Adoption Constellation

Are you familiar with Adoption Mosaic?  How about their magazine Adoption Constellation? I realize there are some that disagree with this organization (I saw a long scathing message trail on Dawn’s blog some time ago). I am not speaking to you.  I am speaking to those that might not be familiar and have not yet formed their own opinion. I am also peddling my own.

The magazine touts itself as a magazine “Unlike any other adoption-related magazine, Adoption Mosaic’s The Adoption Constellation magazine represents and speaks to all members of our diverse adoption community. The purpose of The Adoption Constellation magazine is to help build and support bridges between adoption constellation members, with the ultimate goal of improving our adoption experiences.” I had been monitoring the mag for a while, several friends have contributed. Yet I never purchased it. (I did download old issues).

I just purchased a subscription for selfish reasons. I was interviewed for an article in their Spring 2011 Issue. The article was written by adoptive mother, Dawn Friedman, and is focused on Adoption Relationships in the Online World (My adoption relationship is ONLY an online one). I believe the mag just went to print and should be out soon. Note the cover art was done by Massachusetts based artist (and adoptee) JooYoung Choi. Visit her website at http://www.jooyoungchoi.org.

Anywho, wanted to share and encourage you to check out.  I have recently suggested an adoptee/artist/photographer friend also consider submitting to them.  Those that object to their position, mission, POV, should also consider doing same.  Way to get your voice heard is to express it.

40 Thoughts.

  1. from the “Adoption Constellation” website: ..

    “We serve all members of the adoption constellation. This includes adoptees, adoptive parents, birth parents, extended family and friends, adoption professionals, and other members of our community.”

    Well, that excludes me. I’m not an incubator and hence not a “birthmother.” Maybe they should think about this a bit more. Some of us refuse to have dealing with magazines or organizations which put us into the trash as disposable uteri. I’m a mother still thanks, or a natural mother. Not breeding stock.

  2. Sigh. Yes. Cedar, I know. As noted, perhaps you could educate them and submit something? As noted, this same thread went berserk on Dawns blog. I would link to it but for professionals reasons Dawn has shut down her blog and that thread is no longer available.

    I find myself wondering how change is made when people refuse to associate or educate the offenders?

  3. If I wrote to them, do you actually think they would listen? Or, do you think they would use the same worn-out adoption-industry line that other “adoption reforms” use – that calling us “birthmothers” shows respect for adoptive parents and (outright lie) was created by “breeders” themselves (CUB still has this mistruth on their website).

    • Wont know for sure until you try. FWIW, I am hoping to pitch to them in the future. Been working on an essay for a while. Hoping they would consider it. Will keep you posted.

  4. I saw that “discussion” on Dawn’s blog, and read all the comments from adoptees who disagreed with the magazine. Thing is, they all disagreed with it, but none of them read it. Do you know how I know? Because I have.

    Anyone who’s actually read a few issues of the magazine would have seen that blog thread for exactly what it was. Completely uninformed.

  5. The culture we are adopted into pays much lip service to “proper discourse”, whether in terms of parliamentary procedure, or Robert’s Rules of Order, or how a court of law works, or netiquette, or what have you. This is culturally based, and allows those in a position of dominance culturally speaking to enforce or change the rules of discussion when that discussion becomes uncomfortable. Thus it starts to be about HOW the discussion is taking place, and not WHAT is being said. The epithet “Angry Adoptee”, for example, thus qualifies the interlocutor before he or she even begins to speak; it shows the power differential before any conversation has taken place.

    Personally, in the past, I have tried to be the calm, clear-headed, rational explainer, appealing to a sense of justice or fairness, as reflective by much of the content of this magazine. This got me nowhere, and more often than not banned from a variety of pro-adoption web sites, when approaching such uncomfortable topics. Now I consider our Voice to be similar to that of other displaced and dispossessed peoples, which has been proven to me by those who most “get” my adoption story here in Lebanon: Syrian migrant workers, Palestinians, etc.

    In this regard, if APs never spoke again, and every adopted child/displaced person screamed out loud endlessly for a thousand eternities, it still would only start to equalize what has always been a discussion that promotes those on the power side of the divide. It can’t help but be that.

