I’ve begun to take the Angela Keaton approach to commenting on my site: comments will be approved, unapproved, edited, or deleted at my whim.

This is a paid website, and while I do hysterically laugh at the amount of traffic I receive from idiots, I’m under no obligation to publish racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise ridiculous and harassing comments.

Comments that do not fit into this category are, however, welcome and encouraged.

Here, have a Rothbard quote:

The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man’s absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus. Most fetuses are in the mother’s womb because the mother consents to this situation, but the fetus is there by the mother’s freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic “invader” of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as “murder” of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother’s body.[2] Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers.

So, I think it goes without saying that I find the pro-life libertarian position to be hypocritical.

In related news, I received not one, but two copies of my new voter registration card. I officially changed my party affiliation (for the, what, fifth time?) and also had to update the address. I don’t know how I feel about this. I’m sure I’ll get annoyed enough to change my party again circa 2013.

Good times, good times.

—-

If you’re reading this from my Facebook notes, please go to the original blog post (located here) to comment.

Original link located here.  (Edit for clarity: this tweet went up on the 7th, the day the article was posted.)

Unless you’ve been under a rock, I’ve been posting a lot about this Bitch Magazine/biphobia debacle over the past few days.  (Gosh, I’m still waiting on that public apology I requested!)

Now, many fellow members of the LGBT community have made it clear that we have a HUGE problem with the headline and content of this piece.  Now, I don’t advocate that Bitch should remove old tweets, but I do think it’s telling that this tweet popped up on my Twitter about an hour ago:

(Original link located here.)

Seriously?  Really?  On what fucking planet is this acceptable?  It’s bad enough that Kelsey Wallace seems to think that the title was the only objectionable portion of the article, but to post the SAME article (with nothing changed by the title) again on their Twitter account stinks of childish stubbornness.

I’d rather get my feminist analysis elsewhere.

(But, as a side note, I did find this hilarious comment from Kelsey Wallace on the worldwide intertubes.  Scroll down until you hit it; in a nutshell, she has a problem with a blogger’s criticisms of Bitch’s take on the travesty known as Jennifer’s Body.  It’s so professional of her to track down bloggers and chastise blog posts on their personal sites.  My favorite portion was this line “but I don’t think that warrants your questioning of our feminism or abilities as bloggers.”  Right, because disallowing non-mainstream feminist voices doesn’t imply that the Bitch editors are the arbiters of feminism, now does it?)

—-

If you’re reading this from my Facebook notes, please go to the original blog post (located here) to comment.

Follow up to this hot mess!

While I was enraged about the bi-phobic garbage presented in the infamous Casey Johnson/Tila Tequila article posted on Bitch Magazine, I made a sarcastic comment about how begging readers to donate money was a much better use of time than actually fixing the problem.  And what do you know?  A few days later, the Bitch Facebook page linked here in an attempt to beg for subscriptions.

My response to this (on Facebook) pretty much sums up my feelings on the whole matter:

LOL. THANK YOU FOR PROVING MY POINT.

This magazine is a fucking joke. See the handling of the Casey Johnson “article” if you don’t understand why. Hey Kelsey Wallace, thank you so much for ignoring my email after giving us the bullshit, pissy “you can email me if you have issues with Bitch” comment on that thread.

If this magazine’s interpretation of feminism has become posting homo/bi-phobic and misogynistic articles, all but ignoring complaints about them, and then begging readers to subscribe to this hot mess of a publication, then count me out. I’ll be removing myself as a fan and publishing my email to Kelsey on my website as a follow-up to my criticisms about the horrendous “Tila Tequila” post.

I’m certainly doing more for feminism there than reading this nonstop crapfest.

It’s beyond frustrating.  Web editor Kelsey Wallace spouted off a talking point about giving a crap and then completely ignored my email.  I gave her two business days to respond and watched her ignore my email in favor of putting up two posts on the website (one on the 9th and another yesterday, the 11th).  I’m so glad to see where Bitch Magazine’s priorities lie.

