Non-moms worse than lesser-than-citizens?
May 9, 2008 Adoption
Honestly I think the teleflora snafu is idiotic and ridiculous but it doesn’t make me nearly as unhappy as HB 7 going down. It just doesn’t offend me the way governmental prejudice against adopted people does.
I know in some ways one is a reflection of the other. Adopted kids — and the adults they grow up into although in the eyes of the world they’re always adopted children — just aren’t as “real” as people who get to grow up in their families of origin. The only reason non-mom would ever bother me (because honestly I don’t give a damn what people call me) is that it’s indicative of the disrespect that society has about our kids. It doesn’t hurt me to be called a non-mom but it sure as hell would hurt Madison to hear me dismissed and this whole “one of her own” (aside from the offensive “meth babies”) is also hurtful.
So I know that this is a reflection of why birth certificates are falsified and the real records sealed up tight. I know that but I just wish I saw as much outrage about closed records as I’m seeing about some stupid mother’s day promotion. And I wish that our representatives were as quick to respond as the folks at teleflora (although honestly, teleflora? I don’t see how you can make this right — it was such a misguided thing to do and the fact that your president is an “adopting” parent herself makes me really wonder where the hell everyone’s head was at). They put up the lame apology, they’ll likely — one hopes — change the “meth baby” reference and rethink the whole stupid category organization anyway, and their PR folks are commenting on blogs read to hear us. (Scroll down and you can see she’s introduced herself in the comments on the post.)
But our elected reps? They don’t give a damn.
It’s depressing.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
It upsets me to be called a non-mom, and I’m sure it would upset Nate if he heard me called a non-mom.
I’ve been plenty outraged against closed records, but the sad truth is that I don’t expect much more from our legislators than what they’ve not given us time and time again and I wear the cynical and jaded look about it very well because I am cynical and jaded about it. Also, the non-mom thing was a recent, kind of in-your-face thing that people had an immediate reaction to which doesn’t surprise me at all. Advertisement about an upcoming TV special is front and center. HB 7 isn’t front and center.
I also wish it were easier to change legislators’ minds about open records and really don’t know what the possible hold-up can be — some ghostly figures that may or may not exist in reality? I truly don’t understand. I do think the outrage is there but it sure is easier to get a response from the head of NBC than from the Ohio Legislature, as we’ve just seen.
Sad, really.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Hey, online party!
I wasn’t thrilled about being non-mom, but was very disturbed that being non-mom rendered P and M non-kids. What got me in the letter they sent was all the self-commendations about having so many adoptive parents on their staff. Well, DUH - pay attention then!
Dawn, you are right, though - it’s the attitudes of legislators who hold our children’s identities in their hands that should really make us mad. One thing that frustrates me is that we are forced to approach open records as a states’ rights issue. I think that’s wrong, and that the focus should swing to human rights. I know that Evan B. Donaldson has some plans in the works to get some traction at the Federal level, hopefully that will get going sooner than later. And hopefully the adoptee rights demonstration in New Orleans this summer will open the eyes of the state legislators who will be there.
Hopefully. I wish I were more confident on both fronts.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
@Judy: I’m sorry that the non-mom comment upsets you. And I do agree it would upset our kids. You and Margie — and pretty much every adoptive parent I know who reads my blog — aren’t the people I’m talking about though. It’s the adoptive parenting message boards that light up over this fiasco but don’t take the time to find out what their own kids’ rights are in regards to their info. Bother.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Yeah, I’m toying with talking to Mallory and Noelle about going to court to get Mallory’s OA as soon as she turns 18 or working with legislation here. The thing is that she knows all the information already, so I’m scared that legislators won’t take us seriously. Open records REALLY bother me, even though both my children have their information through open adoption. I just think their has to be a mind shift in the general public. We shouldn’t protect one class of people (birth parents) at the expense of another group (adoptees). It’s basic civil rights.
I think ultimately we should work to change birth certificates for adoptees so this is never an issue. Maybe there could be a caveat for dangerous situations. Those are few and far between so we should operate on the theory that everyone could handle the information, and if take those that need to be protected on a case by case basis. Those cases should go to court to close their records.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
I meant Mallory’s OBC- it’s too late to be typing and I have too many teenagers surrounding me. Birthday party. 6 girls staying the night. God help me.
May 10th, 2008 at 4:38 am
couldn’t agree more.
and yes, good luck lisa. good lord.
May 10th, 2008 at 7:41 am
Oh, gotcha, Dawn. I never go to those so I’m blissfully unaware.
May 10th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
My outrage is the the negation. By negating the mom you are negating the child negating love and effort and community and ultimately humanity. Marketing gurus are expecting that we robots who absorb advertising like it were water are just going to fall in line. The label “non” is so blatant. Have they not learned from long histories of telling groups of people they are “not” giving them derogatory labels. In this case they didn’t even try to come up with something they just told us we are “not.”