Respectful adoption language

[Offredalba]

Sometime ago there was a brief discussion about why some people might find the term birthmother offensive. Perhaps this will inform and promote understanding.

www.firstmotherforum.com/2016/01/preferred-adoption-language-is-bunk.html?m=1

[Kewcumber]

Just as Kewcumber has said that the author of the blog is an adult and should not be concerned about the word - paraphrased me rather badly there.

Everyone is entitled to feel however they like.

What the original blog post fails to consider is that much of the language that has developed around adoption isn't for the benefit of the adults but the child and no-ne in that blog is that acknowledged.

I hate "real" parent - it jars with me but if DS was happy with that term then I would suck it up because it's not about me - its about him. That was my point. That we are adlts and we can take it on the chin and anyway we all (BP's and AP's) have choice and decision making ability to some degree or other. The hcild had none and they are in addition vulnerable to bullying from outsiders. If language can help alleviate that in any way (in my opinion it can) then I can little about what other other AP's or BP's think and even less about non-related parties think - I'll do what helps DS.

[Kewcumber]

I care little

[Kewcumber]

My issue with 'real mum' is mostly about it being used in front of my child. - agreed. It upsets DS.

[tldr]

combined (sorry, I start far too many posts like that these days)

The thing is;

1. twice very recently you've written something, someone's pulled you up on it and you've eventually said 'oh you're right, I didn't mean that'. You've done it on this thread. You also wrote something quite inflammatory which, IIRC, you wouldn't justify or expand on. Some people might find that annoying. Or goady. Or like you're spoiling for a bunfight.
   (The examples I'm thinking of are, in this order, needing separate laws for abusive adoptive parents, the shenanigans thing, your friends who are lovely but opposed to adoption 'on principle'.)
   
2. you appear to be here just for a chat. Which is fine, of course, but most of the rest of us are here because we need support or are hoping we can support others. From our experience. Which we state. And if you join in, that's fine. But don't be surprised if someone tells you you are wrong. In their opinion. That's not being negative, that's trying to support those who need it.

[combined02]

Kewcumber, I think people who have had negative experiences need their own section. I think you should give it a bit more thought and a bit more support.

If the goady fucker threads were a while ago, then let them lie.

[combined02]

PS I keep saying that I must read my posts before sending. I tried very hard when I first came on here to be sensitive and I haven't been recently. I am sorry if genuinely I have caused anyone offence.

[Kewcumber]

No I'm not going to give it any more thought thanks, it's not worth it. I supported a change o several occasions (having been on this board since it started) and nothing happens and it won;t stop people who think that their view is informative trying to foist that on people who really want practical advise and I'm not wasting more time on it.

I'd personally urge all posters to consider what areas are fair game for all opinions to be aired - systems, processes, etc when it might be more diplomatic to phrase they opinions more carefully.

What do you mean by "negative" - child with issues, adoption disruption, somewhere in between. There's a relatively small adoption community and an even smaller mumsnet one. Splitting the board runs the risk (as I gather happened to SN) on section with tumbleweed blowing through it and little action.

Adoption stays alive and vibrant because there are a core of adoptive parents, children and birth parents who relentlessly answer questions, respond to pleas etc. I think the onus is on posters to post wisely rahter than ring fenced ghettos that become little used.

[Kewcumber]

then let them lie - ha! We've tired and then every so offer someone innocently wandered along (probably having found them through google) and bumps them.

[user7755]

I don't think we need a separate board, and I actually think that some of these discussions are helpful in raising awareness.

It is frustrating, but equally it's an opportunity to challenge unhelpful views.

[FuckedOffMum]

Combined, like Kew says, the idea of separate sections for adopters and birth family (because I suspect that's what you really mean by 'negative experience of adoption', no one who has adopted is going to describe their experience as negative) has been floated numerous times, and always dismissed. There are a number of birth parents/family members who post in the adoption board and are happy to do so. I hope that they feel supported and as welcome here as the adopters and adoptees. It just happens that adopters outnumber the other groups, that doesn't mean that they're not welcome here.

This board is for anyone affected by adoption - you don't appear to be affected by it, but seem to have an obsessive interest in it, which is why people are suspicious. It all smacks a little of rubber-necking. You've been told numerous times that people need to weight posters advice, and given that you have no direct link to adoption and won't say what experience, if any, you have of dealing with traumatised children, then you can't be surprised if your opinions are given very little weight. It's like me marching into a Middle East Peace Conference and expecting to be listened to because I once lived with someone from Iraq.

