Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    Gale,
    The off-the-cuff reply is "script writers produce this garbage because
    it continues to sell"...however, that's not the real problem. The real
    problem, imho, is that that type of story-line is so-o-o accepted by our
    society at large that it's no big deal, one way or the other, to
    include it or not include it in a movie.
    
    What can we do about it?  Get more vocal, impose economic sanctions
    (tell all your friends why they shouldn't go and ask them not to go),
    write letters to the studio, etc., etc.
    
    It's very disheartening that this stuff still goes on, and particularly
    when it's insidious and not overtly nasty, but comes wrapped in a
    *cute* package.  The answer, ultimately, is what we teach our
    children...and getting enough of us to teach it so society really
    changes.
    
    Re: your other comments about "gentlemen", etc...I don't remember where
    I saw it, and I know I'd get the quote wrong, but I recently read
    something to the effect that "gender discrimination is encouraged when
    we don't treat women as 'cherished equals', but rather we put them on a
    pedestal".  THIS IS NOT INTENDED AS CRITICISM OF YOURSELF OR YOUR
    VIEWS, but as "food for thought."

    re:.1
       
      When you're way up there on a pedestal it's really easy to fall
      off. Especially in high heals.
      
    re:.0
    
      Regardless of how trivial this movie seems, art mimics life. It
      does seem ideal for a child to have 2 parents of opposite sexes
      who get along well with each other. And don't we all want the
      ideal life for our kids?
    
    By the way, I didn't see the movie. 
    
    Kate
    

    re.2
    
    I agree with you, good parent role models are hard to find on the tube
    these days.
    
    Lynne (who is a bit old fashioned :-)

    RE: .2,.3
    
    I agree, too - good parent role models are hard to find on the
    tube. Especially good alternative family role models. Thank
    goodness we've moved away from The Robert Young School of Fatherhood,
    but we still need kids to see good solid female parent role models,
    and it seems like all the single moms on TV are portrayed as somehow
    "inadequate" or not *quite* "right.
    
    MOST families today are not mom, dad, and 2.5 children. They are single
    mom, single dad, co-custody, 2 moms, 2 dads, mom and grandparent, 
    dad and grandparent, and any variety  of adults/kids. The main thing
    is love, support, and guidelines. Not how-many-what-gender-etc
    the parenting people are. TV and movies are still way behind the
    times, and unfortunatley still portraying the old nuclear family as
    norm (which it isn't) and the only "correct" family form (which it
    isn't, either).
    
    Good role models? People who love the kids, support the kids, and
    give the kids guidelines for growth and behaviour. 
    
    --DE
    

    so true... I still get irked when step-parents are automatically
    portrayed as culprits...  family is where the love is, no matter what
    the legal relationship.
    
    grins,
    marge

    I didn't see the movie, but I agree with .2 and .3 that children
    are best off with both parents.
    
    Regarding lousy portrayals of women on the tube, I don't disagree,
    but I'd say men get it even worse.  They are generally portrayed
    as bumbling idots.  The problem I have with this is that BOTH PARENTS
    (or the parent) are really portrayed negatively.  It's the kids
    who come off as smart and mature and intelligent.
    
    I tend to think the women are portrayed much better than the men.
    
    It's all so phony and denigrating to adults, that I don't watch
    much of it.
    
    Bud

re: .2 and .6
Both of these notes state that children are best off if they have
two biological parents, one of each gender, but neither has said why.

I personally agree with the opinion of a few above that the
physical characteristics (number, gender, biological ties) have nothing
to do with how well-off the child is -- that what matters is
how loving and care-providing the parent(s) is/are.

(I've seen the movie, and had the same reaction as the base note, as
well as being offended by the "lesbo" "jokes", and other sexist
stereotyping instances.  But some of the baby-talking stuff was funny.)

	MKV

Re:               <<< Note 847.7 by THEBAY::VASKAS "Mary Vaskas" >>>

>re: .2 and .6
>Both of these notes state that children are best off if they have
>two biological parents, one of each gender, but neither has said why.
    
    Well, I think that most children are probably best off if they have two
    _biological_ parents, one of each gender :-)
    
    But this raises some interesting questions.  I wonder what _are_ the
    optimal numbers and genders of "the ideal parents"?  Will a child with
    (say) ten (non-biological) parents feel more loved than one with only
    a single parent?  Ten times as loved?  Are such things scaleable in
    this way?  Reminds me of a suggestion I once heard for an objective
    measure of physical attractiveness: the MilliHelen - enough beauty to
    launch just one ship.
    
    I suppose that a child with many parents might find it difficult to
    chose one as a role-model, for fear of showing favoritism.  And you'd
    always be buying birthday presents (how many parents does a child need
    before there's better than 50% chance that you'll end up with two of
    them having the same birthday, and you just know you'll end up
    offending one of them with your choice of gift when that happens?).  I
    find it difficult enough just finding something suitable for my two - I
    don't think I could cope with many more.
    
    As far as gender goes, with N parents, there are N+1 possible M/F splits. 
    If you order your parents (by height, for want of a better metric), you
    get 2^N possible combinations.  Finding an ideal combination for an even
    moderately large N becomes quite a challenge.  Of course, if you consider
    sexual preference in addition to gender (and I suppose you have to in a
    marriage), then the number of possible combinations increases alarmingly.
    
    Several times recently I've heard people say that you _need_ two incomes
    these days.  I don't believe that to be true - I have only one income,
    although if someone were to offer me another one, I doubt I'd refuse.
    However, if this is a trend, and it were to continue this way, then
    perhaps economic conditions will soon demand poly-parental families.
    Maybe the time will come when the ability to obtain a mortgage will
    depend on the number of simultaneous marriage partners you can attract.
    
    Of course, the larger the size of the family unit, the more resistant
    it will be to change, because of the inertia inherent in a large group.
    This would make the poly-parental family an ideal candidate for adoption
    placements,  as it would be an inherently stable unit, the loss of an
    individual member having much less of an effect on the family group as
    a whole than in a one- or two-parent family.
    
    The concept opens up whole new areas for study, too.  Some
    poly-parental families might be sufficiently large to be subject to
    population-averaging effects, so that their (group) behavior could be
    predictable.  Sociology and psychology might even become numerical
    sciences (Q: What's the difference between psychology and magic?
    
              A: Psychologists pull habits out of rats).
    
    
    John
    
    I've not seen the movie, either.

    There are two genders in humanity.  There are differences between
    them in most cases in addition to the obvious specifics of anatomy.
    Neither is better than the other, but there are differences.
    
    All females do not have one set of characterics while all men have
    another and neither has any characterics of the other.  There are
    a smorgasbord of traits and any given male may have more of the
    traits associated with a female and similarly a given female may
    pave a preponderance of traits associated with males.  None of the
    four kinds of people that I've mentioned or the cases between them
    are better or worse, good or bad for having these traits.  The point
    is that females and males predominate with a majority of characteric
    traits for their sex.
    
    The evidence I offer for this simplified description is in two parts.
    First, people are attracted to similar people for friendships. 
    Among small children, boys tend to gravitate to other boys, girls
    to girls, and ethnic group member to another member of that ethnic
    group.  I think it's what feels safe and comfortable. Others including
    some of today's leaders have observed the same, such as Farenkeim
    (sp??).  Something breaks this tendancy between males and females
    when they get a little older, and I don't think it is just physical
    sex.  I think that they are attracted to the other characterics
    that the person has.  Somehow, the unlike characterics become the
    attraction.
    
    I was asked why I felt that both parents were important.  My answer
    is that I think the child is best off getting exposed to as many
    of the spectrum of characterics that are labeled as "feminine" or
    "masculine" as possible.  I believe this improves their education
    in interacting with these traits.  I believe they get a much more
    balanced education in their early life.  I do not believe that any
    one person, regardless of sex or traits associated with a given
    sex, has a a broad enough set of traits.  
    
    I am talking about the near ideal.  I do not believe that a single
    mother or father is not good enough.  People bounce back from adversity
    in most cases.  I consider this a minor adversity.  Love is more
    important than the growth that might be experienced with two parents.
    And, of course, if abuse were part of the two parent package, then
    a one parent package is better.
    
    

    What we have here is a case of serious ethnocentrism. There are *many*
    clutures that do not live in the Ozzie and Harriet, 2 parents, one of
    each sex world. Do all their children grow up deprived? How about the
    kibutz(sp) where mnay children are raised togther, or the English
    boarding school? 
    
    There are cultures where the word for mother applies equally to the
    biological mother and all her sisters, the same goes for the father and
    all his brothers. These children grow up knowning and being loved by
    many parents all living together.
    
    In our country the single parent family is becoming the norm. Rather
    than treat it as wrong perhaps we need to modify our culture to accept
    reality. Once the cultural barriers are lifted and the society supports
    single parents there might not be a problem of children growing up in a
    disadvantaged state. liesl

    I agree 100% with liesl.  Especially in New York, the cost of childcare
    can be so prohibitive that two incomes are almost a necessity, one
    to eat, pay rent, buy clothing, etc., and one to cover the cost of
    day care.
    
    It's difficult to imaging trying to raise a child alone if one earns
    less that $35-40,000.  (I know it's done, but it's probably not
    something one plans on.)  
    
    

.11>    It's difficult to imaging trying to raise a child alone if one earns
.11>    less that $35-40,000.  (I know it's done, but it's probably not
.11>    something one plans on.)  
    
    It is difficult to imagine...and yet I know plenty of
    two-parent families where *both* parents work outside the
    home for a total income less than $30K per year, who plan to
    raise and do raise children. 

    -- Linda

    re:-1
    
    If one income went to the cost of daycare one parent would probably
    not work. His income would net to zero.
    
    I said the ideal situation is 2 parents. One of each sex. Kebutz's 
    are a necessity. English boarding schools are for the mega-rich. Of
    course this isn't best in all situations. After the instant bonding
    to the mother, a child develops a bond to the father. A child learns
    to love and appreciate the difference between the 2 sexes. It seems
    like a valid approach to me. A person can have 1,000,000 role models
    but can not successfully bond to many more than a couple.
    
    Kate
    
    
    

	I seem to see a very culturally biased point of view being
	defended by the statement "It is the right way because it 
	is my way, my culture's way."  

	I firmly believe that the way most white middle and upper class
	children are raised in this grand and glorious country called 
	the USA is harmful to them and to our future.

	There is not right way to raise children but there sure are
	some really dangerours wrong ways.  To teach them that they
	need to identify with only two options is heading for trouble.
	Especially if one of the options is doing physical harm to
	the child in question.

	Take the time to think about your own culture bias before you
	make a definitive statement about what is a wrong way to do
	something.  Suggestions of right ways are fine as long as they
	are not statements about the ONLY WAY.

	Life on this planet existed for a long time before the "ones
	who walk upright" tried to take over control of the planet.
	

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			The ulitmate of creation is not humans
			it is life in its millons and millons
			of forms.
    
    

    Let's face it. One of the reasons we here in the "west" have 
    the nuclear family in ther first place is so the Ancient Rich Guys
    would know who their "legal" first-born sons were so they could leave
    'em the loot. Mom stayed home and dad went a-whoring, but that was ok,
    cuz he knew who Junior really was. 
    
    Now, with some other modifications, this has come down to us today
    wrapped in a starry-eyed package of this is how it "ought" to be. It's
    gathered a moss of perfection as it rolled thru the centuries.
    
    Well, that Anglo-Saxon stone didn't roll through a lot of cultures in
    this world, and lots of other places aren't into this Two-parents-one
    of-Each-Gender stuff. And guess what? Nobody's been able to prove that
    *their* kids are less well-adjusted than *our* kids. Given some of the
    stories one hears about child abuse, and ACOA situations, I really
    don't see that the nuclear family is so much all-fired better than any
    other situation.
    
