I recently received a “cease and desist” letter from an adoptive parent who had posted an entry basically stating that she was sick of IA criticism. Her blog was open to comments, and I commented, but apparently the blog is only open to some comments. I think the letter itself is interesting, because it really gives us some insight into what we often bring up in our discussions here:
- There is a dominant discourse which does not wish to hear resistant voices;
- Resistant voices will be dismissed, attacked, maligned;
- Those resisting will be attacked personally in terms of mental well-being, upbringing, etc.;
- The dominant voice will be portrayed as the victim;
- The dominant voice will attempt to co-opt or subsume the resistant voice.
To examine is the letter itself (is there a template for this kind of thing?):
Dear Sir,
I respect your right to differ with my opinions on adoption however *I hereby request that you no longer comment on my blog*. My blog is clearly pro adoption and will certainly provide you with nothing but angst and frustration, angst and frustration that can be wholly avoided by simple not visiting my site. (To be fair I have never offered comment on your site(s), attempted to provoke you, or directly confronted you amongst your peers.) Your comments and participation in the discussions on my site are no longer welcome. Should you choose to continue to comment or provoke others to similarly comment I will simply delete your messages. It appears you have no shortage of outlets for your message however I kindly request my blog no longer be one of them.
I thank you in advance for your civil cooperation. God bless you and the children we both love so passionately.
Sincerely,
[signed]
I replied:
We both share this world, and perhaps we see it in different ways, but this topic brings us to a common discussion. It is certainly not your blog that frustrates me; you should not give yourself so much credit. It is the pretense of a dialogue that is most bothersome. You prefer to keep a separation between yourself and those you don’t want to deal with, both in the real world (the families and communities of these children you claim to care so much about) as well as in the virtual one; I do no such thing. I have no problem with anyone posting anything on my site; I have never in the 16 years my site has been online deleted anyone’s post. Ever. And so welcome, come post–even with the curses that were posted to your benefit in reply to my review. Furthermore, I have returned to my land of birth, and I know the damage both economic and political that is a result of, that is directly tied to, conversations that take place on your blog and others like it. It is this passivist mindset as represented by your words that results in the injustice you then post about.
To understand, if only for the benefit of the children currently in your care, is that I have spent my life being silenced due to adoption, and I am no longer silent. I will not be silent in the face of such gross injustice. Feel free to do as you will and as you wish, to block me, or delete my posts, or–God forbid–actually engage in a dialectic, a discussion. By hosting a public blog on the Internet with access to comments, you are setting the parameters that allow others to post. You can block me as much as you want; this is what you all do anyway, in an attempt at maintaining inequality of dialogue. But I will not voluntarily keep quiet. I will not willfully play your game according to your rules. You do not own this conversation. And you should be ashamed of asking such a thing of anyone. When (not if) those children in your care say something similar, will you send them a letter like this one? Will you silence them as well? I pray for them and their well-being. Because I know what they are in for.
I think it is imperative that we realize that given the dominant mode, this is not an equivalent discussion. This blog’s posts are the received wisdom; the current way of thinking; the given. It is not possible for us to censor the dominant discourse.
What I would like to do in this item is to list as extensively as possible all of the places that censor, silence, malign, or disparage the adoptee voice. I think we should cite the offending blog or forum as well as the circumstances, and we will post all comments from all adoptees that fit the parameters of the topic.
The blog described above can be found at:
Five of My Own
Recent gems from a comment at one of my blogs meant for adoptees, categorized per Daniel’s excellent itemized list:
2. Resistant voices will be dismissed, attacked, maligned
and
5. The dominant voice will attempt to co-opt or subsume the resistant voice.
3. Those resisting will be attacked personally in terms of mental well-being, upbringing, etc.;
and
5. The dominant voice will attempt to co-opt or subsume the resistant voice.
2. Resistant voices will be dismissed, attacked, maligned
3. Those resisting will be attacked personally in terms of mental well-being, upbringing, etc.;
I’d like to add that I have been very intrepid in my exploration of my own issues, and that few people would characterize me or my writing as vengeful in any way. Though the journey has not been without road-bumps, in general I am quite proud of coming out of this with some grace; my humanity and humor intact.
It’s a shame my truth is so threatening to others, but mostly I am sorry for their children who must live sheltered by defensive parents. They are welcome to join us here when they are able (and free) to communicate from their hearts.