    Hence the accusation that our words were “uninformed”. And thus we are dismissed, yet again. Beyond the offensiveness of this outright dismissal is the implication that comes through loud and clear, and which is the elephant in the room not being discussed: “You can say what you want, as long as it is in this manner, using these terms, paid for by us, using our paradigm, and limited by our parameters.”

    That some of us refuse to kowtow, or bow down, or be minstrels, or play Uncle Tom in this charade hardly makes us “uninformed”. Quite the contrary. And it would behoove those on the dominant side of the discussion to be as informed as we are.

    • Daniel – I am not entirely confident I am sure what you are referencing (my post, Tia’s comment, Dawns policy on her own blog) but I do like how you write and would love to engage in a discussion with you on how exactly one discusses such emotionally charged issues. It seems as though you are are advocating that one side should be allowed to be offensive and out of touch with the others perpective and yet simultaneously expect to make progress in the debate or discussion? Is that the case? Will email me privately as again, I like the way you express yourself.

  6. Tia was offhandedly dismissing a discussion that itself was summarily erased when Dawn revamped her blog, a double negation which is the plight of adoptee discourse as I see it. And so my post, which is to basically say that what Tia and Dawn did was tactical. This is a tactic used to devalue words that are not seen as valid.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “offensive”. More offensive than the original adoption? More offensive than the half-truths and lies that adoptees grow up with? More offensive than the racism and cultural erasure suffered by adoptees? More offensive than the death by a thousand cuts that transracial adoptees suffer throughout their lives? We are not “out of touch” with the other perspective–we have been swimming in it, drowning in it our whole lives.

    Furthermore, I do not think it is possible to offend someone in power. Given a power differential, the playing field needs to be evened out before an equal discussion can take place. When those in power use this differential to their advantage, then there is even less need for decorum from those on the “downhill” side of things. It is not for me to “rise” to the level of the dominant mode of expression; it is for those with the luxury, ability, power, and privilege to understand me to make that extra effort.

    In dominant discourse and culture, an argument requires these “rules” of engagement because the logical extreme of the individualism inherent in such a culture is to harm the one you are arguing with: Road rage, street fights, etc. In order to avoid this, the entire discourse has evolved rules of engagement that obviate such an outcome by not allowing emotion of any kind. In parliamentary procedure, I raise my hand and have the floor. In Robert’s Rules of Order, I speak through a chairperson. In a court of law, I am forced to speak “objectively”. Online, I can’t use all caps. It goes on and on, and what suffers is what needs to be said: We never actually get to the needed conversation because we are too busy discussing HOW WE SHOULD BE SPEAKING.

    In cultures dismissed as uncivilized by the West, the exact opposite takes place. Emotion is expressed, voices are raised, debate might rage on for hours, but the given is that eventually the communal bond will be refound. You know that you are going to work things out. Yes, it’s agitated, loud, cacophonous, rowdy, etc. But I find it to be much healthier. And I have learned for the first time in my life to raise my voice when need be.

    What I’m trying to say is that there is no point discussing adoption given the current dominant discourse’s prevailing power within the conversation. Everything “agrees” with the validity of adoption, it is a given. This is not an even playing field. But there is no point discussing it if we cannot speak of the elephant in the room–the validity of adoption to begin with. There is no point discussing it if every time an adoptee opens up his or her mouth they aren’t argued with, but are told that their WAY of speaking is wrong, or they are dismissed for X, Y, or Z reason.

    An exercise: If we subsitute the word “slavery” for “adoption”, then the very ridiculousness of the attempt at “discussing” it is revealed; meaning, you would never argue that slavery “just is”, and we should discuss it as such. Especially with slaves themselves. This would be ludicrous. This is offensive.

