Round-Table Discussion About "The WOUND" and The Womb
Robin wrote the following: "I moved on to another therapist whose own mother was adopted she had a bit of an idea of what its all about. I met Nancy Verrier the other day at a training session for those who help adults affected by adoption, much more impressed than I thought I would be."
As the adoptee, the daughter, and the mother of four of my own... I have trouble understanding how an adoptive mother sells the concept of a wound, and still supports adoption, as a good option for child-placement. Of course. I never met Nancy, and the contact that I have tried to make with her through the writer's network has been thwarted by a third-party, (with special interests of his own, of course)... so who's to say she is NOT against adoption as a practice that targets children as a means of income for private practices? After all, it seems to me, adoption has become the zeroed-in-solution to establishing a culture that stands for "family values". I think it's very sad when money can be had in so-called safe child-placement, when few other options are explored by government officials.
Tell me Robin, what impressed you most about The Primal Wound Woman? Does she still support and advocate adoption, or is she educating the public that a child's best place is with his/her natural family, and better support systems need to be developed to help ALL families in crisis, in ALL areas where adoption is being sold?
After all, why should only the wealthy benefit from the targeted attention adoption brings the bastards born into abandonment , abuse, and neglect?
- Add new comment
- 432 reads
Comments
Hi Kerry I didn't get the
Hi Kerry
I didn't get the impression that Ms Verrier is pro-adoption (except as way of giving kids who are or would be trapped in care a way out, which pretty much matches my view). I suppose her understanding of the damage that the secrecy and pretending do to adopted people is what impressed me. Her interest in the subject grew from her observation of the damage that it was doing to her own adopted daughter, I believe. I'm not so sure about the scientific basis of theories about hormones etc
I've never read Primal Wound BTW, having seen Lori Corrangello's ravings, I'm keen not to propound a pathology of adoption that brands us all as a bunch of nutcases and serial killers. I had thought perhaps that was the way NV veered, but having met her, I think she's on the level. That's not to say that I'm sure that I would agree with everything she has written either Primal Wound or her latest book (sorry can't remember the title)
Not sure how much you have read of my own early childhood experiences. The bad effects of breaks in care are cumulative, with adoption there's usually only the one "wound". I'd like to see Verrier or anyone else take up the cudgel for kids here in the UK who can have anything up to 20 or more changes of carer in 10 years and that's a wound every time for many of them
Robin
*
Branding
I never read Lori Carangelo's work as branding adoptees as psycho's. I do believe under certain conditions adoptees can become psycho's. That by itself is is not unique to adoptees. Anyone can become a psycho under certain circumstances, but the motives of adoptee psychos, I believe show adoption issues to the core. Adoption fucks people up, doesn't it? Maybe there is a pathology, maybe there is a wound, maybe... That to me is the whole point. There is juggling of children, while we still know little of the effects. When I read adoptees I see many of the same issues, some of them I can relate to, some are not part of my experience, in which case I can only sympathize and try to understand. For me open records has never been an issue, neither knowing at least some of my heritage. Being adopted within the family, I didn't experience all of the secrets and lies involved, though I did experience the fakeness, the make belief of being like a natural family. That by itself, plus the separation of my natural mother makes I have always felt different from everybody else and indeed only fellow adoptees understand a part of me I've not been able to share with anyone who didn't have that experience. Whether there is a primal wound and if so what sort of healing of that wound is possible and how to approach that, I would very much like to see studied. If not for those who already suffered then to prevent unnecessary adoption of future children.
The Criminal Justice System
It wasn't Lori Carangelo who claimed adoptees were pathological in any sense, she simply brought awareness to cases where a new expert opinion was being presented through a term called Adopted Child Syndrome, authored by David Kirschner, Ph.D.
In fact, anyone familiar with her work or her webpages would know, [AmFOR.net] Lori deeply feels the adoptee's want and need for the truth and contact with their natural parents. As one who has contact with Lori, I value and respect her more than any woman I know. She's one tough cookie, because Loss does that to a person, doesn't it?
In any case... it's this very reason... the criminal mind, that more investigative study and money needs to be invested in such studies, especially if a child is being removed and abused in a family situation, and placed in the hands of complete strangers. How can such a life-style not have an effect on brain development?
Now that technology has caught-up to our own thought-process, it should be used to study our own kind, and what better place than study the minds of criminals... both the adopted and non-adopted and see, once and for all, IS there a "Primal Wound"? Are there ways of catching criminals before they develop? Is it in their minds to be that way? Are some people just born to behave like animals, or were they simply razed that way by their captures?
