This post is actually a question.
I pose it to all but would especially love to hear from those who believe in the primal wound theory or from the people who have been touched by adoption that believe they suffer from PTSD. Yes, I feel it's perfectly acceptable to use the term "touched" as I've seen John Raible use it.
Since this question quite often pops up in my head when I read about all the ways adoption inevitably inflicts lifelong trauma and the resulting emotional issues on all those who experience it, whether they are aware of it or not, I thought I'd just go ahead and ask it here.
Are you for or against circumcision in infant boys? I imagine nobody is for infant female circumcision.
As always, feel free to comment anonymously if you have something important to say and are wary of any undeserved backlash from other commenters.
Wednesday
25 comments:
Feel free to flag your comment PRIVATE. I realize commenting can be intimidating so if you have something to say to me you'd rather not have published you're welcome to do so, just make sure you let me know it's private. If you want a reply, leave your email address.
I'm also completely fine with good anonymous comments. I've seen some great ones!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nancy Verrier's book is one thing. It's a good book and I think she has many good points.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I agree with the research that's been presented since at least 1985 that has documented the awareness of babies and how they process stress. From ages 0-1, we are in the Ericksonian "Trust v. Mistrust" stage. I still can't believe how much theoretical research using Erickson, Piaget, Freud, and the other greats has been done in adoption....but no one's thought how taking an infant away from the only smell, heartbeat, energry, it's ever known for 9 months, wouldn't interfere with this stage?
When an infant asks to be comforted by listening to the heartbeat of its nurturer that has lulled it to sleep for months in utero and she is not there to come to its call....will it still learn to trust the same way other babies do?
It's acknowledged in many areas of medicine that we need to reduce the stresses on babies and young children for their own health---unfortunately people seem to believe that infants destined toward adoptn are impervious to these needs.
In addition to what I've read in research, when I was pregnant with my son, every pregnancy source I could find, as well as the classes I took, repeatedly reinforced closeness (skin-to-skin) as soon after birth and as often as possible to promote the wellness of both mother and child for a myriad of medical and emotional reasons. I couldn't help but think during all this "this is important for my son because I am keeping him....but no one bothered to think this was important for me when I was an infant destined toward adoption?"
Does that mean that someone will have PTSD? No. Does that mean it can impact them indefinitely? Yes. Does it mean it always will? No.
The human mind and body are amazing things. We overcome all manner of traumatic stresses throughout our lifetime. But what we stand to be able to overcome, should never excuse a needless loss and experience of stress to begin with---not when it's an innocent child.
I think that circumcision is an unnecessary medical proceedure. My son is circumcised; it is something I will never choose again for subsequent boys.
I have two sons. I had both of them done. It just seems like the normal thing to go. I have never personally seen one that wasn't done.
ReplyDeleteI think it's a little unnecessary and didn't circumcise my sons. I think all of the talk about it being unsanitary/high maintenance is based on old myths. At the same time, I think it is an individual decision and I don't think that little flap of skin (or the process of cutting it off in infancy) is going to affect the course of someone's life in any meaningful way. At least it shouldn't.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I am adamantly opposed to people adopting boys and THEN getting them circumcised. I knew a mom who had her 4 and 5 year old sons circumcised within months of coming home from Ethiopia - and that seemed incredibly cruel and barbaric to me, since these boys were going through so much transition, and since it sent the message that there was something "wrong" with their penis - so wrong that it required surgery. Ugh.
I think it is a personal decision, not one for huge debate. My bio sons are circumcised. Why? Because where we live the vast majority are (we asked about it). I agree it is an unnecessary procedure and I felt guilty and cried each time. However, I didn't want them to feel they didn't "fit in" later in the locker room. Stupid? Yes. But there it is. I also don't care if someone backlashes against me on this one. As parents, we have the right to make decisions that we think are right for our children, even if others disagree.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kristen that I would not have an older boy circumsised - any child who could remember is too old in my opinion.
Against. I'm not aware of any good reasons for doing it, and men with foreskins have more fun.
ReplyDeleteI agree wholeheartedly with everything Amanda said about the primal wound theory.