    The physical characteristics and number of family/extended family have
    nothing to do with love, guidelines, and encouragement in growth. 
    Western-style infant-rearing may in fact leave a lot to be desired - 
    read _Touching_ - an excellent book on human contact and how we often
    fail our children in that area.
    
    --DE
    

    I saw the movie and what bothered me about it was that the woman
    who gets pregnant and then dumped by her married boyfriend, has
    a great job, no money problems, supportive parents, and then still
    makes her major mission in life finding a father for her son.  I
    still don't understand *why* he needed a father, specifically, when
    he already had a good mother who loved him and plenty of money.
     The problem was that she was *obsessed* with finding a "daddy"
    for the kid.  That was the point of the movie.  I could understand
    if she wanted to date, and felt lonely and wanted to fall in love
    again someday (most of us do, in one way or another).  But, she
    didn't seem to want the man for herself.  She was looking for a
    "daddy."  What for?  I don't buy it that kids have to have one
    male parent and one female parent in order to have decent lives.
    
    At least I found it gratifying to see that The Phoenix' review was
    similar to my own opinion.  They found the basic premise sexist
    and old-fashioned, but thought the movie had its funny and cute
    moments, and that the stars were somewhat appealing.
    
    Lorna
    
    P.S.  As far as incomes and raising kids, I feel sorry for anybody
    in the U.S. who is a single parent and trying to raise a child on
    less than $30K a year.  It must be horrible.
    

    Re: .16
    
    Some of that might be satirizing yuppies, who stereotypically want the
    best of everything for the precious incarnations of their gene pool.

    
    Actually, now that you say that she had a son, I have to admit that the
    idea of a single woman raising a boy is not a situation that I would
    want to be in. I definitely would want male role models in the picture
    if I had male offspring.
    
    In fact, that has a lot to do with the fact that I want daughters - I
    wouldn't care if I was single. 
    
    Especially in the A-A community, the lack of positive male role models
    seems to have a detrimental effect on boys. Most of the extremely
    together, successful young black men I know have had fathers in the
    picture. And most of the ones who did not have fathers reflect it in
    some very unique and telling ways.
    
    Just my thoughts...
    

    Re: .18
    
    >I definitely would want male role models in the picture if I had male 
    >offspring.
    
    Male role models have something to offer female children, too.  For one
    thing, any good role model has something to offer.  In this case, girls 
    can learn what to value, respect and look for in a man through
    experience; they're better able to recognize good qualities by having
    been exposed to them.  Also, a male role model helps form their
    attitudes about men.

	 Because of this note, I've started watching TV Sitcoms for
	 content (instead of just having them on while I'm doing
	 things around the house).  And I've found some rather amazing
	 things on the tube that children are watching.

	 Take for example, the rerun of Growing Pains that I just saw
	 recently.  The children where shattered when they found out
	 their parents were divorced.  They concocted all sorts of
	 wild, irrational stories about how since they had been
	 divorced and they were "bad" and unworthy of their love.  And
	 Mike, the older son, always is talking about the "babes" and
	 treats women like nothing more than sex objects.  And on
	 Cosby the other night (re-run) the show was centered around
	 the mom going on a crash diet to lose 5 pounds to fit into a
	 dress and she totally went around it the wrong way, yet it
	 was labelled as "alright."

	 Makes me realize that, if our children's lives are being
	 guided by what they see on TV, then we are going to be in sad
	 shape for years to come!!

	 (But then again, I never really "WATCHED" these shows before
	 and never saw these subtle things......and never really
	 thought about it.... Do the children really think about it?)

	 kath

    Re:  Do the children really think about it?
    
    They don't have to think about it.  It just seeps into their minds as
    they are doing other things.  It is just accepted as the way it IS.
    
    A ten year old once said, after asking what kind of tree a limon grows
    on, "you mean there is no such thing as a limon?  I saw one on tv!"
    
    Adults also have these things stored in their minds.  While writing 
    this I asked a person what product uses limon and he quickly replied
    "7UP".
    
    I think the media gives us many many distortions of life but it is
    close enough to real to be believable and acceptable.
    
    That the media does manipulate their audience for profit does not
    make it right.  I do think it is a good idea to talk about it and
    therefore bring it to a conscious level in more people.

    Re: .21
    
>    Adults also have these things stored in their minds.  While writing 
>    this I asked a person what product uses limon and he quickly replied
>    "7UP".
    
    I think the difference is that kids don't get as confused about these
    things as adults do.  Any kid would be able to tell you that it's
    Sprite that has "limon" (I thought it was "lymon", but...).
    
    				Steve

    Ah, but that was his adult mind realizing that although the names are
    dissimilar, the product is EXACTLY the same ... meaning that although
    marketing types seem to win, they do not always!
    
    The only soft drink promotion I respect is the Canada Dry Ginger Ale
    one -- it really IS "not too sweet!"  I bought a bargain brand and
    could hardly choke it down.
    
    Pam

    Some various thoughts:
    
    RE: male role models
    
    IT's very possible for kids to have role models of either gender
    who aren't their parent. It would make more sense to me for this
    woman to have looked for such a role model than for a "father" for
    the kid (which he wouldn't be anyway - he'd only be her husband)
    
    RE: Portrayals of smart women as dumb broads
    
    If the woman was so smart, and she didn't want to get pregnant, why
    did she? I mean, there's question #1, right off the bat. Is she smart
    or not? (Well of course, there wouldn't have been a movie without this
    particular situation - but Hollywood seems to be having trouble making
    up its mind about whether we're really smart or not)
    
    RE: Effects of media portrayals on folk
    
    This reminds me of a something that happened to me. 5 women in my group
    (2 software engineers, a technical writer, a release engineer, and an
    operator) worked with a male project leader for 6 months on a project.
    My supervisor referred to us as "Dave and Dave's Angels". He thought it
    was *praise*. (Ref. "Charlie's Angels") (At least he *said* he thought
    it was praise.)
    
    
    Think of all the wonderful movies with male central characters - heroes
    intelligent, strong, upstanding, probelm-solving, etc. guys. Now
    imagine the same movies with women as central characters and ask
    yourself if the movie ever would've been made. "Chariots of Fire" is one
    of my favorite movies, and there isn't a sbowball's chance that such
    a movie could be made with female characters.
    
    --DE
    

    Re: .24
    
    >IT's very possible for kids to have role models of either gender who 
    >aren't their parent.
    
    Certainly.  From what I can tell, the advantage to having a parent as a
    role model is their consistent presence in the child's life; a parent
    is perceived to have more of a "full-time" role in the child's life as
    opposed to the "part-time" role of, say, a teacher or an uncle.  It all
    depends on how much the role model is involved on a daily basis.
    
    >than for a "father" for the kid (which he wouldn't be anyway - he'd
    >only be her husband)
    
    Oh, lordy, here's a can of worms.  I'm staying out of this one.
    
    >If the woman was so smart, and she didn't want to get pregnant, why
    >did she?
    
    Because accidents happen, even to certifiable geniuses?

    inre Chelsea and the response to 'if the woman was so smart and
    didn't want to get pregnant why did she..'
    
    in my experience, brains have no relation to getting ones
    hormones carbonated...
    
    very intelligent women can be very dumb about matters sexual.
    
    Bonnie

    Well, I have three either teenaged daughters or close to teenaged
    daughters... I can affirmed that they and the girls they hang around
    with ARE influenced by television and movies, and theatre. As much as I
    don't like it at times, it is indeed happening even at the pre-school
    aged... look how many kids are influenced by Sesame Street!!...

    A lot of it is covert, and they (the kids of today) don't even realize
    it is happening....

    And it doesn't matter if I don't allow my kids to watch something, all
    the kids in school tell them ALL about it, so I can't protect them from
    it, all the time (sigh!)
     
    I only have two girls living at home still, however after we watched
    Look who's talking, we then talked about how STUPID the female was to
    think she had to have a father for the baby, and talked about how we were 
    doing JUST FINE without a father in the family, that she could have also, 
    and that it was STUPID of her to think she HAD to have one, and then we 
    talked about how silly and funny the baby was... WE then talked about
    how it was okay to have a father, but only for the right reasons, not
    for the reasons the movie showed.

    I know the movie did some damage, and I tried to un-do that damage, but
    how about all the girls that didn't have parents go with them, or even
    worse, don't have parents who even care????

    Gale,
    
    My daughter and her girl friend went to see "Look Who's Talking"
    yesterday with  the junior high youth group. Remembering this
    discussion I asked them both what they thought about the situation
    depicted in the movie. They both said that the idea that a woman
    had to have a 'man' to raise a kid was 'pretty dumb' and that
    it was a funny movie, but not very real life..
    
    Neither girl is very familiar with single parent families, the
    just thought the premise didn't make a lot of sense.
    
    Bonnie

>It would make more sense to me for this
>    woman to have looked for such a role model than for a "father" for
>    the kid (which he wouldn't be anyway - he'd only be her husband)

$ Set flame=lukewarm    

 I am rather annoyed by that notion. I am married to a woman who raised her two
daughters alone for 12 years. I am now the girls' father- not just the woman's
husband. The lone sense that I am not their father is that I did not contribute
any genetic material to their creation. Other than that, I am in every sense
their father. They don't even call me their step-father anymore when introducing
me to their friends (and haven't for a long time.)

 I am quite disappointed at the idea that only the contributor of genes can
"really be a father." I don't think I could have said this any nicer.

$ set flame=off

 The Doctah

    Well, here's the deal, Doctah - I was talking about the movie,
    not real life. IF you couldn't tell, I believe this flick bears NO
    resemblance whatever to real life.
    
    Yes, a stepdad is a dad in every sense of the word (if he chooses to
    be). But Doc, this gal got pregnant by <some guy> who presumably she
    didn't want to bring up her kids (again, I wonder why a supposedly
    smart woman would do this) and NOW she goes off hunting thru the urban
    underbrush for ANOTHER GUY to be the "father" for the kids - i.e.,
    bring them up! Sheesh!! 
    
    It's a much different situation when a marriage didn't work out or
    someone died and a second marriage (or relationship occurs). And
    in fact, a stepdad who chooses to parent can be as good or BETTER 
    a parent than the biological one. I agree, Doctah. I just think the
    situation in this flick is a)fatfetched and b)garbage.  OK?
    
    RE: accidents happen (getting pregnant)
    
    Yep. Accidents happen, but the chances are whatever precentage is the
    highest failure rate for a given method of birth control. Let's face
    it: this movie is not based on reality and portrays women as stupid.
    This was simply the way they chose to show the woman as smart/stupid.
    A variation on the Virgin/Whore theme, methinks.
    
    --DE
    

>    Well, here's the deal, Doctah - I was talking about the movie,
>    not real life. 

 Oh, well. Now I feel stupid. I thought you were talking about real life. Sorry
for the tirade.

 The Doctah

    RE: Real movie versus real life and the Doctah...

    Well.. This is real life I'm talking about... (that's so its understood
    up front!)

    I am the single parent of 2+ girls. I have virtually been bringing them
    up alone since 1979, although my divorce was not final until 1978. So
    I'm "officially been a single mother for only 1.5 years", but I'm been
    a single mother for ~10 years. If I were to get remarried (jury is still
    out as to whether I ever will or not), the man I marry will NOT be the
    girls father.  They have only one father. No one can replace that -
    that is something that should be precious to them always. They can have
    a step-father, that they can choose to call whatever the two of them
    choose to call each other, but he will never be their father. He can be
    "like" a father to them, he can be more than a father to them, but they
    will only have one.  The one they have might not be a good one, but
    it's because of him, that they are here on this earth, not because of
    the next man I marry...

    Is it fair?  Maybe not, a lot of step fathers are better fathers then
    their biological one, but still kids have only one biological father.

    Gale

    um,
    
    Gale,
    
    What about my adopted kids - I regard my husband as their father
    and myself as their mother..
    
