I received this question in my comments in this last post regarding my Adoption Today Article:
“congrats on getting published, but i must ask: did the magazine insist, that you denigrate yourself by calling yourself an incubator for this article? somehow i thought that you, Claud, considered yourself to be Max’s mother, not just a walking uterus (i.e. “birth mother”) who produced him for his “true parents” 🙁 it is just very disappointing to see a “sister” use this term for herself, one whom i thought understood how derogatory it was. it puts down all of us.”
Now, honestly, I don’t think too too much about the great adoption terminology debates anymore.
For one, been there, done that, said my piece, heard the rest, huge time suck, ready to move on. Does that mean I give zero weight to the importance of adoption language? No way! Yes, language means a lot, yes, it does set the tone, yes it does filter in how people see us, by what they call us, BUT..
The Political Correctness of “African Americans”
The best example of why we should not get too wrapped up in terminology policing… is this: Look at African Americans.
Yes, they were and still are called some lousy names, but more than that were the discriminatory practices that were accepted by society against them. Now what if they had spent all their fire and passion on just the terminology debates, what if they just focused on what they were called? We would not have ” colored” drinking fountains, or “colored” areas in movie theaters.. they might be all PC and called “AA fountains” or “AA seating areas”.. and would THAT really have made a difference? Hell no!
The purpose of this article was to have a readership see me as a person.. as a real human being who fits all their preconceived stereotypes as “the perfect birth mother”.. and to get beyond what they think they know about how I think and feel.. and give them a real idea of what it felt like.
Adoption Today’s Article; Not About the Birthmother Term
To their defense, Adoption Today did not regulate me in any way whatsoever.. in fact..they gave me huge free range to write. They called and asked if I could write about my years in a closed adoption.. and that’s what came forth from me..including the use of the word birthmother. I find it used a total of four times in my article.. though it might be five. I had a five count before, but now lost one. I have not bothered to count the number of times I used alternative terminology.. such as Mother, surrendering mother, women who relinquish., etc.
- It is used once in the title of a study, so I won’t claim nor explain that. I use it once, towards the end, in quotes, as defining the stereotype of the “perfect birth mother”.
- And likewise, I use it in the fourth paragraph in a very controlled way.. “I choose to become the birth mother”. Because I DID! I wanted that made as clear as I could. I did take on this title, but the whole purpose of this too was to describe that choosing to do this does in no way really prepare one for the affects of what happens after all is signed off.
Yes, I Became a BirthMother
It is an act of becoming.. we are not born.. we are MADE into this breeding machine by an industry that needs our produce… and how they mislead us, even a “good” reputable agency, even in a ” perfect” situation.
I was molded. I was guided. My fears were enabled. I was exploited. And then, yes, my first sentence I call myself the “preferred typical birth mother”. Because I am. I was. I was young, white, smart, exploitable, without resources, clean.. etc. Good stock! Good genes.
Plus also, the readership of Adoption Today is perspective and international adoptive parents. Guess what they have been trained to call me, to think of me? A birthmother!
And really, I wanted it very clear.. this is an article not just ABOUT us moms, the mothers of their kids, like many of the other articles in there, but BY a mother. MY words. And, I have yet to fall at the floor foaming at the mouth when people say the B word to me. I can deal.. and I can use their terms, as respect for them, but I do expect it both ways.. and it is usually pretty clear when you talk to me, that I don’t rely on that word.. I can use it, but then I offer up tons of other words that I prefer.. and through osmosis, rather than an instructional berating, the point becomes very clear, and people will parrot my usage. It’s pretty cool.
Using the Term Birthmother
So yes, I will use the word when *I* need to. When I mock it, or need to clearly make it known with no confusion. Is it disappointing? I guess that is in the eye of the beholder. If you want to count B terms and judge an article on that merit, that is your prerogative, but I would rather applaud that a pretty heavy article from one of us, in our own words, about the reality of relinquishment, got into a real publication, that will hopefully reach many others who need to know this stuff.
And just so you know.. yeah, I know all about the origin of the damn Birthmother term and its history.
this sounds like a comment from SWMNBN’d?