The primal or as we used to
The primal or as we used to call it the narcissistic wound can be resolved if the adoptee can connect his cognitive awareness with his emotional memory. The wound lives in the affective brain, concious awareness in the cognitive brain and they dont readily understand each other. Research hs shown that children traumatised before in a pre verbal stage do not easily transfer that memory into words when they mature. There seems to be a strong dissconnect betwen the two domains of thinking and feeling. We dont understand what we feel, why we feel and how we feel, emotions recorded before we could think. Thats a combination of the backwards adoption industry that still thinks its 1945 and that babies have no more awareness than puppies. There is no educaton for adopting families they have no idea what state the child is in when they adopt. We have known since 1959 that infants can grieve. But that still leaves us in the state many of us live in, unresolved affective memories. and missunderstood emotions. The wound manifests itself as feelings of isolation, dissconnectedness, feeling lost, sad, alone, not belonging when in the presence of loved ones, misstrust, lack of hope, unable to accept love or a spiritual sense of isolation. The solution is to build a bridge of undestanding connecting the two minds and to rewire the emotional mind so it doesnt re-experience that same moment of separation over and over again. It can take years or never. It isnt easy
Robert Allan Hafetz
Not Remembered Never Forgotten
PathwaysinAdoptions.com
Lori Carangelo
I agree, having worked with Lori many years ago. She is most certainly not looking to brand adoptees as psychotic and/or killers. She is simply one of a few who have tried to raise awareness about the issues adopted people have. It is fact that there are a disproportionate number of adoptees who have committed crimes and required serious therapy. Pointing that out is raising awareness about adoption and what it does to people, not condemning adoptees (who had no say in the matter anyway).
The wound
I met Nancy Verrier at the CUB retreat in Asilomar 2 years ago. I had the pleasure of exchanging books with her. We were both presenting at the retreat. She is not against adoption and like me spends a lot of time educating adopting families in parenting the adopted child. The occurance of a primal wound resulting from a separation from the first mother doesnt make adoption a failure as a solution to a problem. It means we must recognise this event and take measures to deal with it and not declare adoption a failed idea.
Robert Allan Hafetz
Not Remembered Never Forgotten
PathwaysinAdoptions.com
Educating Families
Why are Adoptive Families the only ones being educated about this "need to reconnect" and the effects of maternal-child separation?
Shouldn't ALL families be warned of the potential ill-effects maternal separation can cause cognitive development? Is this not MORE of a reason for more aggressive Family Preservation lessons, (like those written by Jessica DelBalzo), to be taught in colleges and to social workers, alike? I would think more educated, ballanced choices given to the general public about parenting options should be advocated by those who have lived the life-experience of adoption, abuse and abandonment, otherwise nothing will be gained, and we as a social-structure will be forced to live with more of the same.
Seems to me the broken family is a broken record far too many people are accepting, and yet broken rules and broken promises are filling the prison populations, with no signs of improvement. Any one else see this connection, or is this just complete unrelated nonsense I'm thinking?
adoption education
Early separation has little effect on cognitive development a good study was just published on this. In fact adoptees have inhanced cognitive development. Adoptees are effected in the limbic system not the neo cortex. Sadly social workers know little about adoption dynamics and agencies spnd little r no time on educating future parents. The best agency to my Knowledge in supporting adoption ediucation is the Pearl S Buck foundation. They have an ongoing 5 month course in adoption parenting. The teacher is really cool, good looking, engaging, charming, funny, and brilliant.
Robert Allan Hafetz Not Remembered Never Forgotten PathwaysinAdoptions.com
"Senses in the womb"
Bobby-Boy... you don't get out much do you? Within the many pages here, there are many Groups at PPL. Perhaps it's a bit overwhelming at first, but that's just to give a small indication just how far the Adoption Industry has taken babies from mainstream parenting!
Behold this little goodie I found about the senses a baby absorbs within the womb: What a baby knows, from the Discovery Network.
Note the author of the article I posted in the following comment, as well. It serves men well to know what happens during the pregnancy process, otherwise much gets lost on the entire mother-child experience. One has to question why it's ok to sell one child over to another lineage, when repair ought to be given more consideration, first.
The adoption industry cannot have it both ways, espousing the virtues of reconfiguring a child's maladaptive behaviors, without figuring out HOW to fix the original problem of Pathological Parenting, in the first place. Wouldn't you agree with that?