ReplyDeleteMy sons are not circumcised. Most of the world does not circumcise boys. I live in a place where about half of the boys around are not circumcised, and it's not a big deal. I have had sex with men with foreskins, and it was not a big deal. Men pull it back and wash it, just like any other body part.
The foreskin is more than just a flap of skin; it's not a hangnail. It contains many, many nerve endings, and removing it is painful. I wouldn't criticize someone for circumcising their sons, but it certainly wasn't something I would do to mine unless medically warranted.
Two thoughts -
ReplyDeleteFirst related to the tangential discussion of primal wound as related to babies destined for adoption and the need for immediate skin contact, breast feeding, et cetera: a growing number of first mothers are concerned about these ideas and as a result do breast feed after delivery, establish contact, and take time to "transfer" the child to the adoptive family after an introductory period of a several hours.
The real question; circumcision: As a circumcised male I am not aware of any horribly scarring (psychologically) effects as a result. In the strictest of terms circumcision is ritualized genital modification. Some prefer the term "mutilation" though it has a clear bias. My take is also very biased. I could be described as an "urban primitive." That term indicates a strong interest in ancient rites of passage and, in my case, desire to cultivate paleolithic era technical and survival skills. Expressions of that interest nearly always include body modification including tattoos, piercing, permanent jewelery, and scarification. Given my choices to alter my body to reflect events and circumstances of my life I view my circumcision in the same light. My parents, raised in the Judeo-Christian tradition, chose to circumcise my brothers and me to mark us as part of their spiritual community and include us in their heritage. I think there are times it's appropriate and times it isn't. If circumcision is being planned for a child because "well, why the hell not?" I don't think that's a good plan. If circumcision is planned as part of a larger tradition that has actual value to the family involved it can be an important way of acknowledging a member of the family and community.
IMO, The Primal Wound theory is not exclusive to adoptees. By definition, any child who spends their first few minutes/hours/days/weeks/months (think preemie) away from their mothers could also "suffer" from this theory. Someone like me who spent my first week of life at the hospital while my mother was home taking care of my sister. I had very little contact with my mother and no contact with my womb mate, how's that for trauma?
ReplyDeleteHubby and I did not have our son circumsized, we felt there was not GOOD reason to do so at 8+ months old when he came home. To look like daddy just wasn't good enough. I found I Am's response regarding circumcision to be very enlightening -- Thank you.
Agree with Mongoose and Katharine. There is just no good reason if you are not religious. Where we live most men are circumsized; however, neither of us like the idea and did not have either of our sons (one adopted, one bio) circumsized.
ReplyDeleteBoth sons were circumcised (one genetic and one adopted). No regrets and, like I Am, can personally attest to no psychological scarring. To each their own, but I don't buy into the primal wound as it relates to circumcision - 9 months vs 2 weeks of minor healing isn't comparable IMO with respect to long term psychological damage.
ReplyDeleteSee, the thing is, if one believes in the Primal Wound Theory, to me it would only stand to reason they'd have to believe circumcision in infancy with no anesthetic would be just as bad or worse.
ReplyDeleteThanks for contributing Anonymous.
Mom of four boys, one surrendered, all circumcised in the hospital. Just signed the paper and the doctor did the deed, never really thought about it one way or the other. It was just the thing to do and I do not regret it nor do I think they do. I see it as a non-issue.
ReplyDeleteMy husband is Jewish but not religious, I am Catholic but the circumcisions were done because it was routine when my kids were born.
Probably a good choice because there is a family history of urinary problems on my father's side and he had to be circumcised as an adult for medical reasons which was not fun at all.
I also do not believe in primal wound as a universal, and the fact that infants can recognize their biological mother does not mean that they cannot adjust to another loving caregiver if the mother is not able to care for them. Childbirth mortality of mothers was a real risk until the last century or so, and many babies had to be raised by others. Adoption is not the only circumstance where a child is not raised by the biological mother, yet the popular Primal Wound supporters act as if it were unique and incurable. I do not buy that. Human infants have had to be flexible to survive, and I do not believe that going immediately to another loving mother in and of itself can traumatize a child for life. a Many adoptees do have real trauma , but I think it stems from when they realize what surrender and adoption mean, in early childhood, not from birth onward.
