MagicPointeShoes ([info]magicpointeshoe) wrote,
@ 2008-05-15 09:08:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
why the change is starting to happen in birthparent terminology
I said yesterday that I didn't have the energy to type up the explanation of why the terminology of birthparent, birthmother, birthfather, etc... was changing away from being used. And then this morning in the comments I went and wrote up a short summary anyways. I figure I might as well copy and paste it into a blog post for those that don't want to go comment diving to find it.

This is the article that I first happened across way back when I first started blogging here at livejournal about the name "birthmother" and why it sucked beans.

http://www.exiledmothers.com/adoption_facts/Why_Birthmother_Means_Breeder.html

I remember that article rattling cages when it first came out. There also has been a bit of discussion about the history of the the phrase birthmother which also I think helped nudge the change of thoughts about the word. http://musingsofthelame.blogspot.com/2007/11/origin-of-word-birthmother.html

But what I think really started the push away from the term birthmother, is that birthmothers started drawing the line in the sand a couple years ago about who *is* a birthmother and who is *not* a birthmother. The idea that a birthmother was a woman considering an adoption plan was offensive to many birthmothers. If she was to choose adoption of her own free will, then why did everyone already call her a birthmother when the choice couldn't be made until relinquishment? There was about a year or so that "potential birthmother" seemed like an acceptable compromise of stating that expectant women weren't officially birthmothers... but still that didn't set right either as the adoption reform movement started gathering it's legs under it. The "Dear Birthmother" letters being a key issue in this. If a woman is to truly have a non-coercive choice, then she should in all purposes be considered the only mother of her baby. By even suggesting she was a potential birthmother, it was still leaving a feeling of being a deer targeted for hunting. You can spot the people who agree with this thinking by when they correct people or get all upset hearing an expectant mother being called a birthmother.

That change still isn't reflected on adoption websites very much. It's still too new of a rebellion. But it is getting more notice by existing adoptive parents.

Also, there is a seed of thought planted by considering that last thought. If an expectant mother is still mother of her child, is there really a way to de-mother her? Actually, I think adoptees started this part of the change of thoughts. Adoptee reforms were/are about honesty in adoptive parenting and access to the secret documents surrounding said adoption. That pretending that they were born to their adoptive parents was awkward and uncomfortable. The blank slate theory being proved false. If one was to look at child development theory, in every child there is the nature vs nurture debate, and with adoption that debate is even more amplified. It isn't even something that has to be one or the other either. A person is a sum of their nature combined with the nurture they received. One doesn't negate the other. Thus we are and always will be mothers and fathers to our children, just as our children are raised by their mother and father. Adoptive parents claim mother and father without qualifiers for everyday conversations without hesitation. The same is just starting to be said for birthparents. It's awkward as heck, but the change has started to happen as evidence of google searching.

There is one more thought that I have on the topic. In one of my courses this semester on people with disabilities, I studied part of the history of terminology used on people with disabilities. Their history in reform of how they were being treated included changing the language used into people first terminology. Instead of giving a description of a person to be looked for as a "wheelchaired lady" it should be a lady using a wheelchair. That the disability isn't what defines the person and therefore shouldn't be used first to describe a person. I think that totally applies in the feelings of why the birth qualifier is starting to disappear a bit.



(Post a new comment)


[info]absenteeshe
2008-05-15 04:38 pm UTC (link)
Your last paragraph just wowed me. I've known that about people who deal with handicaps for awhile but never associated it with the reasons as to why I don't enjoy the determiner of birth before the word mother. Then again, first mother still involves a determiner but, alas, people FLIP when I just simply say "mother."