Here’s the content of the email that Ms. Wallace couldn’t bother to respond to:

Kelsey,

I think I’ve pretty much covered all of my complaints with the content.  In my opinion, Bitch’s online content has been steadily declining over the past six months.  Many of the pieces I have caught online have bordered on insipid, even when I do agree with the point.  Take the South Park piece, for example.  (Located here: http://bitchmagazine.org/post/come-on-down-to-south-park-and-watch-some-feminist-episodes)  I agree that Trey Parker & Matt Stone have presented a feminist (or at least feminist friendly) perspective in quite a few episodes of the show and – as both a radical feminist and a libertarian – would have loved to read a much more in-depth essay about the subject.  Instead, readers were treated to a shallow piece that barely scratched the surface or incorporated feminist theory into the discussion.  I copied & pasted the piece into Word and did a word count on it; it was 390 words and came in at around 1 page.  There is no reason why Juliana Tringali couldn’t have incorporated examples, criticism, and a little bit of feminist theory into a tight, polished essay instead of something that reads worse than most blog posts.

I used to be able to count on Bitch for making me think about things a little bit differently, but now I can only really count on Intro to Women’s Studies-esque discussions.  Natalie Stein wrote the type of article you expect to see in an Intro to WMST course just before the author gets schooled.  I’d really love to not be subjected to this crap from a “feminist” publication.  Bisexuals take shit from lesbians who think we aren’t gay enough or who want to label us as “dykes.”  Straight men either automatically assume you’re into threesomes or are so intimidated that you might know how to get a woman off better than them.  Straight women are often convinced you’re going to want to lez out with them or are threatened because you’re so much more exotic than they are.

All of this shit that we take is dismissive of the many facets of our sexuality, objectifies us, and is just bad news bears in general; these ideas are based – at least in part – by ill-formed stereotypes of bisexuality.  Instead of tearing down these stereotypes and misconceptions, Natalie focused more on tearing down the unlikable women attached to these stereotypes (to paraphrase a Facebook user: the unstable, exhibitionist bisexual and the fallen blonde heiress).  What could have been a powerful critique on the media circus surrounding this very sad, very real story turned into an excuse to say “HAHA BI = BAD IDEA!”  Geeze, there were so many different, feminist ways this discussion could have gone.  Y’all could have even used the Perez Hilton/Tila Tequila Twitter war (over Casey Johnson’s death) to talk about sexism within the LGBTQA community and stereotypes about LGBTQA women instead of this tripe.

Hiding behind a disclaimer means nothing, especially when it’s used to justify misogynist and homophobic crap.  As I mentioned in one of my Facebook comments, it’s not like unpopular feminist perspectives will be read in Bitch anytime soon – which is the reason newspapers, magazines, websites, etc. have a version of that disclaimer.  It’s downright shitty when – instead of being used for it’s intended purposes – the web editor hides behind such a disclaimer to justify a piece such as this one.  As a member of the LGBTQA community, it really feels like I’m being told that my complaints, issues, struggles, and oppression don’t matter, as long as no one’s feelings get hurt by Patty Heaton.  Honestly, if you can’t see how this is a problem, then I don’t know what to tell you.

In a similar vein, passing all the blame off onto the author is irresponsible of both you and Bitch Magazine, and your miffed tone when you first began receiving criticism is bullshit.  You came across as more annoyed than anything else because those uppity lesbos threw a shit fit; I’m sure this wasn’t your intention, but to be honest, your tone in your initial comment really pissed me off.  It really struck me as typical dismissive breeder bullshit.  Furthermore, before you can even attempt to defend an article about the LGBTQA community, you need to check your privilege and try to understand why so many of us took issues.

It’s fairly obvious that neither you nor Natalie even attempted to see where we were coming from here.  The “solution” was an apology posted way down in a Facebook comment thread that came across as an “I’m sorry if you got offended” styled “apology” and the title of the article was changed.  This was despite the fact that many commenters complained about the CONTENT of the article, myself included.  I really think you missed the point on this, considering you didn’t get that the title was only PART of the problem.  I’m not going to go through point by point and tell you everything that was sexist, homo/bi-phobic, and/or generally fucked up because – frankly – as a gender studies major, you should know better.  These are the reasons I said that I probably would not be restarting my subscription to the magazine; I don’t really want to pay money to be dismissed and have it defended.  I’m very disappointed with the Casey Johnson piece, and even more disappointed with the way it was handled; seriously, Kelsey, we didn’t even get a response from a Bitch Magazine rep until I mentioned I likely would not restart a subscription.

