The Shame of It

Early yesterday morning - ok, it was 9 something, that's early for a weekend - the phone rang. It was a co-worker of my hubby's calling to tell us about someone they know who's mug shot was one of the featured photos on our local newspapers website. We looked it up and there it was. It was one of 254 mug shots on the front page. You could scroll through the pictures of the many arrests made in the last 7 days. My stomach turned a little.

Later in the day I went to visit my son and I mentioned the phone call to him. He had the same feeling I did. We were both uneasy about it. He said that he didn't like the idea of mugshots being featured in the newspaper. He felt it really wasn't an advancement in human evolution. Honestly, I hadn't thought much about it until this conversation. At first glance, I thought, well having your mugshot out there for the world to see might work as a deterrent to people. No one wants to have a photo of themselves on one of their worst days shown to everyone online. So, people screw up, break the law, do something stupid - hey, they get what they deserve. I understand that line of thinking and I do think people should pay for the crimes they commit. There should be consequences for our behavior. After thinking about the mugshots for a while and trying to figure out why they bothered me so much I finally realized it was because of the public shaming. Do I think public shaming should be part of the punishment? No.

It seems to me that putting mugshots in the local newspapers is just a modern day version of putting people in the stocks or forcing them to wear a scarlet A. I'm seeing other forms of public shaming now. I occasionally see photos of teens or even younger children being made to hold signs that their parents made telling the world about their behavior. Judges in some areas are using public shaming as part of the sentence they hand down. The person convicted of the crime must stand outside holding a sign stating the crime they committed. Even in cases of past due child support one judge is giving people the choice of jail or holding a sign that says "I do not pay child support". The judge claims that it's not to humiliate or embarrass people but what else would you call that?

So, if public shaming would act as a deterrent, why does it bother me so much aside from the fact that it is a form of humiliation? It's too much of a reminder of the shaming mothers experienced when we became pregnant without a husband. Shame is what sent pregnant women to live with strangers in other cities or states. Families hid their own daughters because of the shame a pregnant girl would bring to them. Reputations would be ruined and people would gossip. Shaming was supposedly used to protect a girl from ruining her life but it just resulted in a different type of ruin. Even now, when we talk about adoption and it's consequences, people try to publicly shame us by replying to things we write with comments telling us we should have kept our legs closed and calling us names like slut and whore. We hear that we need therapy and we're bitter, angry people.

When we were shamed into hiding we not only lost our children but for many of us, our self worth was ravaged. For some it took decades before being able to come out of the adoption closet. Wouldn't a similar type of damage be done to the people who are publicly shamed for the offense they committed? Is this kind of treatment ethical? What does it do to the psyche of a 12 year old who has to hold up a sign in front of her peers? What does it do to not only the man who is forced to stand on a street corner and hold a sign that says he doesn't pay child support, but what does it do to his children when they find out? This kind of treatment of people does more than affect the offender, it affects the families of the offenders. People love to talk. They gleefully share the latest juicy gossip. Why should the entire family be subjected to this for one person's offense? How will the shaming affect the person's work life? Will they have trouble finding or keeping a job? Could shaming actually cause more problems in the long run by creating anger and rage in the person being shamed? Could more criminal behavior be the result?

Maybe judges and others in authority are being short sighted with this form of punishment. Although it does get attention it may be the wrong kind of attention. We're a culture of voyeurism. We love to know what's going on in other people's lives - watching reality TV, rubber-necking at accidents, gossiping about others, looking at the mistakes that others make so we can feel superior and other people's pain becomes entertainment as in the Oxygen show I'm Having Their Baby. Publicly shaming people is just fodder for our egos. I guess we really haven't evolved all that much.

The shaming we dealt with was the kind that kept us hidden. This kind of shaming throws people out there  to be mocked. I can't see how that would end well. Shaming didn't save us, I doubt shaming is going to save anyone else.

The Walking Wombs

A stone faced counselor sits next to a sobbing young mother who had just given birth less than 48 hours earlier. The counselor is holding the paperwork that will forever legally sever this mother's connection to her baby. As the mother is crying the counselor says "Are you feeling a little bit emotional about your adoption plan?" A little bit emotional?! At this point I wanted to throw my laptop through the picture window in my living room. Thankfully I kept my wits about me since I don't have the cash to replace either one right now. Yes, I made myself watch that horrendous show I'm Having Their Baby. I saw it online before it actually aired on TV. I had to pause it periodically so I could calm down. Of course as I'm watching it I'm asking myself why I'm putting myself through this. I did it so I could know exactly how the adoption process was being presented by them. Did you know that those xxxxxmother letters are now books? The industry has really ramped up the advertising/marketing end of things. POD sites must be making a bundle.