Hey Campbell :)
ReplyDeletePart 1: PTSD
Ok. Well, I have never read The Primal Wound, but have seen the title pop up all over the place in Adopto-Blog-Land. XOX
I was diagnosed with PTSD 5 years ago. I was not an adopted infant or in the military.
The doctor that coined me this said i had undergone too many traumatic events in my life and that it was very evident that i suffered from PTSD. At that time, i had no clue what that was. So i hit the web.
After reading about PTSD, I identified. But , I also though about Horoscopes and how I can usually identify with all of them...its kind of funny.
I think most people nowadays with any type of family dysfunction or trauma or has experienced death and grieving etc... can either be diagnosed with PTSD...or depression...or if they are hyper and/or anxious - ADD...or Obsessive/Compulsive...If they are sick - meningitis...u see where i'm going.
It seems that everyone suffers with something.
Does it make people feel better or relieved to have a label, to be put into a box with other people....the relief of knowing whats wrong and being able to identify with fellow sufferers?
This is just something that runs through my head from time to time...XOX
When i gave birth to M, they took her immediately upon my request. As I have said before...at my age...and my maturity level...if i would have held her, i don't know if i could have given her to her A-Parents. :( sad.
Knowing what i know now and experiencing birth with my following 2 daughters...it disgusts me that i did not hold her.
i will likely live with that guilt forever.
With my 8 year old, i was still pretty clueless when i gave birth. I was so scared to become a mother. My doctor was a jerk. impatient.
I suffered with depression while pregnant, i felt insane, i cried all the time...it was awful.
When i went to him and tried to talk about how i was feeling and cried...he actually said to me:
" well, its too late to get an abortion now, you should have thought about all this before you decided to keep the baby"
I was in SHOCK! What an ass!
When Annabelle was born, they took her from me instantly , i didn't know i had options. They took her and gave her to my husband.
To this day, she is closer to him than me. Even though i breastfed her for 2 1/2 years!
With Emma Jo, I knew what i was doing and i was definitely secure in my mothering...and everyone knew it in the hospital.
when i birthed JO JO they put her immediately on my chest and i help her right there next to me for HOURS until they came back and did the tests and cleaned her off! It was amazing!
To this day Emma and me have this incredible closeness, one i have never felt with anyone EVER.
So, just from these experiences with my other two daughters, i can definitely see how that all comes into play. Absolutely.
PART 2:
ReplyDeleteCircumcision?
well, i don't think there is a way to know until you are pregnant and getting ready to have a boy.
My own, self-taught, school of says no.
what's the point?
I know you have to pay special attention and care to an uncircumsized baby boy however...cleaning...and if a mother is incapable of being attentive, then she should opt for the circumcision.
I am not into needless procedures "just because" or because everyone else does it, or because it is "normal"
After much research about vaccinations during Annabelles pregnancy, I chose the wait and see avenue.
I am sooo glad i did.
Both Bo and JO JO do not have any vaccinations and are pictures of health!
We have always used homeopathics, tinctures, vitamins...and they rarely get sick and get over sickness with a quickness!
I co-slept with both of them and nursed both of them for almost 3 years each! sleeping next to eachother was awesome for all of us and we had no trouble when the time came for them to move into their own beds.
They never cried during the night, EVER! No Stress. Nada.
They were never left alone. I nursed on demand and stayed home with them, even though we were poor as hell!
And today, I am VERY close with my girls. I couldn't be happier with how i have chosen to parent them.
I just wish i would have been capable of giving that to M too. With every ounce of my being.
I will never shake the guilt. Ever. :(
I know this comment is LONG! Yikes! It's just so good to write out my thoughts. Thanks for listening!
U Rock Campbell!! :) XOXO
Kindest Regards::::
Mama K.
Hah Kristina, you rock too : ) The guilt may never leave but you should take pride in changing your life the way you did. I think ultimately M will be proud of what you've overcome.
