could have offered support and guidance to help you and your daughter get started in life, were actually working against the both of you.

They not only took a child from her mother, they also took away your daughter's right to be with you, raised by you and her people. Tragic.

But that's how adoption operates - destroy one family to create a new one. These people know how to break down a mother's confidence and self-esteem - and they can this do oh, so, nicely -hell that can get a mom to think she's a saint for surrendering her baby.
PermalinkPermalink 07/28/07 @ 04:29
Comment from: Christine [Member] Email
I should clarify. I'm actually a foster mum. In my case the little one's mum wasn't able to take such a noble view of looking after herself or her baby.
I took on a little one at 2 with serious health issues, and all the trauma of two years of physical and emotional neglect. So for my babe, 'mum' means rescuer and trust and health and happiness. There's a heck of a lot of trust associated with the name 'mum' now.
I have applied to adopt my little one, in response to her four and a half year old assertion 'mum, I want to be with you for ever, and ever'.
So that was the point of my post. I'm sorry if I waded into all the angst about names.
I don't agree with labels. And that's what you are all debating.
The FACTS of my child's life are that she was born to a lovely mum, for a number of reasons she doesn't live with that mum anymore and she lives with another mum. We still regularly see mummy who had 'babe' in her tummy and we see her because she loves 'babe'. I work hard to connect them because I agree that 'babe' and her mother will need to find some common understanding and they need a relationship going forward.
But no one will dictate the descriptions thanks. No one is going to label anyone while I'm still standing.
We're all equal, just different. I take my cues from my little one.
That was the point of my post. I work out what matters to my little one. That's what guides me.
PermalinkPermalink 07/28/07 @ 06:32
Comment from: Shell [Member] Email
Christine, I was taken from my mother at age two and later adopted. I too said things to me a-mother, like I want you to be my mommy forever - I was a kid, I wanted to have one mother.

I was actually terified of being sent away - not scared of my mother, but just scared of losing the family I had come to know as my family. I would have felt this way no matter who fostered or adopted me.

But...thirty years later I had to go back to my mother (after years of feeling abandoned and now scared of being rejected by her)- I had to be with her and my people. It had nothing to do with the family that rasied me. Nature dictated that I return home, or what was left of it at that point, anyway.

it's good you are maintaing a relationship between mother and daughter.
PermalinkPermalink 07/28/07 @ 06:58
Comment from: ChristineL [Member] Email
Shell - I understand.
Three generations in my family have been involved in fostercare - from 'stolen generation' through to my care.
I have worked very hard to make sure that my babe is not scared about losing me. She has two mums. Lucky girl.
I'll be beside her as she comes to terms with the mother who gave birth to her, and when she tells me to back off, I will. No problems about titles.
So maybe the system needs to put the child first? CRIKEY! There's a thought....


PermalinkPermalink 07/28/07 @ 09:08
Leave a Comment: You need to login to leave comments.:

Login | Register

Login To AdoptionBlogs.com

Search

Sponsors

http://www.omnitrace.com

Misc

Subscribe to Birth-First Parent Blog

 Enter your email address:
 

 

Who's Online?

  • Guest Users: 124