With all that being said, I do appreciate you opening your inbox for comments on Bitch, as well as coming online to facilitate a discussion.  Personally, I hope that this entire debacle can be used as a learning experience.  In the future, I deeply hope that Bitch will take a bit more responsibility when selecting pieces to run in print or online editions, that future authors will be a bit more sensitive to marginalized groups, and that the dreaded “opinion disclaimer” will be used for its intended purpose (instead of a way to deflect criticism from the magazine and its contributors).  As far as right now, I think the least that Bitch could do is put up a public apology on the main page from both Natalie and you; both of you have already apologized once in the infamous Facebook thread and we have every right to expect a formal, written apology on the main page.  I’m not saying that it will fix everything, but I think that it will go much further than you might think.

Thank you for letting me sound off to you.

Sincerely,
Vicki Moore

I don’t understand why this email – along with the suggestions in it – was ignored.  I guess that the Bitch staff has a huge case of butthurt when it comes to criticism directed at the magazine, which is pretty disappointing.  You would think that a magazine billing itself as an alternative to mainstream media might actually function in an alternative manner.

‘Magine that.

—-

If you’re reading this from my Facebook notes, please go to the original blog post (located here) to comment.

Hiya!  Sorry to make this into a blog post, but we’re having trouble with sending you the photos through Gmail.

Here are the photos of the issues with the blinds.  (And to my readers, just disregard this jawnie.)

Enjoy!

1. It might be 8 days into the New Year, but the late Harry Browne’s libertarian New Year’s resolutions are an excellent read.  It would be super cool if more people would remember these.
2. On a related note, The Cato Institute put up a small blurb on the “libertarian surge“; I wasn’t feelin’ the blockquote, but did appreciate David Boaz’s notes.
3. Here’s a twofer on the Facebook bra color status meme.  I mean, the meme for Breast Cancer Awareness Month!  Yeah, that’s the ticket!
4. In pop cultural news, Lost beat out President Obama’s State of the Union for a Feb. 1st broadcast.  I’m guessing he and the First Lady are big fans; now, if they could just get Joe Biden to STFU when the show is on.
5. The Tax Foundation argues that high taxes and an inhospitable business climate have led to a loss in jobs for Ohioans.  That’s going to be Philly pretty soon.
6. If you live in the Southern US, you might want to check out Operation Defuse, a new Texas based organization that aims to “empower the public so they may better understand the police/surveillance state by educating them about fusion centers and the role they play in both militarizing and federalizing our police forces.”
7. I’m glad to see that the Green Party is doing something, well at least CA and NY Greens are.  If the party had done a little bit more aside from act like disorganized hippies, I might still be a member of it.
   
8. I’m breaking my own informal rule by linking to the same site twice in a dump, but Alan Reynolds from Cato at Liberty explains how Faux News is simply wrong about the true unemployment rates.
9. In “so cool” news: Kathleen Hanna has donated a whole buttload of papers from her Bikini Kill days to NYU for their newly announced Riot Grrrl collection.
   
10. Dennis Kucinich is not too thrilled about – what appears to be – shady, backdoor TARP dealings.  A+, Obama, A+
11. Ladies of Liberty Alliance still has some calendars leftover.  If you purchase a 2010 wall calendar for just $9, they will throw in a desktop calendar for free!  Come on, buy one, it goes toward a great cause!
12. NJ ditches mandatory minimum sentencing for selling drugs in a school zone.
13. In “Settling for the Lesser of Two Evils is the Greater Evil,” Liberal Arts Dude discusses why he wishes we could have a “none of the above” option when we vote in the US; he also debunks common two party objections to third party politics.
    

And this is how we get back into the swing of things!

—-

If you’re reading this from my Facebook notes, please go to the original blog post (located here) to comment.

On Thursday, Bitch Magazine decided it would be an awesome idea to run an article titled “Sapphic Salon: The Death of An Heiress, The Rise of the Fake Lesbian Relationship.” The “article” focused on Johnson & Johnson heiress Casey Johnson’s recent death, the fallout from it, and her relationship with bisexual reality TV star and entertainer Tila Tequila. In Natalie Stein’s totally omg! 100% feminist! piece, she threw out accusations that Tila Tequila uses her sexuality for attention seeking purposes, chastised her for not being a better queer role model, and implied that Tila’s constant tweeting is about saving her own ass over anything else.

This all led the author to use the term “fake lesbian relationship” in her headline.