Maybe we could look at it this way - let's say that it's a good thing this show was made. You say WHAT?! I know... but maybe it actually gives us some ammunition we need to fight infant adoption. They're just blatant about the coercion of the agency, laying it right out there for all to see. The problem of course is that not many people seem to recognize the coercion for what it is. And the other problem is that the show itself is contributing to the coercion. No, I haven't lost my mind. I do not believe this show is a good thing and I'm still working on the boycott of it. I'm just thinking of ways to use it against the industry. Considering that "Bethany" was on every agency door that the women walked through, it wouldn't surprise me if the whole idea for the show came from them and the NCFA.

What I find the most astounding about watching the show is the cold, hardheartedness of the agency workers. They were very careful not to refer to these women's children as babies. They were simply adoption plans. There was no caring, no sympathy. I know it's their job to get the baby from the mother but I don't understand how a woman could be so cold to another woman who is grieving so deeply. When the other mother on the show told her counselor that she was no longer comfortable with the PAPs she chose, the counselor said she was going to have to figure out how to handle things since she didn't want the couple to "go through the heartache of losing a child".  Wow! That was another "pause it and calm down moment". To say that to a woman who is about to lose the child she just gave birth to is nothing short of monstrous. All the sympathy is for the adopting couple while the mother is treated as nothing more than a walking womb.

At the end of the show when one of the mothers tells the agency worker that she's keeping her baby (HOORAY!) you can see the change in the workers face. The sale fell through so have a nice life and out the door. It was time for her to quickly make the next coercion appointment to keep the bucks coming in.

I don't think I can stomach another episode.

I don't need Oxygen

Well, I've been gone a while. Lots happening since I posted last. Rhode Island became the 7th state to unseal adoptee birth records. Congrats to them! Now there's only 43 states to go. I'm making some more progress on the Silent Voices painting series. I'll post the newest one soon. I flew to Ohio to spend a week with my daughter and 3 grandsons. It was a huge relief to see her and the boys. Three years is far too long to go without seeing them. Hopefully the next trip won't be so far away.


Then of course there's the new Oxygen TV show "I'm Having Their Baby". This show follows young pregnant women as they go through the coercion process of adoption agencies. Of course it's being described as showing us the process from the mothers point of view. She will be painted as being brave and selfless in the face of this very difficult "decision" while the young mother doesn't realize how she's being manipulated. I can't remember the last time I was so disgusted by a program. This is Oxygen's lame attempt at justifying the show. They're trying to say that - see? women love adoption. Who did they ask? Who was surveyed? It certainly wasn't anyone who knows anything about adoption. It certainly wasn't anyone who has lived it from the mother's or adoptee's perspective. If you just pick up a phone and make random calls to names on a list, they're going to repeat the same garbage that's been taught to them over the years from the big business propaganda machine. So, read their survey. Be sure to read the comments and add your own. Here is the Facebook page for the show. You can comment there also. If you're interested in doing more to let Oxygen know your thoughts on this show, join us on The OFFICIAL Mothers and Adoptees Boycotting Oxygen's "I'm Having Their Baby" Facebook page. Below is the email I sent to a director of Oxygen Media who is involved with this project.


Hello Ms. McIntosh,

This is the comment I left on the Facebook page for the show "I'm Having Their Baby".

A mother and her baby being separated is a trauma and a tragedy, NOT entertainment. These women are not only being exploited for their infants, they're also being exploited for ratings! People are willing to spend money to make a show so everyone can watch a woman being coerced into surrendering her child and grieving her loss. Where are the people willing to help these mothers with the support they need in order to keep and raise their own children? Adoption in this country has sunk to a new low. Disgusting! 

Let me tell you why I left the above comment. I am a mother of adoption loss. I lost my daughter to adoption in 1980. Although 1980 was not considered to be during the Baby Scoop Era (google it if you're not familiar with it) of adoption which occurred between 1945 and 1973, I was still treated as though it was. I was sent away to live in another town, my files were coded BFA - meaning "baby for adoption". When a mother has that code on her file it means that the hospital staff is alerted to not allow the mother to see, hold, or be with her baby at all. I was told nothing about my own child, not even the sex of the baby I had just given birth to. The minute she was born she was wrapped in a blanket and taken out of the room. The only memory I had of her was the sound of her cry. Adoption at this time was filled with lies, secrecy and shame. It was a completely closed adoption meaning I was not allowed to know anything about my own child. For 22 years I didn't know if my child was alive or dead. Some people liken the loss of adoption to a death. I liken it more to a kidnapping. You know your child is out there somewhere but you know nothing about her life. Is she ok, is she being treated well, is she sick? The questions go on and on. The pain goes on and on. You were simply a vessel for the child and your motherhood was erased. Living day to day with that reality is horrific.