The very fact that this board is populated with all sides of the adoption triangle and every one manages to support each other and get on well shows that we're not the ones being argumentative and difficult - it's the busybodies with no link to adoption coming and telling us where we're all going wrong. There have been dozens of threads that I would describe as goady since I started posting on here a few years ago, many eventually get deleted, others eventually disappear down the list. We were removed from the active conversations list recently to prevent people wondering in here and dishing out advice without realising they're posting in adoption, and also to stop people starting threads whose only result was going to be a fight.

As for everyone being allowed to have opinions, that's fine and I think you'd be hard pushed to find someone who disagreed with you. The trouble is, you say you think 'birth mother' is distancing etc. then follow it up with In terms of formal language I do feel that there should be review which isn't just you saying your opinion differs to everyone else, you're saying our opinions are wrong and that there should be some kind of wholesale overhaul of the language we've all said we think is appropriate for our children. Do you see why people get annoyed?

As for not taking time to be more sensitive, perhaps if you don't have time to do it, don't post? This isn't a place for general debates about adoption. You're talking about our lives and our children. Would you go into the same sex parents section and start telling them how to do things, or the special needs board? I'm guessing not, because it would be offensive and hurtful. So perhaps you could try to afford us the same level of respect, please.

[gabsdot]

I had a chat with DH about that article last night. We also attended an adoption event yesterday with our kids and I had a number of conversations with other parents about various issues to do with our adopted children including children who talk about their "family of origin" (to use a term that I don't think anyone has mentioned on this thread yet)

Anyway. It's an interesting subject and DH and I came to the conclusion that it's really up to our kids what they want to call the woman who gave birth to them. Sometimes she is called by her first name, sometimes, "my mam in Russia", sometimes my other mammy. I'm sure eventually they'll settle on something.

Personally I'm not mad about the term natural mother or real mother but that's just me.

Also we've always used the term,' When the children came along' to describe the time we adopted them rather than when they came home.

[Devora]

I do get a bit fed up of being told I need to be more understanding and tolerant of birth parents by people who are not directly affected by adoption. Not because I want to lack understanding or tolerance - I have found it a vital part of my adoption journey to develop sufficient understanding and empathy to be able to give my daughter a rounded and human view of her first mother. It's also about my politics - as a feminist, I have a commitment to understanding the lives of women who are usually at the bottom of the pile.

What it isn't about is mollifying outsiders' squeamishness about being mean about mothers. There's quite a lot of this on MN. I have been ritually slaughtered on threads about pregnant women abusing drugs and alcohol, just for saying don't forget the impact on the child - despite my absolute support of women's reproductive autonomy.

I don't think any other group of mothers is expected to feel compassion and understanding for those who have hurt and damaged their children. Only us. By and large, I think we do a pretty bloody amazing job of containing negative feelings, for the sake of our children. But it's galling when you see the odd poster on here (and there's been a few) criticising adoptive parents for not being nice enough about birth parents when talking online to other adoptive parents.

[user7755]

I don't think any other group of mothers is expected to feel compassion and understanding for those who have hurt and damaged their children. Only us

Ive never thought about it like this but you are absolutely right.

[tldr]

It's a great way of looking at it, isn't it?

I remember on our prep course there was one man in particular who kept talking about birth mums and families of origin in quite a disparaging way and I often wondered how he got on during home study. It would seem a little/lot unfair if he hadn't been able to adopt on the grounds of sharing the same opinions as most readers of most of our tabloids/right wing broadsheets.

[gabsdot]

I don't think any other group of mothers is expected to feel compassion and understanding for those who have hurt and damaged their children. Only us

You make a good point

[Devora]

I think it's drummed into us from the very start of the adoption process, user. And of course, in one way it's right, in that adoptive parents need to be able to manage their feelings of distress, disgust and anger about what has happened to our kids. If we can't do that, we will not be able to provide a place of calm safety for our children to work out their own feelings. I absolutely am not going to slag off my dd's birth parents because she would pick up on that and it would feel as though I was attacking part of her. That is so important that I don't even need to think about what I 'owe' the birth parents themselves.

But I'm struggling to think of times when I've read an adoptive parent cross that line here on MN. I challenge anyone to come up with threads that are about slagging off birth parents. That doesn't mean that nobody has ever expressed criticism, but surely people are allowed a safe place online where they can anonymously let off steam?

Most importantly, I don't think this is a place where birth parents get slagged off as a group. It probably seems so to combined, as she seems to think mothers who have had their children taken into care are the same mix of good and bad parents as anyone else, and let's face it that is just not true. But I think we all know that the majority of birth parents are people who have been massively disadvantaged in life, who have started family life with the odds stacked against them. I'm not interested in waging war on people who have been through more shit than most of us can conceive of, but I'm equally not going to pretend that these are people who just got unlucky with the state of their kitchen on the day the social worker called.

