Why I Don't Want to tell you my Narrative a.k.a. "Adoption Story"

I have been asked to share my narrative several times and once again recently as I have been invited to be a contributing author for a new online adoption magazine and the editor thinks that people will want to quickly get to know me and my background by reading a few relevant posts (narrative included) that describe my life and adoption.  I had it up here before and took it down.  I started to re-write it again and stopped writing it in frustration, for the same reason.  I write my on-going narrative quite frequently on this blog; one would think that sharing my "growing up" narrative would be easy.  Sharing it is easy; having to type it all out as if black and white print can even begin to remotely portray my exact meaning and emotion--not so easy.  And it's not just the difficulty in explaining what it is like to be adopted for people, who often times when listening to an adoptee narrative, will believe that a narrative serves the purpose of giving another person a complete understanding of what it is like to be adopted (sorry, it's just not that easy).  It's what [some] people do to adoptee narratives that I just don't like.

Keith Ablow's Adultist, Adoptist, Disablist Slam on Adult Adoptees on Fox News...are you Kidding me?!

I had not, until this time, thought it was even possible for a psychiatrist in this modern age to be so completely disablist and biased and portray such utter contempt for a population they have obtained a high level of education in order to serve.  Dr. Keith Ablow and Fox News have certainly challenged my assumption with Dr. Ablow's recent scathing blow to an entire population of people, adult adoptees, in a recent segment on Fox News, using stereotypes of adoptees and of individuals with mental illness to do so.  He delivered his remarks while "analyzing" Media Matters founder, David Brock.  Despite the fact that Dr. Ablow openly admits that he has never had Mr. Brock as a patient, nor has he ever observed Mr. Brock in a clinical setting, he felt he could provide commentary on Mr Brock's mental state, in explanation of Mr. Brock's political positions, on National Television.  What he provided was nothing more than a hateful rant filled with prejudice against multiple groups.  Ablow stated:

He’s a dangerous man, because having followers and waging war… this isn’t accidental language. It’s about violence, destruction, and he feels destroyed in himself.......This is an adopted boy who needs to plumb the depths of his psyche. He was adopted. Many adopted children are tremendously well-adjusted, but for some reason, this man feels he’s unloved and unloveable, shunted to the side, and that’s the antidote he feels: unlimited power. Guess what? It never ever works. 

Where do I even begin?

Dr. Ablow feels that Mr. Brock cannot be taken seriously because he diagnoses Mr. Brock as being mentally ill.  Attempting to degrade someone else based on their ability and mental health status, especially when you have not even professionally observed them, is disablist.  Diagnosing someone you don't know in order to libel, degrade, and debase them is also abusive behavior.  The idea that individuals with mental or emotional issues can never be taken seriously, or are people that others should be afraid of, is a harmful and ignorant stereotype.

Dr. Ablow also asserted that Mr. Brock must be mentally ill because he is an "adopted boy."  This is adoptism.  What Dr. Ablow did not do was take the actions of one particular individual and apply it to that person.  What he did was take one stereotype of a population Mr. Brock is a member of and say that stereotype, e.g. being "dangerous" and mentally ill, is true because Mr. Brock is a member of that group.  Dr. Ablow's logic was simply stated: adoptees are irrational and dangerous, ergo, Mr. Brock is irrational and dangerous.

Dr. Ablow used Mr. Brock's adopted status to paint a picture of him as dangerous, irrational, unstable, and mentally ill; he also used adoption to portray Mr. Brock as a child or an "angsty" teenager by calling him an "adopted boy" and mentioning adult adoptees as a group as "adopted children."  The idea that children can never be taken seriously and never have good ideas, as well as using that concept to degrade adults by comparing them to children, is adultist.  It contributes ignorance to an already child-intolerant society.

I honestly have no opinion on Mr. Brock or his opinions.  I don't know anything about the man and honestly don't care to.  I am not here to defend him but I will defend myself.  I am adopted and it's not OK to talk about adoptees this way on television--or anywhere for that matter.  I am not often impressed by the drivel uttered by various characters on the Fox News Network but this one really takes the cake.  

This blog is demanding an apology from Dr. Ablow and I agree.  Adoptees, it's not OK for people to defame us on TV this way.  Original and adoptive parents, it's not OK for people to talk about your children this way.  Please, stand up with me.  Stand up for what's right and write to Keith Ablow and Fox News today.