And your post title should say “lets do the term warp” hee hee. not time warp.
if that persons knows you at all, i mean really knows you, they should know your thoughts. if they do and they are still asking such stupid questions they are just attempting to be intentionally obnoxious and obtuse.
Furthermore, to get people to think to change their views, often requires using their language and then you influence their thinking. (Can you go to a foriegn country where you dont speak the language or understand it and expect to have a relationship with someone?)
Wasn’t your name Claudia Corrigan SHEELEY a few months ago? Is it true you change your last name like other people change their undergarments?
“And really, I wanted it very clear.. this is an article not just ABOUT us moms, the mothers ogf thier kids, like many of the other articles in there, but BY a mother. MY words.”
Sweetheart,
It may be an article about SOME moms, but it is not an article about ALL moms.
You don’t, for instance, speak for me.
So sorry the Word Police have come after you, Claud. The article was excellent, too bad some fanatics can’t see past a word that they, not the social work establishment, have given more power than a Harry Potter curse! The “B” word indeed, as if saying or writing “birthmother” would make their heads explode. All very silly.
You said it all in your analogy about “colored” vs.
“african-american” water fountains.
Changing the name does not change the deed or the discrimination.
If anyone bothered to look into the real history of word usage in adoption (the use of “birthmother” was popularized by Lee Campbell, founder of Concerned United BIRTHPARENTS in 1976, herself a mother who had surrendered) rather than some urban legends that have been circulating, they would learn that when those of us who surrendered in the 60s and before lost our kids, we were called almost exclusively “natural mothers” on legal documents and in writing. “Real Mother” for the one who gave birth was the general term most people used then in popular speech.
And how were we treated, before the dreaded word “birthmother” was in widespread usage? Abominably, as anyone who lived it or has read “The Girls Who Went Away” can attest. The “natural” word didn’t engender respect, kind treatment, or fairness towards surrendering mothers, nor did coercion start with the use of “birthmother”. Actions speak louder than words.
Fighting over what we are called keeps us in the adoption reform ghetto, where we squabble endlessly and self-righteously among ourselves and nothing real gets accomplished to change adoption for the better.
Writing articles like Claud’s that do not compromise our principles in any way, and use language appropriate to the audience they hope to reach, do a whole lot more than all the anonymous cowards who have come here to snipe at her about one word.
Some of the responses here don’t surprise me in the least. Your article is well written and will reache thousands of people. As Gertrude Stein said, a rose is a rose is a rose. No matter what birth/first/natural/bio/ mothers of loss/mothers in exile call themselves treatment of them doesn’t’ change. And nobody outside of the parochial AdoptionLand gives a shit what people call themselves or eachother. Change comes from hard work in the trenches, which is what you’re doing.
This reminds me of in the womens rights and civil rights movement there were a few women and a few blacks who worked “against” those fighting for the “right to women to vote” or “the end to segregation in schools, public places etc.”
Claud, its clear as day to me that YOU are fighting for the rights of mothers and reform in the adoption industry, its a shame some of those “working against you” can’t see that you’re on their side.
Just like certain adoptees, who want to, for some reason, work against me and the protest because they’re “content with their adoption position.” They don’t even realize they can be content with their position and where they are regarding adoption, and still fight for equality, still support those of us who want to be equal. It not a for or against, its not so black and white, its about finding a way to reach across that broken bridge and establish and understanding to strengthen our army. And you’re doing a damn good job at it claud. Rock on!
Maryanne said, “Writing articles like Claud’s that do not compromise our principles in any way, and use language appropriate to the audience they hope to reach, do a whole lot more than all the anonymous cowards who have come here to snipe at her about one word.”
Marley said ” Change comes from hard work in the trenches, which is what you’re doing.”
I agree with both of you. Claud has reached out without rancour and touched many people who, without her words, would never even have given the subject so much as a passing thought.
She’s a trooper (and smart to boot).
Getting HER story published in ‘Adoption Today’ is a step forward for ALL women who have lost a child to the adoption industry.
I’m with Gershom. Rock on, Claud!
You’re doing an amazing job.