ReplyDeleteMaryanne, I remember my mother-in-law saying how it wasn't even an option when my son's father and his brothers were born. They just did it.
"Many adoptees do have real trauma , but I think it stems from when they realize what surrender and adoption mean, in early childhood, not from birth onward."
This is what I think too, but to add to it I think the trauma can be compounded when they have crap adoptive families, which obviously happens.
Thank you both for weighing in.
I have met men who had no problem with their circumcision and men who did. If you do some reading on the issue, you'll see that there is debate. I see it as an unneccesary operation.
ReplyDeleteThere are men have experienced ongoing pain, extreme sensitivity, lack of sensitivity, etc in regards to circumcision. And then there are men who have experienced none of that and have no idea what the other population of men are talking about. This might be a case where some men's bodies are more sensitive and/or lack of skill on the practioners part and/or the fact that in an area that is so delicate and that we still probably don't have full info about, there's probably differences in the foreskin itself. The truth is, there's differences in all our bodies. Bodies don't all react the same way.
The whole circumcision issue reminds me of the debate around vaccines causing autism and a range of other issues - if there is a chance that some kids are more sensitive to vaccines, then doesn't it warrant further investigation and also caution?
Also, there are definitley people who have experienced PTSD in regards childhood operations and/or operations as babies.
It is likely that most human beings have experienced some trauma, life is pretty traumatic! The question is, how do we help kids/people to recover from this trauma? First, we have to recognize and acknowledge it. We also have to be open to methods by which people can heal and understand that while they may feel loss and grief, they don't have to remain in a stuck state. (Essentially that's what the traumatic state is - the body itself is always on hyperawareness, for one thing.)
In the case of seperation of mother and infant/baby/child, even at the point where the baby emerges from the womb it already recognizes its mothers voice and heartbeat, it is keyed to her smell, etc. This just makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. This is very human, but it is also very animal and it's important to remember that human beings are animals and that there animal nature is important and still so much a part of who they are. It's not as if a baby/child is going to reason, oh, this is NOT the body, touch, voice, smell I recognize and am comforted by, but that's ok because my mother has such and such reasons for giving me up.
I would say that I believe people CAN absolutely recover from traumatic events.
One other things I would say is that you're not taking into consideration those who are older when they're adopted (that is not infants, say 3 or older.) If you take those who are older and can conscisouly remember and verbalize about their first moms, I think you'd need to review your idea that it's only in learning about adoption and what it means. Is it actually learning about adoption that would make a 3 year old or older child feel traumatized, or is it being away from the mother they remember (and all that entails) and culture, language, etc? And what makes a 3 year more sensitive to this than an infant? Or is is just that an infant cannot verbalize this pain in language and will not consciously be able to recall this?
ReplyDeleteBy the way, you might want to look at late discovery adoptees. They span the range, some do identify with the primal wound and felt out of place, and some think, as you do, that it was the finding out about adoption, and they never felt out of place.
Personally, I think the Primal Wound theory is limited. It's only part of the picture and we definitely need more.
For instance, Bastard Nation also does not believe in the Primal Wound theory (and dislikes it for a variety of interesting reasons). It feels that because of the current way adoption is practiced, that "adoptee" is actually a political/minority identity and that the Primal Wound tries to make "psychological" what is actually the result of an injust system. I'm probably not doing the best summary here, so here's one place you can read about these ideas: http://www.babylovechild.org/2008/01/30/on-so-called-the-primal-wound-personal-problems-vs-political-solutions/
Yeah...
ReplyDeleteI thought Primal Wound was based on newborn adoption.
Late discovery of adoption is horrifying to me. I think it's unbelievably cruel.
I think what would make a 3 year old more sensitive to trauma of losing caregivers (in any fashion) is that they most likely will have developed a relationship and although at the time may not understand the why of the loss, they are fully conscious of the loss and that loss can happen with other caregivers. I can compare my brother's death and the loss to his 3 and 6 year old daughters. They go on and live but the loss is a part of them. They are forever affected.
My being adopted as an infant and what my nieces experienced in the sudden death of their father or the experience of a child who's older and, as you say, "away from the mother they remember (and all that entails) and culture, language, etc" can't even be compared on a "trauma scale".