    • Daniel – Fascinating. Thank you for your clarification. As a student currently majoring in Communications, I found your words interesting. Overall, I completely agree with you. I had a boss many years ago (female) who was notorious for being highly emotional, swearing, demanding, etc. YET she was highly respected becuase you could do as you suggest – go into her office, rant, rave, about an issue and solve the problem. She never gave us rules on how to express ourselves – as such we got so much done. Similarly, I am known in my workplace as being a bit candid, direct, blunt. Some struggle with this – others love it. Depends greatly on the receiver and their own view of the world, self esteem, etc.

      Thanks for your thoughts. I suspect they will stay with me both personally and professionally.

    • “But there is no point discussing it if we cannot speak of the elephant in the room–the validity of adoption to begin with. ”

      If you question the validity of adoption, you may as well question the validity of people wanting to be parents, and the validity of cultural beliefs and social support.

  7. thank you Daniel, and yes so agree.

    If the commentors, including myself (my comment was censored although it included just questions and no personal attack) why weren’t the questioners just summarily informed?

    There were no adoptee contributors listed on the contributors page, how/why considering how I have been burned before believe for a moment that it is “all inclusive”? As I even allowed in my comment, I can see how it would be hard to get adoptees to contribute, why then include us as a “selling point”? It feels exploitive.

    In my experience, unless adoptees are equal partners at the minimum our interests will not be looked after as John Riable said so eloquently:

    “… Adoptive parents want one thing–loyal, obedient children that they have invested thousands of dollars in to give them a particular experience of parenting. Transracial adoptees want something else: freedom, autonomy, dignity, social justice.”

    Of course I would throw domestic/white in there as well.

    I find the “uniformed” comment deceitful. I know whatever Suz and my differences are she does support family preservation as do I. I hope it works out, but I have every reason to be doubtful. I have every reason to be suspicious. If my questions can’t be answered, than it is specious to declare them as uniformed. I would love to be proved wrong on this point.

    • “There were no adoptee contributors listed on the contributors page”

      … I thought there were. I know I myself contributed to the Adoption Mosaic at one point, and I know they’ve asked Yoonsblur and two other domestic adoptees.

  8. Okay, I guess I need to clarify. What I was dismissing is the validity of people criticizing a magazine that THEY HAVE NOT READ. This is not about as Daniel says: “HOW the discussion is taking place,” it is exactly about what is being said.

    I am not taking issue with the WAY adoptees expressed themselves on Dawn’s blog. I take issue with WHAT is being said. And what is being said is a distortion of the truth. This magazine is not “pro adoption.” It is not run by agency people or adopters. It is run by adoptees. It’s no “adoptive families magazine.” If you cut down something that you haven’t even read, that is being UNINFORMED (among other things)

    Look, I get it. I am an adoptee as well, I’ve been called an angry adoptee countless times, in attempts to silence me. And I agree with much of what daniel said. I agree that the validity of adoption in itself is something that needs to be talked about, but what I don’t agree with is that this shit is going to go away if we all would just address that foundational point. If we all talk about and really examine the elephant in the room. It still isn’t going to go away. It’s like the war on drugs. Do we all know that drugs hurt people and ruin lives? Yes. Do we all know about the billions of dollars that are going into this industry? Yes. But even if everyone could agree on it, it’s still not going to go away. And adoption isn’t either.

    No matter how many people it hurts, no matter how much we talk or yell about it or fight amongst ourselves, adoption is not going to go away. Ever. To me it makes sense to try to make it more humane. To try to make it hurt less people. To try to work towards change

    Joy – As for adoptees not on the contributors page, John raible is a contributor. A repeat contributor. Yoons Blurr was interviewed, An anthropologist, two adoptees have regular columns in every issue, plus the editors are adoptees. Again- clearly you havent read it.

    • “It’s like the war on drugs. Do we all know that drugs hurt people and ruin lives? Yes. Do we all know about the billions of dollars that are going into this industry? Yes. But even if everyone could agree on it, it’s still not going to go away. And adoption isn’t either.”

      But the difference is (most?) people ALREADY believe drugs are bad.

      Similar to if you asked Joe Schmoe off the street about war. People perceive war is being bad.

      But in adoption this is not the case, because the adoptive family is seen as a sufficient “trade” for the blood family.