    Bonnie

    I still think even in adoption cases, kids only have ONE biological 
    father AND mother... I didn't say it was fair, I just said it was true...
    
    Gale
    
    

    	I think a step-father/step-mother being considered a child's 
    father/mother depends a great deal on whether or not the child's
    biological parent is still 'in the picture', so to speak.  My dad
    stayed very much involved in my brother's and my life.  So we did
    not consider my step-father our dad.  In fact, when he tried to
    be, it caused problems.  It wasn't until he stopped trying, and 
    just tried to be a friend that things started to work out.

    	In the case of adoption, or if the natural parent is deceased
    or just has no contact with the child, I think a step-parent could 
    indeed be considered a parent, especially if he/she is the only one 
    the child has really known.

    	amy

>    Well.. This is real life I'm talking about... (that's so its understood
>    up front!)

 Good. But I would have paid more attention this time anyway. Once bitten and
all that...

>    I am the single parent of 2+ girls. I have virtually been bringing them
>    up alone since 1979, although my divorce was not final until 1978. So

 Not to belabor the obvious, but I think you meant 1988.

>If I were to get remarried (jury is still
>    out as to whether I ever will or not), the man I marry will NOT be the
>    girls father.

 Certainly not in the biological sense. However you decide you can make your
relationship work for yourself, your children and your husband is your business.

>    Is it fair?  Maybe not, a lot of step fathers are better fathers then
>    their biological one, but still kids have only one biological father.

 In my case, the biological father has had no contact with the kids for 14+
years. Thus he was essentially a donater of sperm. He did not contribute one
whit to their upbringing.

 Your situation may be different. Your kids may know your ex-husband as their
father. Mine don't; not on any useful level, anyway.

>    I still think even in adoption cases, kids only have ONE biological 
>    father AND mother... I didn't say it was fair, I just said it was true...

 I guess I don't see any utility in making that distinction. Who cares? (Not
meaning to sound harsh or be insensitive- my apologies in advance if it
comes across that way.) The fact of the matter is that on a practical level,
the children functionally have a new mother and father. Whatever the label
you wish to place on the new parents is your choice.

 The Doctah

	 Gale...

	 I'm sorry, but this really grinds on me...


	 If you were to remarry, who are you to have any say in how
	 your girls accept the new man in your life?  Don't you feel
	 it is THEIR decision to accept/not-accept him as a
	 father/step-father/guy-around-the-house/etc?????????????

	 He might never be their "biological" father, but perhaps to
	 them, the love might grow so strong that they wish to no
	 longer think of him as their "step father" but as their
	 "father...".....

	 I have no desire to know the current relationship between the
	 girls and their biological father, but they should have the
	 right to determine how they feel themselves, and who they
	 wish to consider "father."
	 

	 kath

	 father (n):  A male who functions in a parental capacity with
	 regard to another.

	 parent (n):  Guardian, protector.

    Lets see if I can get this in (the first time around it bombed out on
    me!)

    I am trying to say is that no matter how bad an ex-husband, or even a
    "never married but fathered a child" person is, no matter what he does or
    does not do for a child, no matter who is in the childs' life, and no
    matter how much better or worse that person is to the child than the
    person who "planted the sperm", the person who did "plant the sperm" is
    the childs' biological father, just as the one who went through labor and
    carried that child for X months (usually 9) is the child biological
    mother, and those two people can never and should never be replaced in
    that child's life. You can compliment them, but you can never replace
    them.

    I personally think that what the Doctah has done is tremendous, and I
    respect him extremely highly for it, as it takes a very special person
    to marry someone who has kids, and raise them for their own, but still,
    in all since of the word, they are theirs, but not the same way as a 
    biological father/mother, no matter how good or bad that person may be.

    I think its wrong to think of yourself as a replacement, and to think
    you are their Mother/father...  you are in the role, but you are not
    the biological person if you did not play one of the two vital roles.
    Instead you should know that you are their compliment, and work from
    there.  In the long run, it doesn't matter what you call a person, it 
    only matters where the heart is.

    I suspect that no one is disagreeing about the relationship of a
    biological mother's new husband to her children *is*, but only to
    what that relationship should be *called*.  Gale believes that
    "father" means "biological father"; Doctah believes that it can mean
    "the adult male in the family unit".  The Oxford English Dictionary
    supports both meanings.
    
        1.  One by whom a child has been begotten, a male parent, the
        nearest male ancestor.
        
        ...
        
        e.  Colloquially extended to include a father-in-law,
        step-father, or one who adopts another as his child (more fully,
        _adoptive father_.
        
    The quotations supporting meaning (e), by the way, go back to the
    1500's, so it is scarcely a new usage.
    
    	-Neil

>    the childs' biological father, just as the one who went through labor and

	 You didn't say biological before.

	 I have a hard time calling a man that rapes a woman,
	 culminating in a child, a father.  Or any man that "donates
	 his sperm", in anyway, a father......biologically, yes.  But
	 in every other sense of the word no.

>    I think its wrong to think of yourself as a replacement, and to think
>    you are their Mother/father...  you are in the role, but you are not
>    the biological person if you did not play one of the two vital roles.
>    Instead you should know that you are their compliment, and work from
>    there.  In the long run, it doesn't matter what you call a person, it 
>    only matters where the heart is.

	 And I have a hard time believing that a sperm and an egg give
	 someone the right to "forever hold the role of
	 father/mother."    Biologically, yes....but in every other
	 sense of the word, no.....................I think it's love
	 that makes a family....

	 kath

    kath,
    
    in re 'love makes a family' - beautifully put, thankyou.
    
    Bonnie

    RE: .41
    
    Kathy..
    
    Sometimes an example makes things clearer than just words, so an
    example follows:
    
    If I am 14, and get raped and have a resulting pregnancy, and decide to
    do the right thing by the child and not kill it, and give it up for
    adoption because at 14 I can not be any form of a "real" mother to it,
    that does not mean I'm not its mother, and I didn't love it more than
    the mother who will be raising it does.
    
    And I'll fight anyone verbally who tried to tell me I'm not the childs
    mother!!!!!  It takes more love to give a child a life than it 
    does to bring one up, especially at 14!!!!!!!

    re: .43
    If a raped 14-yr old giving birth to a child has more love for the
    child than a woman who adopts and raises that child, does it also
    follow that the rapist has more love for the child than a man who
    adopts and raises that child?  I would be careful about assuming
    ANYTHING about the emotions felt by different people in different
    circumstances...
    
    I agree that the people who donate the egg and sperm are the biological
    mother and father.  That's fact.  I agree that the woman who carries
    the baby to term has invested a lot in that pregnancy.   However...
    
    I also agree that the people who actually bring up the child could be
    called its mother or father, particularly if they raised it from
    infancy.  (If you marry someone whose children are past a certain age,
    it depends on the family what your role or title will be.)  Most of my
    friends with stepfathers/mothers call them by their first name rather
    than "Dad" or "Mom".  My adopted friends call their parents "Mom" and
    "Dad" and refer to their biological parents specifically as their
    "biological parents."  
    
    To me, Mother/Father/Parent by default means "person who raised child."
    Biological parents, if different, are called out separately.
    
    Pam

    May I add here tho, that it does take a great deal of love for
    a young woman to choose to bear and then give up a child. That
    love and that choice under pins the affection and love that
    the child recieves the rest of his or her life. When my children
    were younger and I said prayers with them we included their
    biological mother in those prayers, especially on their birthdays.
    
    Bonnie

>    It takes more love to give a child a life than it 
>    does to bring one up, especially at 14!!!!!!!

Whoa!  This seems to be the heart of it, doesn't it.  It also seems clearly
untrue.  While you, or some other woman who gave life to a child, might love
that child, that is not a prerequisite for giving birth. Believe it or not
there are women who hate the child they give birth to.  (I talked to one.)

Even though I am not a parent in either sense of the word, I find this
statement offensive, and I think it belittles the love of all the adoptive
and step parents in the world.  As the sister of an adopted person, I have
a very personal interest in this - and you are telling me that his bio-mother
loved him more than my mother loves him.  It could be true, having never
met his bio-mother, but how do you know?  And knowing that she loves him just
as much as she loves me (her bio-daughter) it seems highly unlikely.

D!

    I am sure the parents of adopted children have experienced real
    parental bonding. That feeling when your kid has a temperature of
    104 you wish it was you. When your kids comes home saying the kids
    made fun of him you want to deck all the little brats. That feeling
    of comfort when you can keep your 4 year old still enough to get
    that "big squeeze". REAL PARENTAL BONDING. Many biological parents
    have not known that feeling. It's a shame, really.
    
    I said it is "ideal" for a man and woman who get along to have their
    own child. It seems like the easiest way. My husband was adopted
    as a baby. Nana and Grandpa are just as near and dear to me as they
    are to my children. 
    
    Re: male role models being good for girls---agreed.
    Re: love makes a family---here,here
    
    Kate
     

.46>				As the sister of an adopted person, I have
.46>a very personal interest in this - and you are telling me that his bio-mother
.46>loved him more than my mother loves him.  It could be true, having never
.46>met his bio-mother, but how do you know?  

    Yes that is **EXACTLY** what I am telling you! Yes, the bio mother loved 
    him so much that she gave him up so that he could have the life she could
    never give him. And that is the greatest love of all. Without her, his
    raising mother could never of had him to love. The bio mother could
    have chosen to abort him, but instead she choose to give him life. I
    can't think of a greater love, can you?
    
    G

    RE: .43

>    If I am 14, and get raped and have a resulting pregnancy, and decide to
>    do the right thing by the child and not kill it, and give it up for
>    adoption because at 14 I can not be any form of a "real" mother to it,

    W H O A !!!

    _Please_ do not assume that your opinion of what is "the right thing"
    is objective truth!

    I think it's fairly clear here what you're implying, and I resent those
    implications.  I resent what you are saying to those in this notesfile
    who may have been in the situation you describe in the past and resolved
    it differently.  I resent what you are saying about my value system.
    If nothing else, I resent what I perceive as a callous disregard towards
    a "valuing differences" environment.

	Sharon

    re .46:
    
    I have two adopted cousins, and they've never known anyone
    other than my aunt and uncle as their "mother" and "father".
    That's not to say they haven't thought about what their
    biological mother did, but legally and in all other ways, my
    aunt *is* their mother.
    
    Following from Gale's opinion, I can't be called their "real"
    cousin, because it's not a biological relationship.  Gale, I
    find your position on who the "real" parents are somewhat
    offensive, especially for the personal reasons I have surrounding
    the *real*, adopted cousins that *are* my own.
    
    -Ellen
    

    re .49:
    
    I'm sorry that you've never had the shoe on the other foot, Gale.
    Having adoptive cousins has been really great.  If you had some
    adoptive relative, you could then understand why I feel the way
    that *I* do.
    

It seems to me one can't quantify love to say what's "more", nevermind
generalize to say how *all* biological parents feel about their
offspring. (The example of a rapist father is the most blatant one.)

	MKV

    
    I too am finding the following VERY tough to swallow.
    
>    Yes, the bio mother loved  him so much that she gave him up so that he
>    could have the life she could never give him. And that is the greatest
>    love of all.
    
    Since abortion has only been legal for a short period of time, and is
    still consider immoral by many, not aborting does NOT automatically 
    represent any great love for a specific child. Sometimes, its just a
    passive acceptance of a huge mistake. Sometimes, its just not knowing
    enough about abortion, or not having the resources to get one. I think
    you're really twisting things to jump to the assumption that this is
    love. Its certainly self-sacrificing, but sometimes, that's ALL it is.
    And other times, its not.
    
    On top of this, I don't see how you can jump from a statement about a
    bio mother to a sweeping statement about bio parents, who are of two
    genders. I can't see how you can apply your statement to every
    situation of a male siring children. NOT AT ALL.
    
    I'm really wondering if you have an axe to grind here in your
    statements, because the implications of what you're saying about
    adoptive parents are not very positive. 
    