Luckily, many other Bitch readers were also pretty pissed about the off-base and phobic shit in the article. Frankly, I am shocked that anyone from Bitch thought this article should have been run on their website, but before I delve right into that mess, I really need to unpack all the sterotypical garbage here.

1. Oh, those darn attention seeking bisexuals!

As one Facebook user remarked, no one claims that Paris Hilton isn’t into dudes because she’s used her sexuality for attention. The attention seeking portion of it doesn’t make the sexuality any less real or valid, and is so heavily rooted in bi-phobia. What bisexual hasn’t heard claims that they’re just doing it for the attention, especially bisexual sex kittens – who are also always doing it for male attention? Surely no femme looking sex kitten or vamp type could have actual desire for another woman or even be experimenting; nope, it must be Girls Gone Wild syndrome.

2. Why can’t these homos be two-dimensional Super Gays instead of being nuanced individuals?

I can’t believe that Bitch Magazine would allow something to run that was so dangerously close to making a “credit to your race community” argument. Dude, really? Do I have to make more of a point here? Seriously, Tila Tequila, Courtenay Semel, Samantha Ronson, Portia De Rossi, Fergie, Perez Hilton, Neil Patrick Harris, Margaret Cho, Andy Dick, Sir Ian McKellen, Elton John, Jim McGreevey, Barney Frank, Dan Savage, and Christian Siriano are NOT the emperors of gay people. None of ‘em hold that title. They are not saints, they are not perfect, and they are certainly not two-dimensional stereotypes. Are we good on this?

3. OMG TILA TEQUILA HAS GONE OVER HER 140 CHARACTER LIMIT OF GRIEF!

Before Shot at Love, the only real distinction Tila had was to be the person with the most popular Myspace page ever. Shocking that she might grieve online? Let’s be honest, yeah, it’s not the smartest idea. If nothing else, when you’re emotional, you are so much more likely to say things you’ll later regret, and given this twisted mess of clusterfuckery, it’s probably a much better idea to take a breather and log off Twitter for a few days. But is Tila Tequila really the first person to publicly mourn the loss of a loved one? Is she really the first person to make bad decisions on the internet? Even if she was the first to do it, how on Earth is this proof that this is somehow a “fake” lesbian relationship?

There was a lot of great feminist theorizing that could have happened here. We could have seen a discussion open up about the media circus surrounding Casey Johnson’s death, or even a discussion about any of the objectionable portions of Stein’s post; instead, Bitch Magazine’s web editor, Kelsey Wallace, felt that this bi-phobic tripe was a better use of bandwidth. How do I know this? Well, Ms. Wallace jumped into the fray of critical comments (after I had commented that I would likely never get another subscription to the magazine) with the following miffed comment:

Hi, this is Kelsey, the Web Editor at Bitch. Thank you everyone for your comments. I have contacted Natalie, the author of this post, and asked her to respond to your concerns about her interpretation of Casey Johnson and Tila Tequila’s relationship. Please keep our policy in mind that “Opinions expressed on this website are those of their respective authors, not necessarily those of Bitch.”

As for those of you who feel that all of the content on the Bitch Media website is rapidly declining and is at the level of a high school women’s studies course, please feel free to contact me (kelsey@b-word.org) to relay any specific criticism you may have.

Thanks again,
Kelsey Wallace

Notice two things: the statement does not address the specific issues others had with the post, and it uses a disclaimer to deflect all criticism onto the author. Opinion disclaimers are meant to protect a publication from extreme criticism over an unpopular view. In this context, it would be meant to cover the mag’s asses if they had someone writing about why they don’t support gay marriage because they don’t support marriage (for example). The disclaimer isn’t intended as a clever little shield to deflect rightful criticism such as horribly bi-phobic language and points made in a supposedly feminist publication. (What’s next? Are we going to see articles warning us about the Lavender Menace?)

By hiding behind it and hanging Natalie Stein out to dry, Kelsey (and, by extension, Bitch Magazine) might as well be saying, “not our problem!” I guess we’ll just ignore the web editor’s responsibilities re: approving pieces for publication. It was completely irresponsible to allow this article to run in the first place. The solution was to change the headline of the piece (to “Sapphic Salon: The Death of An Heiress, The Milking of the Press“), to completely disregard the issues within the article, and to give a half-hearted “sorry if you were offended” styled “apology” within Facebook comments. As of right now (11 pm EST, 1/9/10), there is still not an apology or any acknowledgment that the article was shouldn’t have been posted in its current form.

