Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Reader's Reply

I decided to respond to your comments on "Under Every Freshly Turned Stone" in a new post which is separate from my own review of the article in question. For the sake of clarity I'll reply to each commenter in the order their comments were received. The writer's name links back to the comment in question.

The Mama ~ No need to worry about propriety for my sake. I'll be interested in rereading the article to look for degrading comments about women. Truth be told I only managed to read a couple sentences before making the post looking for others' feelings on it.

Sandy ~ The state registries do seem like a power grab more than anything. I didn't know such a thing existed. Thankfully I was also unaware of how difficult it can be to get a birthfather's name on a birth certificate! It may be because Athena's labor took place at a midwife birthing center instead of a hospital or because I was with her for every appointment with the social worker and signed the same reams of paper work that she did. My name went on the cert right next to hers without a problem. The notion of state registries failing as a result of trans-state adoptions is a very troubling one, nearly as troubling as their existence and their legal ramifications in the first place.

Artemis ~ Thanks for taking the time to comment. In this context "no response" is still a very useful response.

LeMira ~ I second your "first," if that makes any sense. I look forward to rereading the article now more than ever (as much as one can look forward to a nauseating experience) just because of the phrase "macho losers." Reading into what you've written I'd guess that this woman is still rooted in concrete operations (the inability to engage in abstract thought which is necessary to approach compassion from a "what's it like in their shoes" perspective [this isn't intended to be an insult nor insinuate she's dumb. Carl Jung estimated between 70% and 80% of the human population would never reach abstract cognitive operations]. Without abstraction we cannot separate reality from our own direct perception, hence her apparent inability to empathize with first-mothers/fathers). I'd also be a bit surprised (ah assumptions. . . here we go!) if there weren't an element of paternal estrangement and possibly racism involved in her hermeneutic (world-view).

Lia ~ Wow. I definitely didn't get to that part of the article. Wailing children, domestic violence, sleeping around, and total incapacity to express love? This sounds like a real piece of work. I'm sorry for sending you to such a dismissive trollop. But thanks for taking the time to respond anyway.

The reason I asked for input from everyone was to get an idea of where other readers are. It is easy to feel like I'm constantly ripping open my nerve endings and getting hyper sensitized to perceived sexism and pro - life/choice bias in adoption. Thanks again to everyone who responded and to everyone who didn't, that's okay. No worries.

While I have your attention, go here, here, and here. Be the supportive, wonderful people I know you to be. Read with open minds for these ladies have wonderful and very different perspectives. Leave comments of appreciation. They deserve more than they get. They deserve more than we can give.

Be gentle out there everyone. It can be a tough world out there. No need to make it any harder.


  1. I think you are right about the author probably having more issues in her past. It usually seems to be the case. However, I have to laugh at that article now because when I think about the things she said in such a public forum, it sounds so utterly biased and ridiculous that it's almost funny. Besides, laughing is my coping mechanism.

    Thanks for the "shout out."I respect you immensely in that you ask for people's differing opinions in a very respectful way - a way that asks us to open our minds and consider other viewpoints without the mudslinging. I've been reading so many different blogs out there about adoption, and there are so many "flame baiters" and "trollers" (as my husband tells me they are called). It's rather depressing, and yours is a "breath of fresh air." (Please forgive the cliche.)

  2. One of the latest in a long line of stories about state registries where mothers went to a different state...

    To the best of my knowledge the latest Utah court appearance mentioned in the above article a ruling has yet to be given - now two months later.

  3. So I finally had chance to read the article. Um seriously? Was it just me or did it have the feel of something written in the 50s.

    A women with several children by several fathers is equally as culpable in the sitation as a father who has children by several women. Not that that makes a difference either way. With each pregnancy and each child your situation (financial, physical, emotional)may have changed. The whole article was written as if these women were victims and men are nothing but scummy, knocking-up fools who are "too macho" to "do the right thing".

    Articles like these just perpetuate the feelings/attitudes/stereotypes that so many people already have about abortion and adoption. I'm really quite annoyed.


What do you think? I'm curious.