    I think the most offensive thing that you've said was your statement
    that it may not be fair, but its true. The truth is that the
    dictionary's definition is bigger than yours. If you want to be so
    specific about what you call a mother, or a father, fine. But don't
    spew forth your opinion like its the only correct way to think. 
    
    

    Gale,
    
    Where do you thing of the love of the adoptive parent? Surely a
    young girl may choose not to abort. But surely you can see the choice
    of the adoptive parent to love and nurture a child not of their
    flesh. Both sets of parents made choices.
    
    How do you measure this love? Is there a scale or something? What
    about the young woman born to poverty who chooses to defy all odds
    and keep her baby? Does she love less for not doing the right
    thing? 
    
    People are people. Love is immeasurible. Young biological mothers
    cry when they give up their babies. Young biological mothers desert
    their crack addicted babies in incubators in public hospitals. Step-
    parents bond. Step parents sexually abuse. Biological parents adore
    the products of their gene pool. Biological parents couldn't give
    a damn. Reality runs the gammit.
    
    I'm sorry you have had a sad experience.                           
    
                                            
    Kate
    

    Everyone may we please watch what we say and how we say it?
    
    Bonnie J
    comod

    RE: .51
    
    
    Ellen, I would recommend that you volunteer to be a birth coach to
    young woman who have chosen to go through labor and then put their
    child up for adoption. I would urge you to watch that mother as she
    tells her child she loves him/her and to have a wonderful life, and
    hopefully some day they will meet again, and watch as the alligator
    tears roll down their checks, with more love in each tear that any one
    can fathom. Maybe then you can understand why the stand I take I will 
    _never_ back down from. Maybe then you can understand why you even had 
    cousins to be called cousins.. without that young lady in the picture, 
    you would have never of had those cousins to love.
    
    I'm sorry you find it offensive, truly I am, but until you have had
    your shoe on the other foot, I don't expect with that attitude you
    would ever understand. I do know what it is like to have adopted people
    in my immediate family. I know the love that I gave them, and the love
    that was returned, so I do speak from looking at both sides.

    BTW:

    Just for the record, I think adoptive parents are worth their weight in
    gold.  I think they deserve a very special place in life.  I think it
    takes a truly wonderful person to be an adoptive parent. I wish that
    ever person who wants to adopt a baby/child someday might get that
    wish, and be able give the love they want to that young person, and
    experience the love that is given back.

    Just for the record...

    RE: .43
    

	 Gale...
	     
>    And I'll fight anyone verbally who tried to tell me I'm not the childs
>    mother!!!!!  It takes more love to give a child a life than it 
>    does to bring one up, especially at 14!!!!!!!

	 Totally different situation.

	 I'm talking how the child feels toward/about the
	 parent.....not what part the parent feels they play for the
	 child.

	 Biologically, yes you would be a mother in the given
	 scenario...but that child would never know you, so could
	 quite easily replace you with someone else in the mother
	 role.

	 and most likely would.

	 kath

>    Yes that is **EXACTLY** what I am telling you! Yes, the bio mother loved 
>    him so much that she gave him up so that he could have the life she could
>    never give him. 

How do you know?  You are making this grand, sweeping assumption that *all*
bio-parents who give up their children for adoption feel the same thing.
Have you met my brother's bio-mom?  Have you talked to her?  Do you know her
motivation for what she did?  If so, please let me know, as I would love to
meet her and ask her those questions myself.  You are apparantly very close
to the woman.

>And that is the greatest love of all. Without her, his
>    raising mother could never of had him to love.

This logic doesn't follow.  Just because an event results in love, does 
not mean the even itself was inspired by love.  I met the man who loved
me more than any other man through a casual aquaintance.  Although her
introduction resulted in a tremendous amount of love in my life, she did
it out of general concern, *not* out of love.

> The bio mother could
>    have chosen to abort him, but instead she choose to give him life. I
>    can't think of a greater love, can you?
 
How do you know she "chose to give him life"?  How do you know she wasn't
simply morally opposed to abortion?  Or maybe didn't find out she was
pregnant in time to abort him?  Or couldn't afford an abortion?  Or *even*
(I am not truly suggesting this, but it is a logical possibility) she
really wanted a child, but decided when she had him that she had changed
her mind?

My brother himself has suggested that his mother gave him up because he
was black.  (Half black - she was white, her lover was black.)  While I
don't necessarily agree with this theory, knowing what I know about prejudice
I could easily see a woman hating her own child for being "the wrong color".

Just because love motivates *you*, why do you say that convenience or
moral obligations might not be other people's motivations?

Finally I will say that you have a very different definition of love
than I do.  I think love grows with time.  I think the greatest love is
love for an individual.  The more you know someone you love, the more you
love them.  My mother loves me more now than when I was born because now
I am an individual, a personality that she helped create and shape,
because we have grown closer, and shared things, and she has given to me
of herself.  Daniel's bio-mom never *met* him, doesn't *know* him,
and you are claiming that she loves him more than my mom loves him.

So, answer the question I asked before.  by your logic, my mom loves me
more than she loves him, since she is my bio-Mom, and all bio-Mom's love
their children more than any non-bio-Mom can.  So are you sitting there
telling me that my mother loves me more than my brother?

Actually I think the whole concept of "x loves y more than z" is absolutely
totally ludicrous.  x and z are different people and have different types of
love and to say that x's love is greater than y's is comparing apples and
oranges.  

There are some people who are incapable of love.  Some of them might even
be bio-parents. Think about that.

D!

    Well Gale, I'm in a position to know what I'm talking about when it
    comes to adoption and I couldn't disagree with you more.

    >It takes more love to give a child a life than it does to bring one up,

    Huh? It doesn't take love to have a child, it takes sex. Does it take
    love to give them up for adoption, sure, but what it really takes is
    common sense. The 14 year olds that are keeping there children are
    lacking common sense, do they have more or less love for the child? Not
    necessary she just has less sense of reality.

    >And I'll fight anyone verbally who tried to tell me I'm not the child's
    >mother!!!!!   especially at 14!!!!!!!

    Age is irrelevant in this discussion you could be 14 or 44...when you
    place your child up for the adoption, that child is going to be raised
    by a mother & father. Granted no one can debate your claim as biological 
    mother, but I think that is relatively meaningless compared to the
    responsibility taken on by the persons raising the child, who have all 
    rights and privileges to be known as Mom & Dad.

    I recently met my genetic-bilogical mother. Is she my real mother? No.
    She'll never be the person that raised me. She is the person that bore
    me. Will I ever call her mom? No. As an adopted child I have always
    considers Mom & Dad to be titles, titles belonging to people that are
    raising children. It makes no difference if your mother bore you or not,
    *she* will always be your mother. The person who gave birth to me will
    be no more than the person who gave birth to me. She is not my Mom.

    Gail

    Re: .59
    
    Kathy, I agree, all I was saying that the adoptive parent was not the
    biological parent... that was all...  
    
    But I would also hope that someday the two could get together and meet
    and have some sort of relationship.  May never happen, but I sure hope
    that some day it would, for anyone that has given up a child.

                          <** Moderator Response **>

    I would echo Bonnie's request that we watch how we say things; and I
    would go further and request that we presume innocent intentions when
    we read something that strikes us as insensitive.  Being fried for a
    mistake is never fun.
    
    						=maggie

.60> So, answer the question I asked before.  by your logic, my mom loves me
.60> more than she loves him, since she is my bio-Mom, and all bio-Mom's love
.60> their children more than any non-bio-Mom can.  So are you sitting there
.60> telling me that my mother loves me more than my brother?


    D! - sorry  - I just forgot to answer this...  no, that is not what I
    am saying... all I was saying that the adoptive parent was not
    the biological parent...

    I'd also urge anyone who would like to, to volunteer some time at an
    unwed mothers home.  There is one in Hillsboro, New Hampshire that I
    volunteer my time to. I'd be more than happy to give anyone more
    information off line about the place.


      

>.60> So, answer the question I asked before.  by your logic, my mom loves me
>.60> more than she loves him, since she is my bio-Mom, and all bio-Mom's love
>.60> their children more than any non-bio-Mom can.  So are you sitting there
>.60> telling me that my mother loves me more than my brother?

>    D! - sorry  - I just forgot to answer this...  no, that is not what I
>    am saying... all I was saying that the adoptive parent was not
>    the biological parent...

(THis is going to sound nasty, but I can't help it. I have to keep argument
logically consistent.)

Premise 1: Any bio-mom's love for a child is greater than a non-bio-mom's love
Premise 2: Child A is bio-child of Woman X (given)
Premise 3: Child B is non-bio-child of Woman Y (given)
Conclusion 1: Woman X loves Child A more than Woman Y loves Child B
Assume: Woman X = Woman Y
Conclusion 2: Woman X loves Child A more than Child B

Yes, that *is* what you are saying.  You gave premise 1.  If we assume it
to be correct, that leads directly and logically to conclusion 2.  If
you disagree with conclusion 2, either you are suggesting that 1) one of
the premises is incorrect (your premise is the only one possible, since the
two others are givens) or 2) the logic is invalid.

Feel free to challenge my logic.  I think the logic is correct.  And since
it is clear to *me* that at least one situation exists (my own) where Conclusion
2 is false, then premise 1 must be false.

If you are going to present hypothesis as true, you have to defend logical
conclusions from that hypothesis as also true.

D!

 People...

 When someone writes a reply, they are generally doing so from a perspective 
that includes primarily their experiences and experiences related to them by
others. Instead of being angered by the obvious differences of opinion, perhaps
it would be wise to consider that other people's experiences may not mesh
well with our own.

 This subject has aroused to some intensely personal feelings and experiences.
Being a supportive community, it behooves us to tread carefully, lest we
injure someone's feelings.

 The Doctah

>Premise 1: Any bio-mom's love for a child is greater than a non-bio-mom's love
>Premise 2: Child A is bio-child of Woman X (given)
>Premise 3: Child B is non-bio-child of Woman Y (given)
>Conclusion 1: Woman X loves Child A more than Woman Y loves Child B
>Assume: Woman X = Woman Y
>Conclusion 2: Woman X loves Child A more than Child B

 I think you have completely missed the point that Gale was trying to make.

 Without speaking for Gale (who is perfectly capable), I would like to say this:

 The act of a young girl giving a child up for adoption becasue she knows she
is unable to provide the type of lifestyle that she wants for her child is an
act of tremendous love. It would certainly be easier to abort. Sure, it's not
a perfect solution, but in terms of the psychological impact, it seems to be
a lesser evil. Deciding to go through with the pregnancy is a difficult one,
especially when you know you will be giving the child up for adoption. Deciding
to go through with the rigors of pregnancy and the emotional upheaval of 
adoption is especially poignant when the pregnancy is the result of non-
consensual intercourse. That a 14 year old child could make this decision
is astounding, and serves as a model for me, when I start to think about how
great it is that I have accepted my daughters as my own. Kinda knocks you
down a peg or 11.

 The Doctah

    I have been asked by a moderator to perhaps explain why I am sitting
    here in my office so upset that my contacts are getting extra
    lubrication.

    This letter was delivered to me yesterday:

    Dear Baby,

    By now you are not a baby anymore and your probably looking for
    answers.  Its important to me for you to know why you were adopted, so
    as you read this letter hopefully it will answer a lot of your
    questions.

    I was given many hours of counsel before I finally made my decision to
    place you for adoption.  my reasons why? By the time you were to be born
    I'd only be 15 years old.  I didn't have any place to live where a baby
    could live also.  I wasn't making any money either. Its rather hard to
    bring up a child under these circumstances.  After days and nights of
    praying I knew adoption was the best choice.  I love you very much and I
    only wanted the best for you.

    My time was coming to an end you were soon to be born so arrangements
    needed to be made. I started to meet with a Christian social worker so
    together we could find you a good home.  