Considering that Bitch likely won’t be asking Angela Keaton to contribute any pieces to their site under the guise that her opinions are not necessarily shared by Bitch Magazine’s, I think it’s safe to call “bullshit.”  It’s even more depressing to me because it feels like Ron Paul campaign BS all over again.  Why is it that my issues – as an LGBTQA woman – can be sold out and dismissed, but it would be the worst crime in the world to give Jill Stanek a voice? (I say this as being one of the main organizers on this event.) I’m guessing that it will be a cold day in hell before we see Kelsey Wallace giving either Wendy McElroy or Camille Paglia a voice in the publication.

It’s the same old homo/bi-phobic crap that we queers have been subjected to since the beginning of friggin feminism. It’s tired and played out, but sadly, probably won’t fully change; instead, privileged straight people will continue to act like they know how we should feel about any subject. Maybe we would all be a little better off if we started listening to marginalized groups and stopped speaking for them.

Then again, what do I know?

Follow up: Kelsey Wallace, web editor of Bitch Magazine, ignores reader complaints.

—-

If you’re reading this from my Facebook notes, please go to the original blog post (located here) to comment.

It might not be Christmasy looking, but this variation of the “Mom” tattoo Subversive Cross-stitch pattern was one of Libertarian Boyfriend’s presents this morning.

Nothin’ says “lovin” like some snarky needlepoint.  Merry Giftmas, friends and foes!

—-

If you’re reading this from my Facebook notes, please go to the original blog post (located here) to comment.

I have been working on this scarf for two years.  Oh, a simple skinny scarf knitted on 10 gauge needles with black wool yarn shouldn’t take two years, but you know how it is.  I’d get busy and put it down for awhile.  One of my original bamboo needles got too badly warped to knit with.  The aluminum needles my ex lent me got warped and were just hard in my hands.

Basically, all I had were excuses, excuses, excuses.

This fall, I made it my mission to finish this scarf before it got too warm to warm.  Luckily, I just finished it last week.  Huzzah!  Finally, a winter with a warm scarf!

I’ve started working on my next project, a scarf knitted with striped eyelash yarn.  I have some photos of the beginnings of it, but I’m going to tear it all out and restart it.  I realized that I had cast on way too many stitches to make a scarf out of only two skeins.

These are the things that are keeping me slightly sane this Christmas.  Well, that and paper crafts, but considering that some of them are being incorporated into my Christmas gifts for family, I’m going to have to wait to post them until this weekend.

Our impending move is really stressing and tiring me out.  I’m hoping that once we move and get internet in the new apartment, I’ll keep up on my blog the way I was over the summer.  Until then, I’m rolling with sporadic updates and trying to keep from referring to vodka as “medicinal.”

—-

If you’re reading this from my Facebook notes, please go to the original blog post (located here) to comment.

This is a repost from Linda Forrest of SOS Beagles.  If you can donate, please do so, but if not, then please pass this info along to someone who might be able to help!

A request for medical funding was received by SOS Beagle Rescue yesterday. A family saw an owner dragging a dog down the street, and stopped to offer them a ride. The person walking the dog said she was just watching it for someone and the owner said she was no longer able to care for it. The good samaritan’s
took the dog with the owner’s permission and took her to their vet.

The dog is a 9-10 yr. old female beagle who needs cruciate surgery and extensive dental work. Their estimate is $2800 and an all-breed rescue in their area offered $500 in assistance. SOS has exhausted our emergency care fund for the year and I told her I would post this to the beagle lists.

The good samaritans are on a tight budget, with the addition of their son, daughter-in-law and 7 month old baby living with them. They are determined to see that this girl gets the care she needs but is hoping
for some assistance. They will give Lady a permanent home with them.

I have forwarded them links to all the organizations that help with rescued pets emergency care, but since it is the end of the year, their budgets may well have been exhausted as well.

I have posted Lady’s picture at www.sosbeagles.org/lady.jpg.

If anyone would like to help, the dog will be cared for at :

Meadowbrook Animal Hospital
109 Sunrise Highway
Freeport, NY 11520-3935
516-546-3700
Lady’s patient number is 07868-0001

SOS Beagle Rescue has NOT had a chance to call and verify the need for this surgery through the vet.
Please note. Lady is in a lot of pain. We want to schedule her surgery within the next week!
SOS Beagle Rescue – www.sosbeagles.org
Atco, NJ 08004
856-336-2520

—-

If you’re reading this from my Facebook notes, please go to the original blog post (located here) to comment.