I don't believe there is an instant emotional bond or connection prior to and/or upon birth for all mothers and babies, so the loss for an "adoptee" at that time would be the least traumatic, in my opinion and experience.
It would be a different story for some mothers for the same reason it's harder for an older child.
Thank you for taking the time to read and for your comments.
Oh yeah, and I've done quite a bit of reading and given quite a bit of thought to circumcision in infancy.
I remember Verrier mentioning adoptin of older babies/kids in there.
ReplyDeleteI was actually an older adoption, and I've never been comfortable saying that infants didn't experience loss and trauma. Yes, the circumstances may have been different, but like recognizes like, and after listening to people adopted as infants and just being in their presence, I really have no doubt that they've experienced their own loss and trauma. I would certainly never be comfortable saying their loss is bigger than mine. We have similarities and differences in our experiences is how I look at it.
From your comments, some questions:
Do you believe that a newborn has emotions?
Do you believe a newborn is a "blank slate"?
Do you acknowledge the fact that a newborn recognizes it's mother's voice and a host of other things about its mother?
Do you believe an infant might be more sensitive to changes in its enviroment?
If someone was kidnapped as an infant would you be more likely to believe that it had experienced a trauma by being separated from its mother?
"Do you believe that a newborn has emotions?"
ReplyDeleteI don't really know for sure, I wouldn't think emotions as we know them. I would think initially a newborn reacts upon instinct with emotions starting to develop immediately. If they do have emotions and show them in the only way they know initially, which is by crying or not, that would shoot the "mom's the only thing that's not trauma inducing" theory all to hell. I just watched a 3 week old passed from woman to woman at his baby shower without a peep, content as could be, til it needed to be changed and was hungry.
"Do you believe a newborn is a "blank slate"?"
This question can have many meanings and I'm not just sure what you think of as a blank slate. If what you mean is what you say in your second question, "Do you acknowledge the fact that a newborn recognizes it's mother's voice and a host of other things about its mother?" yes, I believe a newborn recognizes it's mother's voice and smell, possibly even it's father's voice or other sounds it may have heard pre birth.
"Do you believe an infant might be more sensitive to changes in its environment?"
More sensitive? Do you mean than an older child? No, I do not think this. In fact, I hope it isn't true because if it is, we'd all traumatized by the birthing process. Talk about a traumatic event.
"If someone was kidnapped as an infant would you be more likely to believe that it had experienced a trauma by being separated from its mother?"
Just by the act of being separated? No, if it weren't physically harmed and had all needs met including proper nurturing, it may never even know it was kidnapped and never felt anything odd at all, something you acknowledge has happened with late discovery adoptees.
How would a newborn possibly know it was kidnapped? I don't understand what you're trying to get at with this question unless it's to play on my emotions to see if my answer would be different based on how I view adoption as opposed to kidnapping.
I would have to be comfortable in saying loss you experienced as an older adoptee who knew your parent(s)is way bigger than mine because I honestly don't feel any loss.
I am totally fine with having been adopted. There are things that are different for me than someone who isn't adopted (some of them being positive) but I've never felt abandoned and not being wanted by my biological people doesn't bug me one bit because I luckily ended up with a family that did. I know it wasn't me the person that was unwanted, it was the stigma of me that was unwanted, not me as a cute little baby or the grown person I've become.
My not being kept had not a damn thing to do with me. Why would I carry that burden?
I realize now how fortunate I am to feel this way and wish I did have a way to "bottle it" or know a "secret formula" but in truth there can't be anything like that. There are far too many variables.
"I realize now how fortunate I am to feel this way and wish I did have a way to "bottle it" or know a "secret formula" but in truth there can't be anything like that. There are far too many variables"
ReplyDeleteIf your formula took away the sadnes and grief I felt, that is, the connection, I wouldn't take it. If your formula would only take away the stuff about me not being good enough to be kept, I think there is a formula that could've taken that away for me as a child. Ongoing communication with my first mother, for one. Open talk with my adoptive parents, instead of me feeling that there was only once in a blue moon I could bring it up for fear of me hurting them and them giving me the standard answers which actually did nothing to answer my questions. (This was quite standard back in the day, by the way. APs and PAPs have access to good adoption education now, though there needs to be more of that and some classes aren't all that good.) I think counseling for us as a family would've helped a great deal because they would've been highly uncomfortable with my questions. I think all of these and some other strategies would've helped me to not blame myself.