      • I would argue that even if everyone, or the majority of the population see adoption as bad it would continue to exist in some form. Perhaps as kinship adoption, or “community adoption” as is practiced in many non-western countries. Or as black market adoption- which would be more culturally fitting to many western countries.

        In any case, it’s still not going to go away

        • My point was that no one SEES IT AS A BAD THING.

          Hell, some people believe war IS necessary! Doesn’t mean it’s good – and even those who believe it’s necessary will say war is NOT a good thing!

          Adoption? No one sees it as bad. Period.

  9. Sorry Tia on the front page that listed “contributors” as in main it did NOT list an adoptee. How many issues have been put out? It was my understanding that it was a new magazine that one could subscribe to. It listed 5 contributors none of whom were adoptees, I did read through what was available on line, the preview of the first issue.

    That was only in late May, how many issues have come out since late May? Now you are suggesting that it is a magazine ‘run by adoptees’ I really do not believe you. I have heard the argument we have to work with adoptive parents a million times, I have never seen it work.

    Pls. do not lecture me about working toward change, I actually do more than my fair share.

    I simply don’t believe you, I read the articles that were available on line and it they were completely insensitive to the adoptee point of view. Again, how many issues have come out? I know what I read and I am not interested in having anything to do with it, nor do I think it will benefit any adoptee who has anything to do with it.

  10. Pingback: Politely Discussing Elephants « Writing My Wrongs

  11. “I have heard the argument we have to work with adoptive parents a million times, I have never seen it work.”

    I wonder that myself.

  12. “completely insensitive to the adoptee viewpoint”?!

    Wow, what magazine did you read? I’ve read all the issues, and I did not see that. I saw people with different views and opinions. People who were talking about their lives, their experiences. I’ve seen a diverse range of opinions while reading. (And I don’t agree with everyone’s opionion. Of course, I haven’t read any publication, adoption related or otherwise where I agree with every single article.) But I have yet to read anything that’s “completely insensitive”.

    BIG question: which “adoptee viewpoint” are you talking about? The veiwpoint represented by white domestic adoptees? by transracial domestic adoptees? by transracial international adoptees? By adoptees who have found their first moms and felt rejected? By adoptees who have found their first moms and felt at home for the first time in their lives? By adoptees who’ve had adoptive parents that are wonderful? By adoptees who have had adoptive parents who are abusive? By adoptees who say adoptive parents are their real parents? By adoptees who say first parents are their real parents? By adoptees who say both sets of parents are their real parents? By adoptees who feel that adoption should be abolished? By adoptees who feel that reform is the best option? By those adoptees who look at the options of abolition and reformation as crazy talk because they feel adoption works just fine?

    Which of those adoptees would you not include in YOUR magazine?

    How dare you try to lay claim to a totality of “adoptee viewpoint”! There is no one viewpoint. There are many! You talk about how they’re not including enough adoptees, but even if the whole magazine was made up of adoptees what’s to say it would be adoptees you agree with? You make it sound like someone is not inclusive just because they don’t have YOUR viewpoint. And I’m not really sure what that viewpoint is, other than that you hate Dawn. That’s the only viewpoint I’m clear on. (And had I not read Dawn’s blog previous to reading your bashing of it, I’d have been inclined to accept your painting her as an adoptive parent using her power to shut up an adopee. But since I have read her blog, the picture your trying to paint doesn’t jibe with reality.) Oh, and of course your viewpoint is also that if some adoptees don’t agree with you, then they’re not real adoptees. So what, you’re just going to revoke their adoptee cards? Seriously, this is what it’s come to?? It’s bad enough that we adoptees have to deal with some adoptive parents who call us liars when we talk about the ranges of our experiences, now we have to deal with it from fellow adoptees who tell us that there is one “adoptee viewpoint” and apparently, if we don’t have that one viewpoint, we’re not really adoptees at all. Wow, just when I thought the mindf*** that is adoptee life couldn’t get any worse.