I bet that Matthew Roberts, birthson of Charles Manson, is so thrilled that he looked into his family tree!

So, apparently the State of NJ is looking to open up sealed adoption records.

I love shit like this.  You entered a contract that stipulates you will have no contact with your birthson/daughter after he/she is born.  Period.  End of story.  These arguments are always couched in the context of adoptees wanting to know their medical history, despite the fact that this information is often available to them.  The problem with this legislation is two-fold.  First, it “would give adult adoptees, adoptive parents of a minor or descendants of a deceased adoptee access to their original birth certificates” and secondly, “it would provide birth parents a one-time 12-month period to ask the state to remove their names and addresses from the documents.”

What what what?

If you don’t know already, I am a birthmother.  (And in the interest of full disclosure: because of the way adoptions are set up now, you’re often pressured into an open adoption, meaning you can hang out with your birthchild after they have been adopted and be a part of their life.  I’m not too hep on that, in part because I can see it confusing the living shit out of a kid.  This law would not apply to me because I agreed to allow contact with my birthson should he want it at any point in time.)  I’m not going to bore you to tears with all the background, but I will leave it at this: I gave birth when I was 20, the whole process really sucked ass (to put it mildly), I had a lot of personal reasons for doing so (including, but not limited to the fact that I was forced into the decision by my [then] boyfriend), and adoption is an issue that pisses me off because the voices of the birthmothers are so rarely heard.  Hearing the crap of “omg! you’re so strong!” enrages me to no end.  There is no strength in making difficult decisions and living your life the best you can after making those decisions.  It’s just what you do.  What other option do you have?  To curl up in a ball, refuse to make a decision, and deal with the much worse consequences?  Yeah, try that and let me know how that works out for you.

Adoption is a decision that is focused less on the woman and more on the child, especially as you go on further with the process.  It was used as a way to shame young, unmarried pregnant girls as recently as 40 years ago.  (If you don’t believe me on that one, pick up a copy of The Girls Who Went Away: The Hidden History of Women Who Surrendered Children for Adoption in the Decades Before Roe v. Wade by Ann Fessler.  I try to read it every year or so, but haven’t gotten past halfway through it because I can’t stop crying.  It’s a seriously powerful book that gives a nice chunk of insight on adoption from women who have actually experienced it.)

In addition to that background, I’ve also known a few adoptees, even fewer birthparents, and I’m sure I’ve encountered an adoptive parent or two in my time.  Needless to say, I consider myself pretty knowledgeable about the process.

With all that being said, there is absolutely no reason to need your original birth certificate with information such as your birth parent’s name(s) unless you are seeking contact with them.  None.  The fatal flaw with adoptees’ rights movements is that they tend to play into the same rhetoric that controls women.

I understand wanting to know about your medical history.  This will probably get me in trouble with my parents if they should ever stumble upon my blog, but fuck it, I’m disclosing it anyway.  We (meaning my family, including my father) have never known my paternal grandfather.  My dad has a name, a SSN, and minimal information at best.  For all I know, I could be a carrier for some incredibly rare genetic disorder.  (And given that Libertarian Boyfriend is Jewish, that could potentially pose a problem.)  Even more likely, there could be a family history of, say, heart disease that we aren’t aware of.  The only thing I can do is keep up on medical screenings (once I get health insurance again) and just hope for the best.

Additionally, my shitbag ex never signed our biological son’s birth certificate.  All my birthson has to go by is the minimal information he filled out on the paperwork, and no legal acknowledgment of his being a biological parent.  (My memory is a little fuzzy, but I am not so certain that he ever even signed away his parental rights.)  So, let’s say my birthson wanted medical history and decided to track me down via the adoption agency’s paperwork.  I haven’t had contact with my ex-boyfriend in about 8 years.  Aside from directing him to my ex’s parents’ house, I wouldn’t have a clue as to how to contact him, and frankly, given that his parents continue to baby him at 31 years old, he’d probably be lucky if he got the door slammed in his face.