    I know God has special plains (My comment: I thinks its supposed to
    mean plans) for the both of us.  I've handed you over in God's care so I
    know your in the right place.  I'll be praying for you always.

    				I love you very much,

    					your
    				birth mother.


    This letter was written by a very special person (my daughter) to her
    child that will be born within 3 weeks. Its been a very rough 9 months
    for all of us. Within the last year she has gone through an attempted
    rape, a rape, grand jury indictments, a guilty plea in court, and now a 
    (soon-to-be) birth. 

    She was given the choice to either go through an abortion or an
    adoption. Her final decision - Having this baby and giving it to a
    couple that could not have a baby might bring some good out of all the
    bad that has happened.

    I guess now is the time for me to thank all that have been supportive
    that has known about this. Without all the extra hugs, and prayers I'm
    not sure how at times we would have survived.

    Gale Kleinberger

    The confusion seems to be that .43 said, twice, that a biological
    mother has more love for her child than an adoptive mother can.  
    
    In later notes such as .64, this is toned down to an observation that
    an adoptive parent is not the biological parent.
    
    These two statements to me are not the same.
    
                 Gale, I don't know what you think now!!  
    Have you changed your mind, or did you not say what you thought in .43?!
    
    I agree that the adoptive parent is not the biological parent.  I don't
    think anyone is arguing with fact.  People are arguing with an
    assumption that a biological mother -- who carried the child for 9
    months and gave it up, for whatever good reason -- has more love for
    her child than an adoptive mother -- who chose to have a child and
    raised it for 18+ years.
    
    Apart from the factual observation, I don't think one can draw any real
    conclusions about how much love one person has for another, nor about
    how the biological relationship is stronger than an interpersonal
    relationship based on years of day-to-day care.  
    
    For what it's worth, the American Heritage Dictionary supports the view
    that a "mother" can be either biological or adoptive.
    MOTHER
    1.  A female that has borne an offspring.
    2.  A female who has adopted a child or otherwise established a
        maternal relationship with another person.
    MATERNAL
    1.  Relating to or characteristic of a mother or motherhood; motherly.
    
    To me, "motherly" is a state of mind.
    Pam

    Gale, I was writing .70 while you were writing your last -- if you
    don't want to write further, don't worry about it. 
    
    Pam
    

    [huggggg]
    
    for you and your daughter, Gale.  that's serious hard stuff.
    
    						=m  

	 .68 (Gale)

	 That's a very moving letter your daughter wrote.  It took a
	 lot of courage and, yes, love for the child, to write that
	 letter.

	 I think the reason so many people are so upset is that you
	 generalized your daughter's case into every case of this
	 kind.

	 Also, your daughter's feelings for the child (ie, she will
	 always feel like it's mother) can in no way be compared to
	 the child's feelings toward your daughter.  The child will
	 go, hopefully, to a loving, caring home....she's have two
	 parents that will be all she knows.  By the time she's old
	 enough to know that she is adopted, your daughter will be a
	 stranger to her......

         Though your daughter will always feel the mother-daughter
         bond with that child....the child probably will not feel the
         mother-daughter bond back.    Unfortunately this is a realism
	 for adoption.

         Perhaps what everyone is trying to say is that "mother" is a
         very dynamic term.  Your daughter will always be the child's
         biological mother.....and the adopting woman will always be
         the "providing mother" (for lack of a better term).  It is
         possible to have two mothers playing very different roles.
         But the choice of who that child, if anyone, chooses to call
         "mother" is stricting the child's choice.  "Mother" is a very
         endearing term, and as Gail Koski pointed out before, no one
         gets granted the right to be called "mother" by the simple
         fact of birth or even bringing the child up....the term has
         to come from inside the child, and from there only......


	 kath	 

    RE: .73
    
    
	 >>she's have two
	 >>parents that will be all she knows.  By the time she's old
	 >>enough to know that she is adopted, your daughter will be a
	 >>stranger to her......

    One would hope that this child will be told that she/he is adopted at a
    very early age...early enough so that the child has an opportunity to
    grow into the meaning of the word "adopted."
    
    
         >>Though your daughter will always feel the mother-daughter
         >>bond with that child....the child probably will not feel the
         >>mother-daughter bond back.    Unfortunately this is a realism
	 >>for adoption. 
    
    I don't think that one can generalize about how adoptees do or don't
    feel bonds towards their biological mothers or fathers.  I think that
    there is a good possibility that a bond between mother and child can be
    formed, even though the knowledge of the bond may be lost to one's
    conscious memory.  There are things that I just knew about my birth
    mother before I was told any facts about her.  How did I know these
    things?  The knowledge about her just seemed to be part of my cells.  I
    have always felt a bond with my birth mother.
    
         >>"Mother" is a very
         >>endearing term, and as Gail Koski pointed out before, no one
         >>gets granted the right to be called "mother" by the simple
         >>fact of birth or even bringing the child up....the term has
         >>to come from inside the child, and from there only......
   
    If my birth mother had not died before I found her, I could very easily
    see myself calling her 'mom'.  There are a lot of reasons why I
    wouldn't see this as a problem, but the primary one is that I don't
    feel it is a conflict for me to acknowledge that I *do*, as an adoptee,
    have two mothers and two fathers.  That is my reality as an adoptee.
    
    I met my birth father nearly three years ago and have just recently
    sent him a letter asking him if it would be o.k. if I called him dad
    instead of Ted.  Since we have had some time to develop a relationship,
    it feels very comfortable for me to ask him this question.  So, it is
    up to the individual to figure out what is going to work and feel
    comfortable in these very complicated "families" that we adoptees have.
    
    BTW, these kinds of discussions about who is the "real" parents and who
    has the "right" to be called mom and dad make me painfully aware of how
    we, as a society, view infants and children.  This kind of discussion
    makes me feel like we are dicussing a piece of real-estate...
    
    Too bad we can't think of children as being on loan to us for the time
    that they need the protection and care of adults vs. being owned by a
    parent, or parents, or the state or whomever.  We really do have a
    long, long way to go on this one.
    
    Laura
        

    Gale, I want to disagree with your first premise in the strongest
    terms.  And, I would like you to try to see it in a positive light.
    I would challenge anyone who says they love their kids more than
    I love mine.  And all mine are adopted.

    So try to have confidence that the adoptive parents of your
    grandchild will love that child AT LEAST as much as you and
    your daughter already do.  She's doing a very brave thing.
    Try to help her see that she's placing the child in a new home
    full of equally strong love.  Give her a hug from all of us.
    bob

    Gale,
    
    My prayers are with you, your daughter and this baby. Feel good
    in knowing that adoptive parents (like my husbands) can bond to
    that baby and love that baby.
    
    Thanks for opening up,
    Kate
    

>             <<< Note 847.74 by SONATA::ERVIN "Roots & Wings..." >>>

>    One would hope that this child will be told that she/he is adopted at a
>    very early age...early enough so that the child has an opportunity to
>    grow into the meaning of the word "adopted."

	 No, I used the word "know", not "told" (like I think you
	 believed me to have said).  The knowledge should, in my eyes,
	 always be there, but the understanding takes time.........A 2
	 year old can, quite probably, not understand the meaning of
	 being "adopted."  I agree wholeheartedly with you that
	 hopefully a child will accept the adoption as part of
	 him/herself.
	      
>    I don't think that one can generalize about how adoptees do or don't
>    feel bonds towards their biological mothers or fathers.

	 Please reread my statement...the word "probably" is in
	 there.....and in the next statement you make you use the
	 words "good possibility" and say almost the same
	 thing.....perhaps we're on the same wavelength, it's just a
	 touchy subject and causes quick judgements.....when we really
	 meant the same thing.
	 
>    There are things that I just knew about my birth
>    mother before I was told any facts about her.  How did I know these
>    things?  The knowledge about her just seemed to be part of my cells.  I
>    have always felt a bond with my birth mother.

	 I agree that these is always some sort of mother-daughter
	 bond.........but the child may choose to view that as a
	 biological bond, or a love bond....that's up to the
	 individual child, not something anyone can speculate on
	 here...we can only speak for ourselves about the nature of
	 that bond.
	    
>    wouldn't see this as a problem, but the primary one is that I don't
>    feel it is a conflict for me to acknowledge that I *do*, as an adoptee,
>    have two mothers and two fathers.  That is my reality as an adoptee.

	 Again, please re-read.....I mentioned something about having
	 two mothers that play very different roles......mother is a
	 dynamic term........there are no rules stating that it can be
	 applied to only one person....and I hope I didn't imply that
	 I meant that because I know I mentioned "two mothers" in
	 there somewhere. ;-)
	    
>    So, it is
>    up to the individual to figure out what is going to work and feel
>    comfortable in these very complicated "families" that we adoptees have.

	 Exactly my point..it's up the child to determine what works
	 for her/him........not someone else.....and it is possible to
	 consider one's self to be a mother of a child without the
	 child considering that person to be the mother.....it's a
	 purely individual choice, and no one can make that decision
	 for the child.
	    
>    we, as a society, view infants and children.  This kind of discussion
>    makes me feel like we are dicussing a piece of real-estate...

	 I know I'm not discussing the child as a piece of
	 real-estate..it's important to take into consideration that
	 the child's emotions and feelings and wants and needs are
	 more important and ANYONE ELSE'S desires or beliefs.
	    
>    Too bad we can't think of children as being on loan to us for the time
>    that they need the protection and care of adults vs. being owned by a
>    parent, or parents, or the state or whomever.  We really do have a
>    long, long way to go on this one.

	 As I said before...........the child picks us.....it's not us
	 picking the child.......no matter if there is a biological
	 link or not......it's the child's sole decision to use the
	 term mother.....but it is also important for the biological
	 mother to think of herself as "mother" if that is what she so
	 desires.

	 I guess my sole point is that "love" is a selfless
	 thing.....you should never expect that just because you love
	 someone they will love you back in the same way.............
	 Love should be given freely, not taken......(IMO).


	 kath        

    
    
    
    Khahil Gibran said, "On Children", 
    
    
    "Your children are not your children.
     They are the sons and daughters of life's longing for itself"
    
    The entire essay (which, unfortunately I have not memorized, gives
    a good perspective on the role of Significant Adults in the life of
    a child.
    
    Deb
    

    Gail, it's not my business, I just feel compelled to ask you to
    read the notes on adoption and to say that if I were your daughter
    I would want to do what I can now to make reunion possible in the
    future.  The social worker should be able to advise how a letter
    can be delivered later, or left in file for the child to obtain
    later if looking for your daughter.  Something may be able to be
    arranged.
    
    Your daughter is truely very brave and loving, and so are you.
    
    Bud

    Gale, I feel for you, and your daughter, and her coming child.
    And I'm also sorry if the antagonism (even if not meant to be
    malicious) against you has added to the grief you already have.
    Still, I have to join with some of the others who feel that you
    are taking your daughter's case and making it an axiom for how
    *all* pregnant women feel. I'm sure that there are any number
    of women who view the child as a "thing" that they just want to
    be rid of, and had decided against abortion for a reason that has
    nothing to do with whether they feel love for the child (i.e.
    you don't have to love another person to be against taking their
    life).
    
    There are as many reasons for bringing a child full term as there
    are women who do so. And, as D! points out, unless you know the
    specific person and her motivation, you can't just make a blanket
    assumption about what she feels toward the child.
    
    --- jerry

    I decided to wait for a day before I said anything more... I was just
    too emotional yesterday to do anymore noting in this topic.  A person I
    care very much about sent this to me in the mail yesterday:


>	Well, I'm with the folks who think you could be accused
> of over-generalization...  


    If I offended anyone, or touched skeletons in the closet that perhaps
    were too close to you then I too am sorry that I made you re-live a
    portion of your life yesterday that perhaps you didn't want to re-live.