You may have felt much more open communication with your parents than most adoptees of our era did, if so, that's great, but please make sure to note this consistently because I think it's a really important factor for parents to hear and for us to know. It's not about "good" or "bad" relationship with one's adoptive parents; it's about talking about what factors can contribute to a child feeling open to processing their feelings as a child and as they're coming up. (As opposed to having to hide questions, feelings, etc from their parents, putting up a false front, which is not helpful to the child or family.)
When a kid's parents divorce, when a kid's parents die, etc, kids tend to blame themselves. Of course we adults know it's not the kids' fault, but the child is trying to make sense of this and will tend to internalize the reasons why things have happened.
One of the things I see you doing in this blog sometimes (not ALL the time, mind you) is setting up adoptees who aren't like you as "adoptees with issues." (Again, not saying you do it all the time, but it is something you fall into.) Human beings are way more complex than that. And unfortunately these stereotypes don't help any of us in the adoption community.
By the way, being passed around at a baby shower to be returned to your mother's arms is significantly different from being taken from her for good.
And yes, some people would acknowledge trauma in the case of kidnapping and not adoption. I'll also note here that some adoptees have felt kidnapped and I think the reason for this is because babies and children are feeling the feelings and not reasoning in their heads. The reasoning comes much later on.
By the way, I know someone whose father died between the ages that you say your nieces are when they lost your father. My friend was 5. She says she feels no loss and grief over this and that she never has. But I have read essays, etc by people who have also lost their fathers at those ages and say they have felt loss. And of course it sounds like your nieces have too. And you yourself are saying you feel that this will stay with them, that this will be a lifetime loss. If we would see a child who had lost her father blaming herself for his death (this is something again that kid's tend to do with the loss of a parent), wouldn't we listen to them, hold them, and explain why this isn't their fault? Might their be children who would not internalize it and think it's their fault? Sure. But would we keep that from helping the kids who did? I hope not.
"One of the things I see you doing in this blog sometimes (not ALL the time, mind you) is setting up adoptees who aren't like you as "adoptees with issues.""
ReplyDeleteI'm welcome to suggestions on how to phrase this more delicately. I will not lie and say my experience is different than it is, but at the same time I want to bring awareness to the fact it's not the only experience that exists. I try very hard to be tactful, but it's not easy.
For instance, you say "You may have felt much more open communication with your parents than most adoptees of our era did, if so, that's great, but please make sure to note this consistently because I think it's a really important factor for parents to hear and for us to know." which I agree with and will try to do more often, but, I've also been criticized for always qualifying the good things in my experience, that doing so makes it easier for me to have my voice accepted. My point is, it's difficult to appease everyone, to write in a way that's palatable to everyone's sensitivity. Please know your criticism or assessment of my delivery is noted, accepted, and any suggestions for a better way are welcome.
"If your formula took away the sadness and grief I felt, that is, the connection, I wouldn't take it"
This is an interesting comment. It can be taken in different ways. It could be taken in the way that you WANT to feel the sadness and grief, that you don't want to feel "better" about being adopted.
But what you're trying to say is that in feeling sadness and grief you have a connection that I or other adopted people who don't feel a loss have, and I get that, in fact it's a way I console myself about other losses I've experienced.
That the pain of loss is worth it to have had the connection I had with the special people I've lost due to death.
"I've also been criticized for always qualifying the good things in my experience, that doing so makes it easier for me to have my voice accepted."
ReplyDeleteI've seen adoptees who critique the way adoption has been/is practiced also talk about the things they are happy with about their adoption experience, so I'm not sure that this really is it. Maybe it's because you say that you don't feel loss that it's easier for some to hear your voice?