Can We Finally Let Adoptive Parents off the Hook?

See my post at Lost Daughters, today.

Adoptee Rights Coalition - the Fight to obtain our Original Birth Certificates: Register to Attend the 2012 Adoptee Rights Demonst...

Adoptee Rights Coalition - the Fight to obtain our Original Birth Certificates: Register to Attend the 2012 Adoptee Rights Demonst...: August 6th, 2012 in Chicago, Illinois Chicago...it's our kind of town! The 2012 Adoptee Rights Demonstration at the National Conference o...

Are you Adoption Competent?

In more recent years, people have been asking "what is adoption competence?" and "how do I know if someone is adoption competent?"  You would think we'd have a pretty good answer to this question by now seeing as the formalized institution of modern adoption in this country is over 100 years old.  We can probably thank the "as if born to" and "blank slate" movements (coined by David Kirk as the "Denial of Difference" coping model) in mid-early adoption history for this.  Since adoption was seen as being no different and presenting no more and no less challenges than being born into a biological family, it wasn't always acknowledged that there is a necessity for specific knowledge in adoption-related issues.  People new to the concepts talked about on this blog may wince at the word "different."  Please don't equate "different" with "bad."  There's nothing wrong for being different from someone else.  Also know, this isn't just exclusive to adoptees.  Original parents, especially mothers, had their own version of it as they were told to "go home and forget" their babies.  Adoptive parents too were often told that adopting a child was the perfect resolution to not being able to bear children.  And when you're so busy not being different, no one asks you if you are OK during your experience of difference within society.  No one can advocate for you if they don't know what you go through.  This is perhaps no better typified by my adoption in 1985.  My original mother surrendered me and went home; no counselling.  My adoptive parents adopted me, were told "she might have some questions but that's about it" and went home; no counselling.  This, from the largest adoption agency in the United States!  So here we are, we're acknowledging difference and the strengths and challenges difference entails in adoption more than ever.  So, we have to answer the question, what does adoption competence look like?

We're Everywhere!!!!

I have a million and one (OK, maybe five) entries on this blog in draft form waiting to be finished.  I've been wanting to post something but, as I am back out in the field again, I am so incredibly tired and lacking the motivation needed to finish them right now.  I am hoping the weekend will rejuvenate me.

What I will share with you is something cool that happened today (with a new friend, not a client.  I don't talk about my clients on my blog).

I mentioned to someone today that I'm adopted.  We were talking about family stuff and I could sense it was about to get confusing what with all my various parents entering into the conversation and all.  I don't always get into the "I'm adopted" conversation with people, unless they ask.  For some reason, I felt like I could tell her.

Then she told me, she's adopted too.

When it's just two adoptees around, these conversations always seem to go the same way.  Who adopted you?  Are you reunited?  How do you feel about it?  Do other people in your life try to understand your feelings or tell you you're ridiculous?  Yeah, we know we're not ridiculous; it's nice to find another adoptee out there to remind you of that.  I'm glad you told me you were adopted; it's nice not to be alone in the world.

It was like talking to an old friend.

Is This Really Ethical? An Open Letter to American University Professor, Prof. Kimberly Leighton

Professor Leighton,

Let me first start off by saying how glad I am that I could address this blog entry to you.  I am glad that the show that I am about to reference had an adult adoptee there to speak, even if I didn't agree with what you had to say, because the public should be asking us about these issues.  I am also glad that I am able to see adoptees doing so well; you are a testimony to that.  So many people have a skewed view of adoptees (I guess the fears about adoptees "disrupting" people's lives if records are opened is evidence of that), having smart, insightful, knowledgeable adoptees in the public eye is an important thing.  After reading another blogger talk about your recent NPR interview with Diane Rehm, I went to Ms. Rehm's website and viewed the transcript of the show.  That is why I am writing you this letter today because you talk about ethics and I care about ethics, and because we're both adopted.  As a student, I look at professors whom I consider my role models each and ever single day; I tend to think of all professors as having something to teach me.  If any one of my professors had the same viewpoints and said the same things you said in the interview, the following letter is exactly what I would say to them (my readers interested in the NPR discussion can join it here).