    If I was in over-generalization mode, it was because I try so very hard to 
    see only good in a situation. I want things to turn out best for all
    concerned. But it was also because of the work that I'm doing now with
    New Beginnings.  Until the hospital told us Becky was pregnant, I had 
    never heard of them, or what they did. They take in girls who are PG, and 
    have no place to go, and there is no charge for them being there if they
    can't afford to pay anything.  They are given 24 hour a day available
    counsel, and more love than anyone could ever imagine getting.  These
    girls usually give their babies up for adoption, and I have come to see
    that side of it. I understand that there is the side of females who have 
    babies and leave them in trash cans to die, and could not care less.
    But I have only seen the side of girls aged 14 to 25 that with a lot of
    love are giving babies up instead of abortion, which was an option to
    them. That love is tremendous, I wish everyone of you could experience
    it. Those girls will always be the babies mother. Kathy I loved the
    terms you used, for the mother that the child will always know.
    Somehow, I wish someday that Becky and her child will be able to be
    together, so that I can tell it the love she had to give it a life,
    under what was the most difficult of circumstances.

    BTW: For those of you that inquired, she is doing very well... a little
    scared, and unsure of the unknown.  She will live with her father after
    this, as she doesn't trust just living with me anymore.  She wants to
    be around a male for protection. I understand her reasoning, although
    I don't think her father could have done anymore than what I did when I
    heard her screams... 

    Again, I'm sorry if I was insensitive and was too emotional too see what
    you were experiencing also. 

    Now, I'm sorta dropping out of the discussion...  I guess I should have
    never entered into it, it cuts too deeply right now to be rational.

    Gale

    I am getting very confused by reading these last 40 notes or so
    each are yelling at another for views that they believe in.
    
    I also belong to the adoption triangle, I amm adopted with two adopted
    brothers and had a great life, had things that I know of today since
    learning all neat things about my bio parents and their families,
    that if my bio mother had kept me, she would have been alienated
    from her family. as it was she and her family went to counselling
    to help with the decision as what to do with me. and Because they
    choose adotion she choose not to visit me after birth because she
    felt that if she did she never could have gone through with her
    decision, my bio dad moved out west after my bio mom discouraged
    any further contact with her afraid of what her family would do
    to him. Both had less that 11 grade education. Both came from the
    poorer side of town.
    
    If it hadn't been for her and him I wouldn't be here today, I wouldn't
    have knowen two wonderful brothers and parents and extended families.
    
    also I too have put my first born up for adoption a healthy baby
    boy names Taylor Yorke. 8/30/81. 9:47PM Emergecy C-Section we almost
    lost our lives at the end.
    When Taylor was 2 1/2 days old I went down to the nursery I held
    him in my arms I fed him his bottle I held him as we both cried,
    and I said my goodbyes- and I told him that if he was willing later
    on in his life I would like to meet him again but as two adults.
    
    No if it hadn't been for my fornuate expeirences with adoption then
    I don't know what my decision would have been. 
    
    Why am I telling the notes community this, I don't know maybe to
    let them know that I felt that because of what I was able to grow
    up with and see and feel, LOVE WANTED, EXCEPTED, that I knew that
    from the family I chose for Taylor well I know he is pretty much
    getting the same things.
    
    If I had kept Taylor I too would have been on Welfare, my family
    would have deserted me I was 20 physically 16 emotionally, No thank
    you I wanted the Best for MY SON! According to the agency Taylor
    will always be my son! and I can call him my son! No I wanted better,
    I wanted him to have baby toys, I wanted him to have the life I
    knew, where the parents weren't always fretting about where the
    money was going to come from.
    
    Lise
    

    thanks Lise
    
    hugs
    
    Bonnie

    I would like to offer my personal perspective on the adoption issue.
    
    I was born 'out of wedlock'. My mother suffered greatly due to this
    situation. She was married 4 1/2 years later. I was an abused child
    due, in part, to my parents inability to deal with me. My father saw
    me as a bastard child (his family is/was so very *proper*) who was
    the focus of his wife. My mother, on the other hand, resented me for
    "screwing up her life" . Between the two of them, I suffered from many
    years of abuse. My memories of childhood are mostly of beatings and the
    indifference of my parents. I am 35 years old and have never been
    hugged by my father...not once. My biological father never acknowledged
    my existence. My counselor thought it best that I don't try to contact
    my bio father for fear of his rejection. I haven't given alot of
    information here, mostly general stuff, because this note isn't about
    my broken bones...but it is about my broken heart. In short, weather
    they are biological or not, parenting is a process. I don't feel as if
    I ever had a father. My mother had a lover, and a husband. My daughters
    consider me their father because of the way I treat them not any other
    reason or intitlement. I don't let a day go buy that I don't hug my
    children, that I don't tell them I love them, that I don't try to earn 
    their love. The only other point I would like to make is this. From a
    parental point of view, it may seem that the best way to sever the
    relationship (in the case of adoption) is completely. I say no..from
    this childs point of view, I may have been able to survive with much
    fewer scars had I known that I did have someone out there who cared
    about me - someone who thought I was worth acknowledging.
    
    Bob

    	.84  Yes I also know children that don't grow up in healthy
    homes, all I have to do is look at one of my cousins. She has had
    4 children, 3 from different fathers, after a while she signed adoption
    papers so the children's natural father and his wife could have
    full custoday. Just two weeks ago after 11 years of raising the
    youngest in a drug and alcohlic home where nodbody including the
    child's father could find her, she was arrested and HEather was
    returned to her dad and step siblings. God only know what the child
    has seen or gone through! 
    
    	No I am not deniny there are adults that shouldn't have children!
    I am just saying because of what I was able to feel, share in, and
    expierence, I felt postive enough about it that I could give Taylor
    up, knowing the questions, the bad and the good, I felt it was the
    best I could do for my child. No I am not 100% happy but what else
    could I do?? Did I have a right to ask a child to exist in a world
    where I would be out drugging and drinking?? not enough money??
    Yes I could have had an abortion but I chose to give somebody else
    the chance I had at life and some two people in this world that
    my bio mother gave my parents the child of their dreams. I have
    not always been the perfect girl/woman, but my parents have made
    it clear to me that they never regretted their decision!!
    
    Lise
    

 re: 847.85
    
    
	>God only know what the child
        >has seen or gone through! 
    	
    	This statement is so true its painful. Many adults make the mistake 
    	of seeing the 'problem' from the adults point of view. 
    	
    
    	>No I am not deniny there are adults that shouldn't have children!
    
    	There are many people who, for many reasons, should never have
    	children. 
    
       >I am just saying because of what I was able to feel, share in, and
   > expierence, I felt postive enough about it that I could give Taylor
   > up, knowing the questions, the bad and the good, I felt it was the
   > best I could do for my child. No I am not 100% happy but what else
   > could I do?? Did I have a right to ask a child to exist in a world
   > where I would be out drugging and drinking?? not enough money??
    
    I know that this must have been an extremly difficult decision for you.
    I spent my whole childhood with parents who resented my very
    exsistence. My grandparents tried to adopt me (went thru courts to get
    custody) with no success. The courts feelings were that the child
    belongs with his/her biological mother. If they had looked into my
    world, they would not have made that decision. I applaud you for
    having the courage to forsake your own feelings for that of the child.
    
    Bob
    
    

    This discussion reminds me of the first question I knew my Bio-Mom had
    waiting for me when she met me. She said she had only hoped I had a
    happy childhood. Now I had to ask a counselor how to answer that
    question. How do you tell a woman that lovingly gave up her child in
    hopes that it would have a better life that the "better" life didn't
    exactly happen.

    I agree whole heartedly that some people should just not have children.
    My adoptive parents were two such people. I've yet to tell bio-Mom the
    real truth about my childhood. I stated quite simply that it was a
    "difficult" childhood. 

    Happy homes are a product of content adjusted adults, adopted children
    have as much chance being raised in a dysfunctional home as do "home
    grown" children. 
    
    
    Gail

    Gail,
    
    >>How do you tell a woman that lovingly gave up her child in
    >>hopes that it would have a better life that the "better" life didn't
    >>exactly happen.
      
    I would suggest to you what Susan Darke (The Adoption Connection)
    suggested to me several years ago.  I was pondering the same question,
    not so much about issues dealing with my adoptive parents, but around
    other things in my life.  Susan advised that I wait until I had
    established a relationship and rapport with my bio-family before I
    started handling the more difficult items.  No doubt that most birth
    mothers have guilt about having had to relinquish their children, and
    there isn't really anything that you can do to spare her from this
    fact, but I think that it will be o.k. for her to know that you didn't
    have ideal parents.  Have the conversation when you feel ready to talk
    about it.
    
    My birth father feels *very* responsible about the years I spent as an
    active alcoholic.  He thinks that if I hadn't been adopted I wouldn't
    have had a drinking problem.  I very quietly and consistently talk to
    him about alcoholism as a disease, that it wouldn't have mattered where
    I grew up, and that the experience of addiction, but even more so, the
    experience of recovery has been a very positive force in my life. 
    Maybe someday he will be able to let go of his guilt.  
    
    Laura
            

    re Gail
    
    I hope that you're not quite right.  I hope adoption agencies do
    a better job of screening prospective parents.  They do some screening,
    at least at some places.  So I would hope (and believe) that there
    is a better chance of being raised in a healthy environment when
    adopted.
    
    Of course, "a better chance" is not a guarantee.  Anyway, it gives
    me food for a lot of thought about when this fails.
    
    Bud

    re -1
    
    I hope that screening is carried out differently today. However,
    I'm not sure it would have screened out my parents, who on the surface
    look like "nice" people. I don't like to press my point,because
    I hope my situation was the exception. 
    
    My bio-Mom told me that the agency assured her I was going to a
    "proven" family. What they had proven was that they were fiscaly
    responsible and appeared to want children for all the right reasons.
    There was, to my knowledge, no follow up once my sister (older)
    and I were placed. Had child abuse laws been as enforced as they
    are now however, we'd probably have been pulled out of the house. This
    would have been true weather the parents were adoptive or natural.
    
    I don't like being a cloud here, I'm just a touch of realism. It
    can happen in any family, and unfortunately it can happen in the
    "chosen" adoptive households. To often outsiders look at your family
    as something special,the children as "chosen", chosen or not, adoptive
    families are not special by default.
    
    Gail
     

    Having been through the adoption process I have to agree with
    .90
    
    We were checked out as to being 'nice people' and being finacially
    capable of having more children for the basics...references,
    income tax statements, a couple of interviews which didn't probe
    all that deeply.
    
    We were fortunate in that we also had very sensitive and aware
    social workers who felt it very important to make a good match
    between parent and child and who tried to find ways to select
    out those who were bad parents.. but with a less than competent
    social worker, going by the rules could mean some superficially
    'good' parents who had dark undersides could end up adopting.
    One of my closest friends was adopted by people who were a bad
    match for her and it has affected her, tho she has grown into
    a warm and wonderful adult.
    
    Bonnie

I promised that I would update you in the end...

The end came at 12:17am, on the 22nd of November. Baby and my daughter are 
both doing fine.  We had some serious complications with Becky after the 
birth, which required over 100 stitches (the baby tore up her anal canal),
and her blood pressure would not become stable for almost 4 hours, and she
lost a lot of blood, but otherwise, she is doing WONDERFUL (she says she's a 
little sore :-) today.)...

I think the Lord knew she could not handle much of a labor, as the doctor 
broke her water at 10:15pm, and the baby was born naturally (not even in a 
delivery room!) at 12:17am. Becky DID wonderful all during the labor, but 
she said it was not her idea of a fun evening, although it wasn't as bad 
as what she had thought it was going to be.

She temporally named him Austin Daniel, and Austin will meet his new 
parents on Monday, pending being released from the hospital (he developed 
Jaundice today). He was 7 pounds and 7 ounces, and 20 inches long.

One *really* neat thing that happened was she had to decide whether to have 
him circumcised...  after talking with the social worker and the doctor, 
she decided to let the adoptive parents decide.