Someday. Someday.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]magicpointeshoe
2008-05-15 04:44 pm UTC (link)
I typically use the relationship to my children first then qualify it afterwards. It used to be that I would say birthson, but now it's son who I relinquish, or son that is raised by other parents. And then for the last year or so in my writing I've stuck with mother who relinquished, or mother of origin, or some other person first terminology. Once I started the course this semester it solidified why I like the complicated sound to the people first phrasing.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]apis_mellifera
2008-05-15 04:42 pm UTC (link)
I find your thoughts on this subject fascinating--my sister gave her son up for adoption about 10 years ago (I'm vaguely ashamed that I can't remember exactly how old he is, I just know that it was before my and my husband started dating and that his birthday is at the end of January) and I wonder how much her her seemingly non-coerced decision was subtly coerced. By agreeing to give her child up for adoption, she was able to secure funding for rent and food and clothing for the duration of her pregnancy. Any medical expenses not covered by the government would also have been covered for her. Money is a big stick for a lot of people, especially when the prospect of medical bills is on the horizon.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]magicpointeshoe
2008-05-15 04:48 pm UTC (link)
There is a list on the origins-canada website that lists the coercive techniques that have been used in the past and are still being used today. I don't doubt that many started as good intentions and all, but still coercive nonetheless.

http://www.originscanada.org/adoption_coercion.html

But yeah, money changing hands for support during pregnancy is another one of the things that adoption reform wants to address.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]apis_mellifera
2008-05-15 05:07 pm UTC (link)
I don't deny that G&L had the very best of intentions when it came to helping my sister out financially, but it did make my sister obligated to them--I seem to recall that she was told by the adoption agency that if she chose to keep her son that she would be required to repay all expenses incurred on her behalf.

I don't know how much blame to place on adoptive parents and how much to put on the people who are actually making money off adoptions--i.e., adoption agencies. The more I look at the system, the more corrupt it seems to be.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]the_lissa
2008-05-15 05:00 pm UTC (link)
I agree about ther terminology.

(Reply to this)


[info]mercy_rain
2008-05-15 05:21 pm UTC (link)
I'm a...uh, whatever I'm allowed to call myself, a mother of a child placed for adoption. But that first article, I can see why it shook things up - it doesn't really sit well with me, because the impression I get is of a rather anti-adoptive-parent attitude. I see the author had her child in the late 60s, when things were not the same as when I placed my child, but still. Is this antipathy common between biological parents and adoptive parents? I don't understand it. Why would I place my child with another couple to be raised, if I thought so ill of them?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]magicpointeshoe
2008-05-15 06:08 pm UTC (link)
The second link used to have that same reaction from those that would go read it. Claudia's old blog theme was mainly the color black and in big bold letters self-proclaiming that she was an anti-adoption mother who lost her child to adoption, or some such really cage rattling phrasing.

I liken many of the voices speaking up for reform to the woman's movement. Not everyone agreed on when change was appropriate or what changes really needed to be made. It's part of why I find the change in google search phrases results so interesting.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]tafagirl
2008-05-15 05:48 pm UTC (link)
It bothers me a lot that the US agencies that will work with Dutchies are all very much stuck in dear-birthmother-land :-(

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]magicpointeshoe
2008-05-16 03:12 am UTC (link)
I figured as much. =o)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]rebeccapaul
2008-05-15 06:26 pm UTC (link)
I had never really thought about this issue, but it makes sense.

May I share this (and by extension your LJ) with an LJ friend who is trying to adopt?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]magicpointeshoe
2008-05-15 06:27 pm UTC (link)
Share away!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

this comparison is really excellent
[info]thenightkitchen.wordpress.com
2008-05-15 11:25 pm UTC (link)
I think the comparison in terminology to people with disabilities is so applicable, and one that I will steal and use! I usually refer to my son's first mother just as his "other mother", and I don't see anyone cringing. I think honestly that this makes most sense to my friends who are mothers through birth, as they could never negate the important role his other mother played and plays in his life. His other father, too, for that matter...
Cynthia

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]spyderkl
2008-05-16 12:29 am UTC (link)
This is really great - thanks for posting this! I came over here from Dawn's blog.

As an adoptive parent, I've gone from having M and S as birthparents to just our daughter's other mother and father. Because, well...they just are. And yeah, the analogy to disability terminology is a good one.