****
Ah, I was THINKING time/term warp.. glad you knew what I was getting at!
**
Yes, my name was Claudia Corrigan Sheeley. And then I got married on August 19th. And so now, my name is Claudia Corrigan D’Arcy.
I hope that people do change thier panties a bit more often than I change my name since I have done it three times so far in my life.
I went from Claudia Corrigan to Claudia Corrigan Sheeley in 1990 when I married my first husband..and then switched from Sheeley to D’Arcy this year. This cattyness has a purpose how exactly?
And somehow, I doubt that I am even interested in speaking for you. Not that I said I did..that whole chickenshit anonymous thing makes it hard too for one.
But one might think, that to a rational sister mother who cares more about the true cause, rather than some stupid personal bickering, that an article in a major publication by any one of us is something to rejoice about.
**
Yeah.. Maryanne, Marley, Kali Kippa.. I know..I know! Which is why I refuse to let the peanut gallery get me down.
Let the petty bickering commence! woohoo!
“that an article in a major publication by any one of us is something to rejoice about.”
It definitely is! It amazes me how nasty the name police can be. Personally, I think we have the right to call ourselves whatever we want – and I think it’s stupid for others to feel they have the right to chastise us because we don’t use “their” words sometimes.
Hooray, Claud, for your article in AT!!! I really don’t understand why some people (mothers) are so hung up in the language, that they can’t just appreciate the importance of the voice of one of our own being heard. Nationally! And in an adoption magazine, for crying out loud!
I’ve been published in Adoptive Families Mag, and can attest that they do not force writers to use language that suits their purposes (at least that was my experience).
I recently had an article on adoption language (A Mother By Any Other Name) in the PACER (post adoption center for education and research) Newsletter. Have since posted it on my blog. I’d appreciate your comments on it. Your previous article on the roots of the b-words was very helpful in my research.
Super post and article!
I agree and disagree.
I’ve been there done this…written lots and lots of articles on the subject.
Bottom line, for me…while it doesn’t bother ME much one way or the other…and I am wont to let it slip in private conversation because it it is what I had become accustomed to calling myself for 90% of my adult life…. I respect those whom it does bother and do NOT use it my published writings.
In addition to be respectful, i see my role as an educator. All of my writings are done in one way or another to educate some segment of the public about adoption related issues.
I believe it important therefore to act as a model and show that it is very possible to write perfectly clearly and understandably about these issues without using unnecessary prefixes that defy biological reality by calling me anything other than what I am…my daughter’s MOTHER!
I wrote and am in full agreement with origins-USA position in “Motherhood is Forever” at:
http://tinyurl.com/2722y3
Mirah Riben
Motherhood is certainly forever, but in adoption there are two mothers, two mothers forever, and there are times when one needs to differentiate. That is the piece Mirah and others are cutting out by insisitng they are always “just mothers.”
The nasty undercurrent of only using the word “mother” with no prefix for the birthmother, and always using the prefix “adoptive” for the adoptive mother, or just calling her an adopter, is not just the “foreverness” of biological motherhood, but the non-motherhood of adoptive mothers.
Motherhood is not only forever; the unspoken subteext is that there is only one mother, and she is biological, and the only way to become a mother is to give birth. This is part of what keeps me from joining OUSA…sorry Claud:-)
Adoptees have two mothers, not just one. This fact says nothing about the competence or caring or quality of those mothers. Insisting on only one real mother who is entitled to the “real mother word” unmodified, whether it is done by birthmothers or adoptive mothers is not dealing with reality and not honoring the adoptee’s truth.
So, no, I do not think it educates anyone to always insist on “just mother”. It is still a passive-agressive dig at adoptive parents for the most part, and it really is not needed to make us real to ourselves or our children.
Just a P.S.: To put this in more personal terms, I do not need for adoptive mothers not to be mothers, even the nutcase who adopted my son, in order for me to be a mother forever. For good or ill, since she raised him, she is also his mother forever, but in another way. That’s all. And he can call me anything he wants, as can anyone else, just don’t tell me what words I can and cannot use. Words cannot change reality.