    Believe what you want. But no adoptees have to believe that there is only one “right” way of being an adoptee. I’ve lived the adoptee experience, mine, no one elses. I will not let anyone, even another adoptee, dictate to me what voices I should listen to or read. I want to listen to and read a variety of voices and it’s my right to listen. If you don’t want to, that’s fine. But I certainly don’t have to believe you when you say the only voices that have the right to be heard are ones that are doing things EXACTLY the way you want them to.

  13. Sheila

    I don’t believe any of us here claimed the totality of the adoptee experience. That per se is a good example of what I am talking about.

    I have always maintained that my story is a part of the bigger context of adoption simply because I am an adoptee. I have never claimed to be the spokesperson for adoption.

    Your strawmen arguments are just pointless, I have never said anyone was a real adoptee or unreal adoptee. I am well aware that there are as many stories as there are adoptees.

    I am surprised that anyone can find that time to invent my arguments and then rebut their inventions, why I don’t know, it is not uncommon. It is just not a valid argument. You are personalizing it. I recognize nothing of my viewpoint in your comment.

    No, I don’t see strong leadership from adoptees in that mag, there was no contributor who claimed adoptee on the main contributor page, I did see the articles I had access too as insensitive to adoptees. I am not the only one.

    I firmly believe that due to our place in the power dynamic of adoption that unless adoptees are given at least equal footing in the leadership there will be no parity.

    I absolutely agree there is no right way to deal with this.

    @ Tia:

    I would be interested to know of more of your work in the reform movement. I am not familiar with you and I am pretty well versed in this small community. Perhaps you could clarify for me.

    I realize that adoptees can be difficult and that is why I think adoptees in a leadership position are crucial. I didn’t see that. I saw more of the same. Yes, it feels exploitative to use “all inclusive” as a selling point when I did not see that.

  14. “there was no contributor who claimed adoptee on the main contributor page”

    Either you haven’t read the magazine, or you are choosing to tell lies. There are indeed several adoptees who are clearly identified on the contributor page.

    You’re the only one putting up strawmen arguments. You are the one who claimed that there was no adoptee point of view represented. Since the thing you’re claiming made the issue offensive is NOT in fact true, I would like to know what about the issue was COMPLETELY offensive. I’d also like to know how it doesn’t represent the adoptee viewpoint. Here are the FACTS:

    Page 3: An Editor’s letter from an adoptee

    Page 6: a Korean adoptee talking about how community and bonds among adoptees are “neccessity, not luxury”

    Page 8: Two adoptees offering their prospective on a question that has been asked.

    Page 13: Another adoptee offering her perspective on a question that was asked

    Page 16: An adoptee writing an essay about finding her first mom

    Page 18: An adoptee reflecting on the possibility of coming out to his first family

    If you had read the magazine and/or decided to tell the truth about it, you would have been honest about the fact that adoptees are included.

    Some questions for you: Are you just trying to tear down something because of your own personal issues with another blogger? Do you not really care about the truth at all? Or could you not be bothered to read the magazine before making these incorrect (yes, that’s being polite about it) claims?

    All of this is in the very first issue. This is not even taking into account that you have read none of the other issues. Furthermore, a poster here said that she herself had contributed and knows other adoptees who have. You have completely ignored those comments. You’ve also completely ignored the points that others have made that the magazine has adoptees on staff. Your “argument” is that you don’t believe that. My question is why should we believe you? All you’re doing is ignoring proof that is in print, ignoring what adoptees have said about their experiences, and put forth some conspiracy theory where there aren’t actually any adoptees on staff.

    Sadly, when I read your comments I feel like I’m listening to Bill O’Reilly: someone who claims that they have integrity, that it’s “no spin” with them, who has such a tone of truth and righteousness that you think “of course, they’re telling the truth!” Then you look at the facts and realize it all falls apart.

    • Sheila, I know other adoptees have contributed to the AdoptionMosaic website (as I remember contributing)… but where on earth can I find these pages you list?

      I swear I couldn’t navigate that site if my life depended on it. Only reason I can find my entry is because I know where they put it! @_@

    • “Some questions for you: Are you just trying to tear down something because of your own personal issues with another blogger? Do you not really care about the truth at all? Or could you not be bothered to read the magazine before making these incorrect (yes, that’s being polite about it) claims?”