Using me as an example, if my birthson were to contact me, all I could tell him is “sorry dude, I’ve got no clue!”  Unfortunately for him, the same level of accountability isn’t thrust upon birthfathers.  It was more crucial that I sign away my parental rights, in part due to sexism (because women are so much more emotional and prone to fits of hysteria than men) and also in part due to the fact that it’s hard to deny sharing DNA when you had six people peering into your cooz a few days beforehand.  He didn’t have to have the same level of accountability, so when he didn’t sign my birthson’s birth certificate, it was more of a commentary of the sad plight of the unwed mother.  It just solidified the idea that I was some sad, pathetic girl who would be throwing her life away if I raised the baby on my own.  Things were just better this way.

It was the hardest decision I ever made, and the language that adoptee rights groups use always makes women like me seem like selfish bitches unless they relent.  Let’s forget that this might be a painful memory for them.  Let’s forget that they might regret their decision.  Let’s forget that they may have rape victims (as was the case with Matthew Roberts’ birthmother, Terri).  Let’s forget everything.  A despicable human being who would give up her own child instead of just deal with the consequences has also given up all rights to move on.  This whole time, that stupid bitch thought she was giving her child a better life, one that she wasn’t able to give him or her.  This whole time, that stupid, selfish bitch thought that every night she cried herself to sleep, it was because the whole experience was so painful and damaging, but clearly it was because she was just a selfish whore who wanted to have her cake and eat it, too.

Thinking about how difficult it must have been for the woman certainly puts a different spin on things, doesn’t it?

As much as I want to laugh my ass off at the Manson birthson news in some “wow, isn’t that a wacky news story?” sort of way, I can’t help but feel horribly for his poor birthmother.  (Whose rape I’ve seen labeled as a “claim” in at least one news article.  Yeah, because it’s a shocker that Charles Manson might have actually raped a woman.)  Can you imagine being raped by a man, getting pregnant by him, going through the pain of an adoption, and then later finding out that this man was responsible for one of the most infamous murders of the 20th century?  This isn’t meant to take away from Roberts’ shock, but for the love of God, could we please acknowledge that this probably wasn’t terribly easy for his birthmother to live with for over 40 years?

On top of these medical health issues (that, again, adoptee rights’ groups always hide behind), the stipulation that birthparents will have a year to get their info pulled off of the birth certificate is ridiculous.  How widely is this information decimated?  Seriously?  Considering that most women who surrender babies for adoption are likely not rich, is it that implausible that they might not have access to this information?  Furthermore, what if they moved out of state and aren’t keeping up on NJ adoption news?  Maybe they’ve blocked it out because it was so painful?  To be honest, I don’t remember what day my birthson was born.  I just remember that it was sometime in July 1999.  I think it was in the beginning of the month, but I honestly don’t know.  And shit, though my adoption was painful, traumatic, and not something would wish on anyone, there are certainly birthmothers out there who had a much more painful experience than I did.  What’s to say that they’ve blocked the whole thing out until their birthchild knocks on their door demanding to know “medical information”?

This law is a horrible breach of contract and trust for these women.  (Though some would argue that the first mistake was trusting the state initially.)  If adoptees want to know their medical history, the way they treat their bodies now is far more important.  Keep up on your medical screenings, get every test you can afford, and be thankful that you were raised by loving people who cared about you and were able to provide you with a decent life.  If my birthson comes knocking on my door and tries to lay some crap on me about feeling an emotional connection, the first words out of my mouth will likely be to tell him that the people who raised him and cared for him for all these years are his parents, not me.  I supplied the egg and the prenatal housing.  They are the ones who did the actual work.

I have a problem with most adoption legislation because it is a great example of throwing a blanket solution onto a series of individual situations.  What’s often missing in these laws and in adoption narratives is the voice of the women involved.  Women are not a homogeneous group.  We do not all feel the same damn way, and too often, our personal stories, reactions, etc., are removed from the discussion.  The second you decide to go through with an adoption, everything becomes about the child.  You are pretty much a vessel, a broodmare, a breeder.  People think they’re doing you a favor when they refer to you as omg!strong! or when they use you to promote a pro-life agenda or, better yet, they’re so uncomfortable with the situation that they can’t do anything but avoid any conversations that too close to your expanding belly and hormonal mood swings.

No matter how you slice it, your voice is no longer heard.  And that’s one of the biggest problems surrounding the general topic of adoption.

—-

If you’re reading this from my Facebook notes, please go to the original blog post (located here) to comment.