(Reply to this)


[info]rredhead
2008-05-16 12:34 am UTC (link)
OK, so these are thoughts that are just forming, so forgive me if I'm being clunky.
Although semantically, a mother is a mother is a mother, the word "mother" carries with it many meanings that you won't find in a dictionary.
When I think of the term "birthmother" I think it means the woman who gave birth to a child, but doesn't mother, or parent, him. Around Mother's Day, you often see the email messages about mothers staying up with sick children, staying up to sew costumes, all that sentimental sap. My son's birthmother did an amazing act for her son - she knew that she couldn't be his everyday, parenting, mother. So she chose us to parent him.
I don't have a problem if she wants to refer to Jack as her son, and to herself as his mother, overall. When I'm talking about biology or genetics, I use the term "mother" for her. "Birthmother" is more of a clarifying term.
Jack's birthmother chose to place him. There are birthmothers who have had their children taken due to abuse and neglect. When I think of abusive parents, and parents who allow their children to be abused by others, my first instinct is to strip them of their titles "mother" and "father." A real mother doesn't hurt her kids. It's on a visceral level.
No one ever thinks of the birthfathers. I would love to talk with a birthfather who cares about and/or is involved in his child's adoption.
At one point, Jack's birthmother referred to her boyfriend - who isn't Jack's bio father - as his "Daddy." As this man had never met Jack and had absolutely nothing to do with him, genetically or otherwise, he didn't earn the title. Jack's birthfather also has never met him, and has contributed nothing but genes to my son. Calling him Jack's "father" in any context other than biology, would be a misnomer.
I do think that the term "expectant mother" Is much, much more correct on many levels than birthmother or "potential birthmother." Although, adoptive parents who haven't yet adopted are called potential or prospective adoptive parents, so I can see the argument that. I still prefer expectant mother. We wouldn't use "Dear Birthmother" on our letter and profile. I'd like to see more professionals and people in the adoption community use the term "expectant mother." I always correct people I talk to online.
moominmama linked to your posts, so I hope you don't mind that I've tried to friend you. Very interesting and well-written material.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]magicpointeshoe
2008-05-16 01:15 am UTC (link)
I don't mind your thoughts at all. I tend to visit and read a lot of thoughts regarding adoption and very very few manage to get my knickers twisted enough with thoughts that don't coincide with mine.

The thing of it is, even in the worst of circumstances, genetically a parent is still parent. In cases of step-parenting, and the other parent isn't around whether by choice or force, there is still a general acceptance that the other person is still their parent. Yes, there are plenty of examples of where step-parenting is treated like closed adoption with no disclosure to the child, but mainly I don't see the same disregard in classification when it comes to parenting titles.

To me, even in the worst case scenarios of from whom a person comes from despite not being parented by them, is still something of value and not something that can be dismissed away.

What I forgot to add on in this post is that another part of my own path to figuring out my own definition and my own worth is by looking at adoptee blogs discussing extended family when searching and reuniting. Why is it only the birthparents that are titled with qualifiers, but all other relationships (sister, brother, aunt, uncle, grandparent) are simply the relationship that would have been?

Anyway, it's all so awkward in this transition from being the silent invisible mother not to be spoken about, to being discussed and discussing ourselves as we try to figure this all out. Way better than the silence my great-grandma lived with though.

Also on a side note, my husband is the father of our relinquished son. He was much more in touch with what was wrong with what happened much sooner than I was. He just didn't talk about those things until it came out my mouth first.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]magicpointeshoe
2008-05-16 03:15 am UTC (link)
Also, have you read http://nevyn.wordpress.com/ yet?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Person-first language...
(Anonymous)
2008-05-17 09:42 pm UTC (link)
MPS, I am glad you wrote this.

Working the mental health field, person-first language is a BIG topic in my "real" (non-online, non-adoption) life. I think I just ASSUMED that everyone understood why we hate the "birth" qualifiers, that person-first language is largely what it's about... but I see from the responses that was a bad assumption.

Yes, dammit, I am a person. A woman. A woman who happened to relinquish a child. DO NOT label me!

(Reply to this)

Oh and..
(Anonymous)
2008-05-17 09:43 pm UTC (link)
Sorry, above comment was me, Nicole (paragraphein). Can't remember my LJ user account.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…