      Sheila, I dont think you will ever get answers to these questions. For some reason Joy is invested in trying to tear down this magazine and reframe it as a magazine for adopters. I have no idea why, but hopefully enough people out there have minds of their own to decide for themselves, rather than just take for granted the words of an individual who seems to have some sort of private vendetta

  15. @Sheila,

    I have always told the truth as I see it. I read the first magazine and am reporting what I saw. I never said there was no adoptee point of view, I reported that I saw no adoptees in leadership.

    I *do* believe there is token adoptee involvement.

    In re: to your other question, no it is not about me tearing down another blogger, you overestimate my concern about another blogger. My concern is about the adoptee point of view and its representation and it being used as a selling point.

    How many other issues have there been?

    As I have pointed out before I have not always agreed with Suz, but I do believe Suz supports family preservation, as do I.

    I find it hard to believe there are many other issues posted after late May this being early July.

    Why the hard sell?

    There were 5 contributors listed on the main page, none of them were adoptees, fact. Yes, Mei-Ling says she has contributed and no I don’t know what she wrote, I asked about that in the comment that was censored on Dawn’s blog. Mei-Ling is invested in educating/relating to adoptive parents, I am not. I have related to, tried to please and been in contact with my own adoptive parents for over three decades, I do not wonder about their points of view.

    I am not impressed with the idea that Mei-Ling has contributed, sorry, am not.

    You resort to specious attacks again with the Bill O’Reilly comments. You obviously are not familiar with my efforts for adoptee parity. That is okay. What work are you doing for adoptee rights? Would like to know.

    You seem very invested in working with adoptive parents, well good for you, good on you, you have more patience than I do.
    Are you perhaps an adopter yourself? Your hyperbole baffles me. It sounds exhausting.

    As for myself, I am an organizer of the Adoptee Rights Coalition, which lobbies legislators for equal access every year, I am the admin of the most populated adoptee on-line support board, which includes a variety of points of view, not a singular one, I am a blogger who has brought a lot of attention to the internal struggles of the adoptee.

    And guess what, none of my endeavors claim to be all inclusive, none of my endeavors require a fee, because this sh*t for me, is from my heart. I care a lot about adoptees and am not trying to dominate them.

    Good luck with your life,

    Love,

    Joy As IF O’Reilly

    • Joy, you know I totally love your blog and what you have, but frankly I’m very confused by what you have been commenting.

      “I never said there was no adoptee point of view, I reported that I saw no adoptees in leadership.”

      I am also having trouble navigating that website, and upon first glance, I am unable to tell which position an author comes from – adoptee, a-mom, or n-mom.

      That may prove your point, it may not. I honestly don’t know.

      If you mean no adoptees *run* that website (as opposed to “no adoptees are *on* that website”) then that is a different story. I have been interpreting your comments to mean “There are adoptees on there but they are not considered as significant and are being used as tools when they *are* featured on there.”

      “My concern is about the adoptee point of view and its representation and it being used as a selling point.”

      Does that mean you think adoptees on there are being used as tools to make us “think” we are being heard when in reality we are not? :\

      Re: Dawn’s blog – I am surprised about their reactions to adoptee support because in the past I thought they advocated for adoptee perspectives.

      But when one brings up the pain and loss in adoption they seek to find any other causes except for adoption. It is so disrespectful, as if they cannot believe adoption can’t possibly be a cause for the adoptee perspective.

  16. “on the front page that listed “contributors” as in main it did NOT list an adoptee”

    “none of whom were adoptees, I did read through what was available on line, the preview of the first issue.”

    “No, I don’t see strong leadership from adoptees in that mag, there was no contributor who claimed adoptee on the main contributor page”

    “Now you are suggesting that it is a magazine ‘run by adoptees’ I really do not believe you.”