"That the pain of loss is worth it to have had the connection I had with the special people I've lost due to death."
This is exactly how I feel.
"that you don't want to feel "better" about being adopted."
Ah, this is a REALLY important point!! One of the BIG problems I see with the talk about having issues about "being adopted" is that the "being relinquished" part is not really "seen" in the being adopted part.
It's not accurate to say that someone has a problem with "being adopted" if they're talking about things that result from "being relinquished" In addition, it's not accurate to make a blanket-statement that one has a problem with "being adopted" when what they're saying is they have critique about some adoption practices.
For instance, the loss of first mother doesn't come from "being adopted." It comes from the first mother being in a situation where she feels unable to parent and/or is pretty much forced to choose the option to relinquish by poverty, social stigama, etc. (It is true that there have been and are women who have been forced to place their children for adoption - Baby Drop Era, Korea, etc, etc, but in this case it's still not "being" adopted that the person has a problem with, it's unjust adoption social practices that resulted in them being relinquished in the first place.)
I'm quite happy with the "being adopted" part, happy to have grown up in a family, that is. Just as most people out there (adopted or not) are happy to have grown up in a family. (Though non-adopted folks aren't expected to say it all the time! I'm totally jealous of that! ;)
I do wish there had been a lot more education for parents in those days, and I wish I had been able to openly talk about my feelings whenever I had them! That's a critique of adoption practices. (There was little to no adoption education back in the day, and parents didn't have the oppurtunities to learn how to talk about adoption the way they do now.)
I'm actually happy with the culture I was raised in too. I have a LOT of love for it, and I hope to visit the country of my adoptive parents ancestors one day!
But at the same time, I felt/feel the loss of my culture = that's the result of being relinquished.
AND I felt/feel the loss of not having any access to it growing up = that's the result of adoption practice that was the norm when I grew up.
Anyway, I'm certainly not going to go through and label every single thing, just trying to point out that saying someone has issues with being adopted is usually probably not particularly accurate.
I think this is important because the fact that the very complex nature of this process and experience gets all lumped together means that miscommunications often happen in the adoption community. I think more clarity in this area would help all of us to understand each other better.
Thank you Anna. What a great, respectful dialogue.
ReplyDeleteThere's much in what you've said in this last comment I agree with and/or understand.
"it's not accurate to make a blanket-statement that one has a problem with "being adopted" when what they're saying is they have critique about some adoption practices."
I agree that a person who has critique about some adoption practices doesn't mean they have a problem with being adopted. I'm one of those people!
"the loss of first mother doesn't come from "being adopted." It comes from the first mother being in a situation where she feels unable to parent and/or is pretty much forced to choose the option to relinquish by poverty, social stigma,"
I understand this but haven't felt it as so far, I am unaware that this is the case in my personal circumstance. In fact, all I know so far leads me to believe it wasn't the case. I may soon find out for sure though.
"non-adopted folks aren't expected to say it all the time!" ...you're referring to having to say you're happy to have grown up in a family. Had I been expected to ever do this I wouldn't like it either.
"I do wish there had been a lot more education for parents in those days, and I wish I had been able to openly talk about my feelings whenever I had them! That's a critique of adoption practices. (There was little to no adoption education back in the day, and parents didn't have the opportunities to learn how to talk about adoption the way they do now.)"
Totally agree with this and wish you and all other adopted people were able to talk openly about feelings!! Whether it was just my nature or something my parents did, talking openly was never a problem for me.
"But at the same time, I felt/feel the loss of my culture" I cannot honestly say I feel or have ever felt a loss over this but am and have always been curious, interested, and laid claim to my biological heritage. At least, what I think it may be. That's another thing. I've always known what I thought I knew to be fact, may not be. I've always been adamant (even recently) that my parents "better be telling me the truth, all they know, or I will be PISSED!" If I ever found they lied to me all my life, I would be very, very disappointed.
Thanks for the time you've taken reading and the care you've taken in commenting here : )
I'm not saying anyone's parents lied, I'm just saying that I've always known what I knew could be false, but it better not be because of my parents lying or withholding information.
ReplyDelete