The funny thing was when she and I had to sign the release papers to the 
agency, she asked the social worker where she was supposed to sign, and the 
lady said on the "mother" line, and she said, "OH, no, I'm used to my mom 
signing on the mother line"

All-in-all, we are very glad that this is now over, and that she can go 
back to being a teenager, and living a {somewhat} normal life.

    <--(.92)
    
    VERY best congratulations and good wishes to you both!
    
    						=m

          re: 847.81 (Gale Kleinberger)

          While all of my messages to Gale concerning her ordeal have been
          offline so far, this part of her situation I wanted to publicly
          discuss:

             ("She" is Gale's daughter)
          >  She will live with her father after this, as she doesn't
          ** trust just living with me anymore.  She wants to be around a
          ** male for protection. I understand her reasoning, although I
          >  don't think her father could have done anymore than what I did
          >  when I heard her screams...

          I made it through all of Gale's note, the one containing the
          "Dear Baby" letter written by her daughter to the child of the
          rape,  without shedding a tear until I read that.  Then came many
          tears; tears of anger and of frustration.  Feelings not directed
          _towards_ her daughter; just at the situation itself:  Her
          daughter now wanting/feeling the need to be around a male for
          protection and subsequently rejecting her mother.

          Something I wrote down in my notebook when I was reading
          everything I could on the subject while preparing for the trial
          echoed in my mind...



                    "All men benefit because some men rape."


          I didn't understand it very well at the time, but it echoed in my
          mind as I read Gale's paragraph above, for Gale's ex is indeed
          benefitting because his daughter was raped.

          Not that I claim ignorance of this reaction or pretend I am/was
          "above it" - I am far more likely to make it through the night
          without nightmares if I am sleeping with a man.  I hate this
          side-effect which, in effect, makes me very dependant on men
          for having a normal day-to-day existence.

          In "Men on Rape", Timothy Beneke wrote,

               "It is painful but necessary to acknowledge the sense in
               which men benefit from violence against women.  Men compete
               with women in myriad ways, both professional and personal;
               the threats to women give men definite advantages.  It is
               sometimes said that men tolerate violence against women
               _because_ they benefit from it.

               ... How much longer will men accept as normal lives of
               constraint and abuse for women? "

                                                       nancy b.

    re .94
    
    I agree with your assessment.  The Ex is apparently benefitting
    from the side effects of the rape of his daughter.  Putting the
    shoe on the other foot, however, he may have had an unfairly small
    benefit of interaction with his daughter previously because he was
    not the custodial parent.  I do not know the circumstances, and
    don't want to know.  I am also uncomfortable about saying anything
    that might hurt either Nancy or Gail.  I just wanted to point out
    that, just maybe, the benefit spoken of is justly deserved by the
    Ex.  Perhaps it is his fair turn?  (Gail, this is not to say that
    I think you are anything less than a wonderful mother.  What I've
    read from you is wonderful!)
    
    Bud

    Ah, but Bud, what of the general case?
    
    If the most qualified person for a job happens to be a woman (as
    should happen 50% of the time), but she does not take the job
    because it puts her at risk for rape (bad neighborhood, night
    work, etc.), has not the man who was not the best benefited?
    That's not too bad.  But consider the case where the top three
    people were women (12.5% of the cases).  Then a man who was not
    in contention at all would get the job!  (Rare is the person who
    will consider more than three candidates at a time.)  If something
    unjust happens 12% of the time, then it's time to look at the
    factors involved.
    
    This purely hypothetical suggestion has been brought to you by
    
    							Ann B.

Or in general:  sometimes an unjustly obtained benefit will in fact have
been deserved, just as sometimes it will have been undeserved.  But that 
*cannot* legitimize the obtaining of a benefit through unjust means.

The observation of .95 sounds, to me, much like someone observing about
a murder that the victim's survivors might be excellent people, who really
deserve the inheritance that they've just come into.  It may be true, but
it's quite irrelevant to the issue, and suggests a disregard of the fact
that such benefit as there may be is obtained through the suffering of a
victim or victims.

Or to be very blunt about it, if *your* daughter were raped, and she decided
to come live with you as a result, would you really say to yourself, "Well,
of course it's terrible that the rape happened, but at least some good came
out of it"?

	-Neil

    
.95>    Putting the
.95>    shoe on the other foot, however, he may have had an unfairly small
.95>    benefit of interaction with his daughter previously because he was
.95>    not the custodial parent.  

.95>    I just wanted to point out
.95>    that, just maybe, the benefit spoken of is justly deserved by the
.95>    Ex.  Perhaps it is his fair turn?

    That's an interesting "other foot".  Does this mean that you see
    rape as a sort of "men's lib" action, restoring "justly deserved"
    privileges to men that the courts may have taken away?

    Let's reverse the situation.  Let's say that the custodial parent
    before the rape had been male.  Assuming that afterwards the daughter
    felt the same way about male protection, what effects do you think
    the rape might have on custodial arrangements such as spending weekends
    with Mom?  What about her fair turn?

    I don't think that the debate here is about who "should" have custody,
    or who "deserves" to have it.  It is about how rape can cause women,
    not only those directly victimized, to lose power over some aspect of
    their lives.  It is about how one of the side-effects of rape can be to
    reinforce male-domininence within our society, because women are made
    to feel that they need male protection.  It is about the poor woman who
    lives in a dangerous neighborhood and refuses to leave the husband who
    beats her because the alternative (living without a male in the house)
    is worse.

    If we can accept the view that (one man's) rape can be a mechanism for 
    giving (other) men their "fair turn" in child custody (abhorrent as 
    that thought is to me), then what is the analogous mechanism to give 
    women freedom from fear of violence against them?

    Unless we can identify that, I can't shake the image from my mind that
    the "other foot" you speak of is one that kicks women when they are
    down.

	Sharon

    .95 was mearly in reply to .94 which suggested that the father
    benefited unfairly as a result of his daughter's rape.  It was an
    invitation to examine the suggestion in .94 with an open mind and
    from all angles.  I like to do that, to look at the other points
    of view.  It has been a quality that was "valued" by a work group
    I participated in a while ago.  Few in this conference seem ever
    to consider that there is another, valid point of view, one which
    does not necessarily benefit the woman in a gender situation.
    
    Of course rape is not justified by any circumstance.
    
    My note did, of course, refer to the extreme gender bias of the
    courts in child custody cases.  For at least 30 years, fathers have
    had very little chance of winning a custody case.  The "normal"
    way of gauging such unfairness is to use statistics such as how
    many men have custody vs how many women.  Such a statistic would
    reveal the extreme bias I referred to.  Sure, the statistic is flawed
    as most statistics which purport to show levels of descrimination
    are.  I would also suggest that when biases are put aside, neither
    the mother nor the father is generally more "deserving" of custody,
    that is is probably such a case, and that perhaps the father should
    have a turn with his daughter.  All of the specifics are without
    any knowledge of the family, but a suggestion that .94 may not have
    been fair to the father even though I understand generally and
    specifically what was meant in that note.
    
    Bud
    

Re .99 (Bud):

    .94 implied that the _means_ by which the benefit was obtained
    were unfair, but made no statement on the benefit itself.

    I understand the point that you were making in .95.  I don't deny
    that the courts have had a historical bias towards women in child
    custody cases. However, Nancy's statement was that "All men benefit
    because some men rape".  

    So what if some men deserve to benefit?  It still doesn't make Nancy's
    assertion any more palatable (IMO).  Linking the issue of child
    custody with Nancy's statement implies that one could whip out an
    abacus and do something like the following in a hypothetical case
    where both wrongs were present (and I in no way mean to imply that
    that's the case in the particular example cited):

	    1 rape, plus one mother losing custody because her daughter 
	    feels a resultant need for male protection:  100 wrongs.
		    (move 100 beads)

	    1 father, who had been unfairly denied custody because of a
	    court bias, gets custody of his daughter:	2 rights.
		    (return 2 beads)

    _That's_ what I can't stomach.  I don't feel that fear is a morally 
    acceptible vehicle for societal change.  Does my argument now make 
    more sense to you?

    Actually, another angle that no-one has brought up yet is the case
    of incest, which could easily result in the opposite scenario - that
    is, in all _women_ benefitting because some men rape - especially
    since it could help feed a court bias.  Or that rape historically 
    played a major role in the subjugation of women which kept them at 
    home and in the childbearing/childcare roles that the courts often 
    cite/d when giving child custody preferentially to women.

	Sharon

    re: 100
    I think we really agree on the real issues.  eg. Nothing justifies
    a rape.
    
    Nancy raised the side issue of the father "benefitting" (and he
    probably doesn't see it that way for lots of reasons--I would gladly
    die for the POSSIBILITY of preventing my daughter from being raped)
    citing reasons.  I took a different view of that side issue saying
    that THAT benefit might have been fair.  (his turn to enjoy the
    daily interaction with his daughter)  This does not say that the
    means is to be compared to the end.  If he was like me, he would
    FAR prefer the benefit of no rape.  Not even worth a moments pause
    in deciding.  Just another look from another angle of a side issue
    to a side issue.
    
    bud

re: 847.98 (Sharon Walker)

>    I don't think that the debate here is about who "should" have custody,
>    or who "deserves" to have it.  It is about how rape can cause women,
>    not only those directly victimized, to lose power over some aspect of
>    their lives.  It is about how one of the side-effects of rape can be to
>    reinforce male-domininence within our society, because women are made
>    to feel that they need male protection.  It is about the poor woman who
>    lives in a dangerous neighborhood and refuses to leave the husband who
>    beats her because the alternative (living without a male in the house)
>    is worse.

	Exactly, and then some.

							nancy b.

	re: 847.95 (Bud Luebkert)

	>   I am also uncomfortable about saying anything that might 
	>   hurt either Nancy or Gale.  I just wanted to point out
 	
	Speaking strictly for myself, I would rather you say what
	you are thinking about the topic rather than to worry about
	hurting me.   Similarly, I found some of what was said in
        the topic on "Legalized Rape" pretty repulsive, but there is
        merit in seeing (however painfully) that there is still a long
        way to go in destroying the myths surrounding rape, as 1990
	beckons.
	
	In other words, I would rather hear your honest thoughts
        than a sugar-coated version because of me.  	
	[anyway, I am tough and can't be hurt anymore]
      
						       nancy b.

    RE: 102.. Thanks Nancy... I agree with your reply totally...  but to
    answer some of Bud's questions directly...

    
.95>    shoe on the other foot, however, he may have had an unfairly small
.95>    benefit of interaction with his daughter previously because he was
.95>    not the custodial parent.  

    Just in case anyone else is wondering.. he has 100% visitation rights...
    All he has to do is call and say I would like to A) Take the girls,
    B) See the girls, C) Have the girls stay with me, D) Come live with the
    girls for a week, whatever.... the last thing I wanted was for him to
    not have a relationship with the girls (despite my personal opinion of
    him, he is still the girls father)...  I have actually pushed for him
    to have a more active role then what he does have.


.95>			I am also uncomfortable about saying anything
.95>    that might hurt either Nancy or Gail.  

    Well, Nancy has already given you her opinion, and I will gladly say
    that I don't need to be protected with words being withheld. I had a
    really bad weekend, because my emotions were on my sleeve, with having
    to sign adoption papers on Friday (Becky is underage), and having to
    give her to her father on Friday morning, - I didn't think I was going
    to survive this past weekend at all... I didn't act rationally, I
    looked at EVERYTHING wrong, and I wasn't in the right frame of mind
    for anything, and dropped into tears if someone looked at me wrong! 
    I also had the need to not be alone this weekend. Luckily I had someone to 
    lean on and be with, however, that was last weekend, and that is
    past. I am going forward with how this situation has ended up. I'd love
    to rationally discuss anything you might want to ask about how we felt,
    or dealt with what happened. I'd even unrationally argue with you, but
    I doubt that would be effective :-).  Since I was not raped, I don't
    know how to relate to it, and can't answer questions, but I can answer
    questions about what happens when it happened to someone too close to
    you, and how it can effect you.