And on we go…does it ever end? My particular concern at the moment is the assumptions of mothers about adult adoptees and how adoptees are blamed for what happens or doesn’t happen in reunion.Is it so hard to see or acknowledge that when you abandon someone love and trust are damaged, sometimes forever?
I always really feel for the children in their care. How hard to imagine that these words might not come from those children’s mouths? To add to the above list perhaps is the skewed emotional spectrum: One side is allowed to be self-righteously indignant, one side is allowed to consider the “hole” in their lives, one side is allowed to talk about the exceedingly personal without fear of reprisal, one side is allowed to make medical, psychological, and sociological accusations.
One of the key aspects of reframing the discussion and allowing our voice to be heard is to not speak in the defensive. Since this is expected, even in the question-and-answer format, speaking up and out without necessarily answering anyone becomes very important. Beyond that, i think it is necessary to use all of the emotions and rhetorical devices that are normally disallowed us in the “polite” context of our adopted culture (this is perhaps worth another topic….)
The censoring site that made me angriest has to be Canada Adopts. I came across an article there on adoption from Egypt; the couple adopting were charged in Egypt for attempting to adopt from that country, but the discussion online, and much of the media attention (which we are seeing a lot more of in these Islamophobic times) were focused on the “backwards” and “uncivilized” Muslim country that would not allow its children to be adopted. I won’t get into this now, but I replied on their boards, as you can read here:
http://www.canadaadopts.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=14&t=000580
One of the most revealing quotes from someone there was this:
“Please understand that you are attacking our belief system as well.”
This is close; i was more attacking their class position and sense of entitlement. But the weird way in which they kept looking for the loophole to allow the adoption was very troubling.
I didn’t get kicked off for this exchange; later I posted a topic to discuss a member of parliament who voted to approve the NATO bombing in the Balkans, and who later also sponsored legislation to adopt children post-destruction. I guess this was too much for the Canadians to handle.
This is very recent, and paints a damning portrait of what we are describing. It is from adoptionblogs.com, on the Guatemala boards.
The original URL:
http://guatemala.adoptionblogs.com/weblogs/but-we-thought-she-was-ours
The online cached page:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bsg9naMfl8QJ:guatemala.adoptionblogs.com/weblogs/but-we-thought-she-was-ours+http://guatemala.adoption+blogs.com/weblogs/but-we-thought-she-was-ours&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
The title says it all:
“But We Thought She Was Ours.”
Here’s a choice quote:
The comments get the usual browbeating for “attacking” the original blogger, and then I posted this response:
Amazingly, the post lasted a few days, and then was deleted. I posted it again with the question asking why there was no rebuttal or reason given for the deletion, and now the whole post is taken down.
It’s like someone privileged in the center of a room has a spotlight and bodyguards protecting their house of cards; everyone in the room is forced to hold their breath with their backs pressed up against the wall lest they change the atmosphere of the display room. Just how long do they expect this to remain a valid situation?
Interestingly enough, the Circle of Moms fiasco ties back into this item, since the “top mom” blog was the above mentioned cease-and-desist letter writer. I’ve written a piece on the whole debacle here: http://www.inquisitor.com/pcgi-bin/NYD.cgi?NA=NYD&AC=File&DA=20120416GGY&TO=AD
An email from Adoptive Families Circle:
My reply:
Daniel, as you know, they banned me back in May also, after pre-adoptive and adoptive parents complained that my language was hateful and attacking. They cannot stand to hear the truth from an adoptee who is all grown up and not cute anymore. Also, when my dumb-ass sisters shhowed up to bring in their delusions, that’s when AFC banned me. Little do they know I am back under a different name. Make slightly less to the point comments, but nontheless, I am back at AFC. They cannot continue to shut down the voices of adoptees who know what is in store for the cute infants and toddlers they possess now. In Open Adoptions. Still adoptions. If they cared so much for the expectant moms they wouldn’t be expecting them to give them their babies.
This is charming. It comes after I started a topic on “censorship of adoptee voices”, itself coming after an entire item was removed and cleansed of my comments as well as references to them:
I don’t think I have ever seen anything worse than what is posted on this forum. It is a how-to guide to steal, traffic, kidnap children. The racist overtones are horrifying, and not of this century (“his posture is a function of his culture”), and the missionary zeal is palpable. A scary place full of very sad, very frightened people.