    Sorry if it offended you that I compared you to O’Reilly. My point, which you’ve convinently chosen to ignore, was that I felt you were ignoring facts and spinning things. And you’re still doing it. Now you’re telling me you’re unimpressed with one adoptee viewpoint-Mei-Ling’s-great support of a fellow adoptee, by the way (and I should point out, saying you are unimpressed with one adoptee viewpoint is different from the statements you’ve made, different than what you previously said), claiming that I must be an adopter (nope. disagreeing with you doesn’t change my identity as an adoptee. appreciating some bloggers doesn’t mean i’m invested in working with adoptive parents.), changing your criticisms, and waving your credentials in my face and asking me what credentials I have that allow me to speak up. My experience as an adoptee allows me to speak up. And, I don’t like to be fed half-truths. I was fed them for most of my life. I think it’s AWESOME that you’ve done these wonderful things for adoptee rights. Really, I applaud you. But does that mean we’re just suppoused to sit back and accept you’re spinning the facts as it suits you from moment to moment?

    That’s why I have to assume it is personal. Because this magazine has been around for a while and has been featured on other blogs. It was because of it being featured on an adoptee blog that I respect that I decided to subscribe. And I don’t regret it. I did look up some other comments about the magazine before making the decision to subscribe and found positive things UNTIL the whole this woman’s work blog thing. Very strange. I just wonder if you might be using your online position for personal grudges.

    Point blank question: Can you own up to the fact that the statements I listed above, quotes from you, are not true?

    If not, good luck with your life.

    Love,
    An adoptee who thinks for herself

  17. Yeah, this is weird, I have never met an adoptee who is so defensive of the adoptive parents point of view.

    I find you to be quite odd. Yes, the quotes that you quoted from me, you in fact quoted from me. Is this really how you think?

    Again, what is your investment here?

    I am not sorry at all for what I said about Mei-Ling au contraire I am sorry for her.

    Enjoy your issues of “Adoption Constellation” I hope you learn a lot about how adoptive parents really feel, how important Mother’s Day is to them and other hard hitting issues.

    I imagine this is your version of working for adoptee rights. I have never changed my criticism. You may think for yourself but you think clearly. Your personal attacks have nothing to do with me.

    I will leave you with some gems that I think are your speed and you might consider publishing in the “Adoption Constellation” magazine.

    “Two real parents”

    “More people to love”

    “I grew in their heart”

    “The most amazing parents ever”

    These are real crowd pleasers. Enjoy.

    • Looks to me that Sheila was actually defending the ADOPTEE point of view, Her point of view. But I can see how by you writing: “I have never met an adoptee who is so defensive of the adoptive parents point of view.” it then makes it true.

  18. Thanks Suz, I can appreciate how this discussion has gotten distracting, and I want to be respectful of the space for honest and safe conversation that you provide on your blog.

    I hadn’t intended to continue the discussion, since it seemed that what I was seeking–accountability and honesty–is not going to happen in this particular discussion. Thank you for passing along that information. It’s good to have on hand.

    • No worries Shelia. Just prefer personal conversations happen between the individuals. I knew I would take heat for my assocation with the Adoption Constellation article. I am okay with that. I have taken heat before and I will again in the future. As suggested in other posts, you cannot swim in such waters and not get attacked now and then.

  19. Oh Sheila, the magazine was launched in May, maybe you are confusing it with the Adoption Mosaic blog?

  20. I did not know that, I was under the impression that the issue I saw on Dawn’s blog was the launch, thank you for the information.

    I cannot find that post now, so I can reread it and understand why I was under that impression.

    So there have been 3 or 2 issues? With one forthcoming? I can’t find a reference to issue number 3 on line, but I did find 1 and 2. I don’t why I have had to ask so many times.

    It is also curious to me, why these fairly straight forward questions weren’t originally answered on Dawn’s blog. I did read what was in that issue, I see John Riable made his comment after participating in it.

    • I haven’t been able to find a website for the magazine. I guess thats why its hard to find. Dr John Raible also contributes in the third issue which I got a couple months ago. His second contribution occurs half a year after his first article and, yes, half a year after his comment on the blog. Call me crazy, but that tells me that he supports it.

  21. Pingback: Adoption Constellation Magazine: Redux « Writing My Wrongs

Comments are closed.