					(Gail, this is not to say that
.95>    I think you are anything less than a wonderful mother.  What I've
.95>    read from you is wonderful!)
    

    Thanks...


    Gale

>	[anyway, I am tough and can't be hurt anymore]
      
>						       nancy b.


    Nancy,

    Please take the opportunity in the future when you feel up to
    it to re-integrate feelings into your living, breathing person-
    hood.  It will be a tough road while you are on it toward recovery
    but will eventually be well-worth taking.  

    Hang on and hang in there.

    justme....jacqui

	    This is my first entry into this conference as well as
	this topic and despite the zillions of ratholes I'd like
	to share something to add to everyone's knowledge, perspective,
	etc., and perhaps to also finally put in print the pain I've
	gone through (I have two but I only want to discuss the one).

	First a little background. I'll be brief so please bear with me.

	My wife is a nurse at a hospital. Once upon a time she ended 
	up caring or an ABANDONED baby that was a result of an 
	alcoholic/drug-addicted mother who never saw the child after 
	it was born (and also has five others). This mother was also
	not married to the "bio-father" who also took no interest in
	this practically dead child when she was born.

	My wife has wanted a child for a long time (we've only been
	married 4 1/2 years and my wife has been a nurse for 18 years).
	Taking care of this little one day by day and literally making
	the difference between life and death started to take effect 
	on my wife. She would come home every day to tell me about this
	child (who was "at risk" and has fetal alcohol syndrome).

	To make a long story short, we decided to become foster-adoptive
	parents and ended up with this child for 18 months. I was hesitant
	at first to let myself out and care for this child but as the days
	passed I experienced what is known as "father bonding".

	Now the pain starts. We were in the middle of the adoptive process
	when the "state" screwed up things and because the child was 
	partially of another race, THEY TOOK THIS CHILD FROM US and gave
	her to another set of "racially compatible" parents.

	What does this have to do with this topic? 

	Merely that I've gone through a whole gamot of feelings as an 
	adoptive father, had ****MY**** child "kidnapped" by the state 
	(all the "t"s and "i"s had not been crossed so our adoption 
	proceedings were easily nullified) and can truly say I feel 
	for all of you who have had any contact with ANY kind of this 
	experience. 

	In this particular instance the biological parents weren't in
	the picture ever. But I will ***FOREVER*** wonder about my
	little girl somewhere out there (the "state") forbids contact
	because we were just "foster parents", not yet "adoptive" ones.

	So I've been an adoptive father, and am grieving for a lost
	child, all in less than two years. Not to mention my other 
	"pain" related to an accident almost five (5) years ago.
	The stress of both "pains" has me out on STD now and even the
	doctors aren't sure when I'm coming back.

	But we are still going to be foster parents and adopt as many
	needy children as we can. You can never love a child too much.
	I learned that in the short time we had our little girl. And
	though she will know another set of adoptive parents as "Mommy
	and Daddy", she will always be MY little girl. And I'm not even
	her biological parent and only knew her for 18 months.

	But let me reiterate what so many have pointed out in all the
	replies in this topic (I read them all). LOVE is what makes
	parents. And yes, as in our little girl's case, you CAN have
	more than one "parent". She now has three (3).

	My one consolation is that while there is no "link" to her
	biological parents (they didn't give a damn about her), we
	have a letter on file with the stupid state so that should
	she become interested, she can learn of the "Mommy and Daddy"
	who cared for her FROM BIRTH TO 18 MONTHS.


	I apologize for this lengthy reply but I felt my unusual
	experience could perhaps in some way add to all the good
	that's in this topic.

	Say a prayer for me for all the unloved children in the world.
	The "perfect" ones and the "unperfect" ones.

	Thanks for your time.

							Warren



PS:	I don't get into this conference much since there are so many I
	monitor, but I will try to monitor this one topic since it's
	so dear to my heart. Feel free to send mail as I login almost
	daily.

    
    
    	    To those that sent mail to me, thanks. One even helped
    	us realize we MAY have made a difference in the childs life
    	even though 18 months isn't a long time. (Children such
    	as the one we tried to adopt have a lot going against them
    	and every little thing you can do for them helps)
    
    	To the rest of you, I've decided to add this conference to
    	my list of those "frequently checked". There is a lot of
    	good things in here and I've invited my wife to share
    	in the reading and interaction. We are looking forward
    	to being part of this conference and all the lives in it.
    
    						Warren and Jerry
    

The following is an update on Becky - exactly two months after giving birth 
to a baby boy, and exactly six weeks after signing adoption papers. Well, 
really, although its an update, its not a pretty one.

A good friend told me Monday night after I got the call, that I would be angry. 
At the time though my tears I thought I could never be angry.  Now I'm so 
angry I don't know which end is up.  Most of me has just decided to just 
leave this world (not literally), and just invert and not care again.
It seems like everything I care about hurts anymore. I'm tired of hurting.
I'm tired of messing everything up. I'm tired of making the wrong decisions 
that should be the right decisions. I'm just so dead tired of emotional strain.

The other most of me wants to be there, let her know I care, that I love 
her, and that no matter what - I'll help her though it. But she won't even 
let me do that.

But I feel so DAMN GUILTY because I just can't feel like that.  Right now 
all I feel is nothing. And I feel even guiltier because I'm not feeling the 
right emotions. But right now, Dr. Spock hasn't written a chapter on this.
And I don't even know WHAT the right emotions are supposed to be.

Why is it that every damn thing I touch I SCREW so ******* up???? If I have 
failed so miserably at one, what in the HELL am I going to do to the other 
two? 

Why in the HELL didn't she call me????  I am her mother... why does she say 
as soon as she can, she'll complete what she just failed at doing? Why 
does she say its all my fault, and she might as well be dead, since she 
can't have her baby. Why does she look at me and scream "I hate your guts"
"You are no mother" "No mother would have let me give that baby away" "I 
begged you the morning of the adoption to keep him, and you told me no" "its 
all your fault" "Either get me my baby back, or I'm going to kill myself -
and not fail the next time"

Why doesn't she realize that I love her, and that I want what is best for 
her, and that baby also. Why doesn't she realize that I'm looking at this 
like she is blackmailing me? WHY IN THE HELL DIDN'T SHE CALL ME? At least 
she was got to before the pills did too much damage. WHY DIDN'T SHE CALL ME?
Why does she think I'm her enemy?

I don't think I'm coping anymore!... What in the Hell am I supposed to do 
anymore?

My personal, totally inexperienced opionion, is to hook up right away with
either one of the individuals who has discussed the adoption triad in this
file, or an organization commited to helping others deal with it.

And take care.
	Mez

    I'd suggest using EAP, Gale, to get help for yourself and your
    daughter. Also, FAST.  She may not be willing to communicate with you
    just now, but there's a chance she would talk with a third party. 
    She's grieving, you're grieving.  It's a process, and it needs to
    happen. However, your daughter requires professional intervention.
    
    I'll second Maggie's suggestion as well.  
    
    hugs,
    Marge

    
    God, Gale, that's so terrible, and I'm so sorry for you
    and your daughter.
    

    Re: .110

    Becky is in a psychiatric ward right now.  She is under 24 hour
    surveillance. Until they feel she is no longer a treat to herself,
    they will not take her off being watched 24 hours a day. At least I know
    she is safe, and not able to do herself harm at this point in time.
    
    It doesn't help all the other emotions, put it puts one of them at
    ease.

    gale

    Gale, she's okay.  She's being taken care of, and watched.  This is
    good.
    
    But what about you?  All I can do is offer hugs and warmth and ask that
    you get someone via EAP or some other route who has seen this thing
    before, is aware of the pieces that have fallen apart, and knows
    something about how to put them back together.  Be good to yourself, be
    gentle to yourself, and PLEASE, ABOVE ALL, DON'T BLAME YOURSELF. 
    You've done DAMN well by her, and if you look inside, and see that all
    your actions were motivated by your incredible love for her, you will
    see her reaction as a reaction founded in her current state of mind,
    NOT in the reality that you two have lived for the past 14(?) years.  
    
    Seek help.  Seek friends.  Seek solace.  And go gently.  Listen to
    professional help sources that are available to you.  And take it 
    one day at a time....
    
    -Jody

    Gail,
    
    I can only add from my experience.  Its not your fault and as hard as
    it is, you mustn't feel guilty.  It isn't going to change things, nor
    will it stop Becky trying to harm herself.  The first time Bernadine
    tried suicide I felt I had done some dreadful thing and it was all my
    fault.  I had a couple of sessions by the time she tried it six weeks
    later.  Then I realised that she would try it no matter what.  I
    couldn't breathe for her for the rest of her life.  She spent six weeks
    after the second attempt in a psych ward of a local hospital.  By then
    I had called her father and asked him to start pulling his weight.  
    
    Now, five years later, she is almost there.  She talks to me, asks for
    advice, is able to discuss her problems, and generally laugh at herself
    if she is down or makes a mistake.  Of course we still find it hard to
    be under the same roof for more than a couple of days. (^'
    
    As far as the other children go, don't worry, my youngest hasn't had a
    day of problems.  She passed through the teens in a breeze, is totally
    confident, together and is my best friend.  At 18 months younger than
    Bernadine she has had to cope with being not as bright, intelligent
    (teachers opinions) as the big sister.  It didn't phase her in the
    least.  
    
    For a long time I kept wondering where this wonderful young girl I knew
    had disappeared, but she is slowly appearing again.  
    
    I *really* do understand what you're feeling, and if you want to write
    off line, do.  And to the friends that stood by me during those years,
    I am forever grateful.  By the way, my mum still blames me for
    Bernadine's problems, but even that doesn't worry me any more.  Stacy
    made a very astute comment one drive back from my folks place.  I was
    flogging myself yet again about my failure.  She said, you treated us
    both the same, and I turned out really great!!!  I never ever let
    myself blame moir any more (^'
    
    I feel for you, and wish I could be there to help.  Hang in there.
    
    ...dale

    Gale -
    
    Warm hugs.  Lots and lots of hugs.  Call your friends and co-workers
    and ask for the physical hugs.  IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT.  
    
    And then go to EAP and ask them for hugs (yes, they give them -
    they've given them to me).
    
    And know that you are loved, and your daughter is loved, and the
    baby is loved.  And that all any of us can do is our best, and you
    have done your best, above and beyond what most of us are ever
    called upon to do.
    
    Alison

    Gale,
    
    You know what a good job you've done.  We've talked about it enough.
    
    There is no right or wrong.  You do everything you can, as best you
    can, and content yourself that you did your best.  You have.  I'm proud
    of you (I admire the hell out of you).
    
    I never hugged anyone in a notesfile, but there's a first time for
    everything...
    
    				<HUG>  !!!
    
    In fact, CONGRATULATIONS!  WAY TO GO!  You did the right thing, when
    there were a LOT of temptations to do something else.  Kinda stinks
    that doing the right thing hurts so bad.  GOOD JOB!  <KISS> (sloppy
    and wet, of course!).
    
    Jim
    

    gale,
    
    This may not sound very "nice" but I learned a long time ago that
    you can give life to your child, give love to them, be there when
    you can but the bottom line is... it is their life.  You can not
    except the guilt as your own.  Not anymore than you can except their
    accomplishments, recognitions, and achievments as your own.
    
    As the mother of a 15 year old child who has attemped suicide a
    few time, I do speak from experience.  You are giving yourself an
    awfull lot of credit if think you can have the power of life and/or
    death anymore for this child.  By allowing guilt, you're saying
    that there is something you could have done differently and made
    everything alright.  
    
    You've done the best that can be done.  This is not your "fault".
    
    Donna