Others could reflect that them coming on here to tell us that we need to be nice about birth parents is akin to me going to a birth parent forum to wag my finger and tell them that they should be jolly grateful to their children's new parents at all times. Funny how in other parts of MN, men who hurt women or children are considered so past the pale they should just drop off the planet. But on here, different rules seem to apply.

Right, I seem to have got that off my chest

[combined02]

FOM, I see finally where you are coming from. You think I am in cohorts with Ian Joseph and want a section to do with issues to do with forced adoption? If so, you are wrong. I don't know enough about it to have a view. I am thinking of adoptees, birth mothers who gave up their children a long time ago, other family members where people have been adopted where there has been fallout, adopters who find it difficult to express their views on this section.

In relation to sensitive, yes, you too.

[Kewcumber]

DS once said to me "well that's not very nice!" in a bit of an outraged tone when we were discussing the circumstances surrounding his relinquishment. My instinct was to defend her because it's really what we have absorbed but I did stop myself because in a way then I'm not allowing him to have his own opinions about the choices she made. In fact I settled on half way house talking about people who make what they might feel is the only choice at the time and how hard it is to judge people with hindsight when you aren't living with their particular set of circumstances.

Blanket discussions about what birth parents should or shouldn't be called doesn't really form part of my world view.

[FuckedOffMum]

Combined, I fail to see why any of those people you envisage posting in this separate section you want, couldn't post here? We've had posts from all those categories of people in this section without any issues. Why now do we need a new area?

As for sensitivity - I'm not the one being repeatedly told over several threads by numerous posters that I'm being rude and inflammatory. Just sayin'.

[mybloodykitchen]

It's nice that those people finally have a cheerleader in you combined. Especially since you apparently don't have any personal axe to grind and can be completely impartial.

I'm sure they'll be along soon to express their gratitude

[combined02]

tldr - you have misunderstood a few things:

"needing separate laws for abusive adoptive parents" - I apologised because people were taking offence, not because what I said was offensive - I said that at the time.

the shenanigans thing - Devora said that she hoped that that wasn't the experience I had, or words to that effect. I didn't answer her. The answer is no, that is not the experience I have been alluding to. Me saying I regretted posting it was because I regretted posting it.

"your friends who are lovely but opposed to adoption 'on principle'" - I didn't mention friends. I know lovely people who are opposed to adoption. I still know lovely people who are opposed to adoption on principle. I am not an a-hole for saying this and nor are they. They just have different views to MBK et al.

[FuckedOffMum]

Well, IMO people who are opposed to adoption on principle are both arseholes and stupid, and people who tell adopters/adoptees that they oppose it on principle/know people who do without distancing themselves from that view are also arseholes. I maybe just adhere to a higher standard of behaviour, though?

[Offredalba]

I don't think that the blogger was ever talking about what language adoptive parents might use with their children. She was talking about how these women are referred to in the mainstream, how that language arose and its effect.

She also said:
"
in the end, both natural and adoptive mothers are real mothers. Different, but real. "

In 1968 there were 25,000 children adopted in England. 92% of them were 'illegitmate'.

In 2012, 2680 children were adopted from care. Other adoptions occurred within families, e.g. adoption by step-parents.

My point is this: Given that a woman who surrendered her child for adoption in the 1968 may have been born in the 1950s, she will be in her 60s now. The practice of removing children from unmarried women (by force or coercion) went on until the 1980s. Therefore, the vast majority of women who might be referred to as 'birthmothers' in the UK are women who were deemed unfit to parent because they were not married. They are in the tens of thousands. There will have to be a lot of dying off before they are outnumbered by those who abused their children.

Is it reasonable to label and stereotype them? How many of us in this forum would be considered fit parents under those criteria?

[mybloodykitchen]

Are they your lovely friends at the family rights group?

Either that or your imaginary friends in your head...

[Kewcumber]

There have been many threads from birth families and adoptees over the years on adoption. Some like the fairly recent adoptees thread have been self-populated with an occasional aside from the odd adopter or birthparent. But on the whole the responses to the other threads have been 95% replied to by adoptive parents.

If you want to ringfence them to protect them from adoptive parents then they are going to be answered by a man his dog and an answer machine.

In fact on the thread where I was told off for suggesting the birth family member who wandered into the middle of a thread about something completely different asked specific questions on a separate thread - I did have a cynical laugh to myself about where the posters saying that had been when that person started a thread the week before.

You're going to have to round up a lot more people to make a separate area for other parts of adoption viable.

But if you think it will benefit anyone, I'd agreed to a self imposed ban on ever replying to any threads started by anyone except an adopter or a prospective adopter.

Good luck with that.