"Natural mother" was the industry standard until the late 70s and into the 80s. There are reasons why the "birth" prefix is used today. It emotionally distances us from our children and them from us. That aids the agenda of the adoption industry which pulls in over $1.5 BILLION every year.
If one must distinguish, saying "exiled mother" is accurate and preferable to any other. "Mother," of course is the MOST accurate because women who give birth are mothers. If anyone needs a qualifier, it is the adoptive mother.
Please don't aid and abet the adoption industry agenda. It's really frightening how these people are trying to redefine reality.
Reality based terms are always the right ones.
Mothers are mothers. People who adopt are "adoptive." When people object to the "natural mother" term, exiled mother works.
I don't know the mothers to whom you are referring who feel uncomfortable with the use of "natural mother," but the many, many mothers of adoption loss who I know are adamant about not being referred to as walking uteruses. We are not breeders. The "birth mother" term must be dispensed with. It is highly offensive, inaccurate, oppressive and down-right wrong.
The reason I wrote is because you said you didn't want to be part of the problem. Word injure and hurt. They are often times weapons used against the disenfranchised. Those living on the margins which is where the industry has banished exiled mothers to! We are now fighting for our voice and our rights. One of those rights, which was taken from us, along with our babies (i.e., our MOTHERhood), is labeling. Back during the Baby Scoop Era we were referring to (i.e., labeled) as "unwed mothers." Today the industry has decided to change the labeling to "birth mother." This started with Pearl S. Buck in 1955 and then again in 1956. Marietta Spencer then took the reins of that term and ran with it. It was NOT coined by an exiled mother, as CUB claims. Buck adopted. Spencer was an adoption social worker. They apparently knew each other.
You may use any of my explanations in your blog if you'd like. I have the research to prove them.
Thank you!
BEST,
KarenWB
From Alice again. I have not found anyone who wants to use "exiled mother." Is there a term that can be used to unify everyone, such as "woman who gave me life" or WWGML? Probably not, but there are so many factions with strong ideas that the entire system is fractured. I am not implying that any of them are wrong! We need unifying terminology for those trying to understand "what is broken" and "what needs to be fixed"
with the adoption system. Motherhood Silenced: The Experiences of Natural Mothers on Adoption Reunion Until next time,
Alice
I have been using 'first mother'...
ReplyDeleteI've also had an adoptive mother and two stepmothers. I use a prefix only because if I say just 'mother', the people close to me wouldn't have any idea to whom I was referring... :)
I've been a mother since 1967. I lost my firstborn to adoption via extortion...'your money or your baby. I had no money, they took the baby'. He found me in 1991 through mutual consent registry. On the paperwork pertaining to me when he was born I am listed as his 'natural mother'. If I need an identifying adjective, this is the only one I find acceptable. I had four more children after him. I am the 'birth' mother of all five of my kids. No one would dream of calling me the 'birth' mother of the younger four. I have the same close and loving relationship with all five of my kids.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Karen. Language is used to control and persuade, to uplift or degrade. I object to the language of degradation.
Adoption is an abnormal social experiment. There is nothing wrong what so ever by using the term "natural" to describe your natural mother. It is not up to natural mothers or adoptees to appease the insecurities of adopters. They are adoptive mothers or adopters. The term "birth mother" is what is insulting, it positions mothers or natural mothers as being merely incubators and breeders - it is highly offensive, furthermmore, it suggests that the only connection adoptees have with their natural mothers is at birth, which is just plain wrong. Genes are forever, not the hogwash nonsense and claptrap of so called forever families. Adopters need to get over this big time.
ReplyDeleteWords are so tricky when they involve sensitive areas. An example from my own life involves my blog, where I have listed recommended adoption resources and have omitted "Bastard Nation." Bastard Nation is a heavily political organization which has many wonderful accomplishments to its credit. In the big picture of advocacy, its role has a place, and there are many people whose sensibilities would attract them to this organization. Yet I simply can't add a reference to this organization because of the word "Bastard." Its derogatory connotations are too angry and uncomfortable for me to abide. I may well be doing a disservice to those whose sensibilities would benefit from those of BN.
ReplyDeleteWe need words for things. There's no word that's "closer to home" than Mother, and because it's so personal, the complexity of each and every person's psychology will affect their understanding of adoption-related terms. There may never be a win-win word for the adoption community overall. But I would dare to say, on behalf of me and my fellow adoptees who consciously work to heal from the adoption experience, that you, Karen, and all, are always, absolutely, MOTHER in your children's hearts- no qualifier needed or wanted.
I am another mother who lost my only child to adoption in 1972. The term "birth mother" only serves to rub my nose in the fact that I was used as a breeding animal for whichever prosperous couple got my baby. "Exiled mother" would be fine with me, as is "natural mother."
ReplyDelete