I always knew I would search for my daughter. Ten years ago I found her. I also found that her adoptive parents divorced when she was only 3 years old. After the divorce her adoptive mother never remarried. She was raised by a single mother - something that I was told wasn't good for my child. I lost my daughter because I was single and pregnant yet no one suggested that a divorced mother raising a child alone should surrender that child for adoption. Why is it ok for a divorced single mother to raise a child but not a single mother who never married? One year after losing my daughter I got married. I've been married to the same man for 31 years and had 2 more children. If my daughter had been able to stay with me she would have been raised with her own mother, a father and her 2 siblings - an intact family. She didn't end up having a better life, she just had a different one. There are no guarantees. Adopting couples have the same problems as other people. They're not saviors. They get divorced, they have drug problems, they lose jobs, they lose homes, things happen.

This brings me to the next point. You're probably thinking that adoption has changed since then. Now there's open adoption and women have more choices. It may appear to be so. Open adoption sounds good. It looks good, but is it? Did you know that open adoption is not legally enforceable? Did you know that the adoptive parents have all the power? Did you know that 80% of open adoptions close within the first 2 years? An adopting couple can disappear with a mother's child and there's nothing she can do about it. She could try and fight through the legal system but that costs a lot of money and the chances of success are minimal. If she had that kind of money, would she have lost her child to adoption in the first place? Usually adoption happens because of 2 things - marital status and financial situation. Both of these are temporary situations and adoption is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

Since the time period of the Baby Scoop Era the rate of babies surrendered for adoption dropped dramatically. Because of that the adoption industry had to find a way to encourage more young, vulnerable mothers to surrender their children. Adoption is a multi-billion dollar a year industry. There is a lot of money to be made on babies. It's a supply and demand business. In order to fulfill the demand they had to convince pregnant women that they're unfit to raise their own children. This is done in very subtle coercive ways. The coercion of pregnant women happens this way....

1. Using the term "birthmother" for a woman who is pregnant sets her up psychologically to separate her from her infant. It puts her in the position of being simply a vessel carrying someone else's child. She is an expectant mother, not a "birthmother".

2. An adoption agency providing counseling for a pregnant woman is unethical. It's a conflict of interest. They are paid by the people who will benefit monetarily from the surrender of that baby.

3. An adoption agency providing legal counsel for a pregnant woman is unethical. See above for reason.

4. When you title a TV show "I'm having their baby" it's coercive. As long as she is pregnant and until she signs the document surrendering her rights, she is the mother of that child. It's HER baby, not theirs.

5. Matching a pregnant woman with a prospective adoptive couple is coercive. It puts her in the position of feeling indebted to the couple who has spent many hours and dollars preparing "birthmother" letters (aka... slick advertising brochures portraying them as superior to her as parents for the baby), preparing for bringing home a child, bonding with the mother, etc. The more she bonds with the adopting couple the less chance there is of her changing her mind and deciding to parent her own baby. This is also why mothers like me were kept from our babies when they were born. The agencies knew that if mothers spent time with their babies they were less likely to surrender.

6. Adoption agencies have a lobbying group working on their behalf - NCFA, National Council for Adoption. They have been instrumental in keeping adoptees from accessing their own birth records. It is every person's right to have access to their own personal records. The NCFA hides behind the skirts of women like me to deny adoptees what is rightfully theirs. They claim that we as mothers were promised anonymity and privacy in the closed adoption era. This is a lie! Closed records were closed to protect the adoptive parents. We were never promised this. We were told not to try for contact because we would cause damage to our children. Of course we didn't want to do that so we waited...... Over 95% of mothers want to be contacted by their children.

7. Did you know that we have stricter laws governing the separation of puppies and kittens from their mothers than we do humans? It's against the law to take a puppy or kitten from it's mother before the age of 6 to 8 weeks because it's in the best interest of the puppy or kitten to stay with it's mother, yet it's ok for a human baby to be taken from it's mother at birth. An adoption consent can be signed in some states within 48 hours of birth, while the mother is still dealing with drugs in her system and while she is still dealing with post-partum hormone changes.

Coercion takes many forms. Unfortunately I feel that your show contributes to the coercion of young, vulnerable, pregnant women. It's incredibly sad to me that our country finds entertainment in the separation of mothers and babies. Adoption is damaging to not only the mother who loses a child, but also to the child who loses her natural family. You may think that you're showing the world what a difficult decision adoption is for the mother but what you're really doing is contributing to the coercion of that mother and contributing to the damage done to the child. Adoption is not a one time event. It's a life sentence for both mother and child. The only real winners in this scenario are the adoptive parents who get the coveted baby and the agency who makes the money.

Sincerely,

Carlynne