After all, how do two wrongs make a right, if it's costing many, many lives?
some mother cant raise their wn children
Some mothers simply refuse to raise their own babies. Some cant be fixed. The question is how do you make that determination? Who makes that determination? I think you will find the most adoption abuse in the private adoptions arranged by attourneys. Originally lawyers couldnt arrange adoptions. Why should they? They have no training and for them it is all about money. The mother has no advocate and is easy pickings. No one is going to ask her if she would like help to keep her baby. We should put adoptions back under the control of the state.
Robert Allan Hafetz Not Remembered Never Forgotten PathwaysinAdoptions.com
Public vs Private
We should put adoptions back under the control of the state.
Now that's something I can agree with, though I would like the state to look into all forms of child placement to figure out what the best solution is given a situation, without stating a generally prefered solution regardless. On top of that, the state should not work with targets. It doesn't make sense to double the number of adoptions from the foster care system, cause that will eventually lead to taking easily adoptable infants from socially weak families, without considering the child's best interest. Look what happens in the UK, or else ask Robin about it.
In my opinion adoption, like most care services should be public. Right now there is a bizarre number of private organizations involved in adoption, all needing an income from adoption fees to keep afloat. I am trying to count those private organizations and so-far have a file on almost a thousand of them and that's probably only one fifth of the total number. That's why I keep calling it an industry and as long as that industry is in power, their interest is served and not a child's.
The state should control adoption
Get the private lawyers out of arranging adoptions. For them its always a business deal. Can we say conflict of interest.
Robert Allan Hafetz Not Remembered Never Forgotten PathwaysinAdoptions.com
Does Pearl S. Buck foundation pass your bucks, too?
If so, you might ask for an advance in your pay-check so you can get spell-check in your computer. Oh, and while you're at it, can you can pass me this "good study" you read that was just published, how early separation has little effect on cognitive development? I'd like to compare it to the ones I've collected through the help of a few friends who like to research this kind of stuff.
Ill look for it
Ill look for it but its not that exciting. Its focused on cognition not emotions. Adoption issues tend to be centered in the emotional domain.
Robert Allan Hafetz Not Remembered Never Forgotten PathwaysinAdoptions.com
Correction: Adoption is centered around the child
ALL things related to the child's development, brain, health, safety and well-being MUST be accounted for -- or hasn't your beloved employer told you that through their brochures for new potential parents?
Now that the cutting-edge technology is there, in two-different forms, mind-you, I would think only the best of the best adoption agencies would want the best for their clients to ensure "their children" are not damaged as a result of adoption.
Wouldn't you agree?
It should be built around the child its not
Adoption is supposed to be centered around the child and lets assume it is by intent. Then when the child becomes an adult these same insitutions, lawyers, the Catholic Church, and the NCFA, then claim adoption is crafted to protect the birth mother'd secrecy/privacy. These organizations are separate from the state and private agencies and even catholic social services wont support the church on this. Back to your point I dont believe its possible to have an adoption without some kind of you say damage to the child. Life damages so should we not live. Separation has an effect calling it damage implies it cant be fixed. We can resolve the grief of separation its not damage unless you want it to be damage. It all comes down to resiliancy. LIfe isnt fair, dont expect it to be. Our lives could have been worse with or first mothers the truth is we dont know. Its water over the damn. So then where do we go from here? The perpetual pity party and the mantra Im damaged, im a victim.
Robert Allan Hafetz Not Remembered Never Forgotten PathwaysinAdoptions.com
Correction
Robert, I have to correct you here. The NCFA is far from separate from private agencies. In fact it is primarily the lobbying and media outlet for such agencies as the Gladney Center, Bethany Christan Services and LDS children's services, to name the largers organizations making up the NCFA. I'd like to quarrel some more over this, but have to go now. Besided this thread is getting so large I am starting to lose sight of it, so I will start a new topic once I am back online.
"It means we must recognise
"It means we must recognise this event and take measures to deal with it and not declare adoption a failed idea."
How much sense does that really make, Robert? You're acknowledging that adoption is harmful (and above you pointed out that the wound is very difficult if not impossible to resolve), but yet you say that adoption itself is still just fine as long as we try to heal the people who are damaged by it. We don't give attempted murderers a free pass because their victim's wounds were treatable. We don't give rapists a pass because their victims can get therapy. So why should the adoption industry get a free pass as long as it "takes measures to deal with" the suffering of adopted people and natural parents?
We need to preserve families at the start, and seek out more compassionate solutions for children who cannot be raised by their families despite help, but adoption is not the solution. Adoption is a failed experiment.
Adaptation to change
Perhaps what the adoption industry is most afraid of is the very thing they expect children to learn themselves: adapt to change, based on reality.
As it exists right now, the system does not work.
The system of selling babies, for personal profit and future gains is WRONG.
Teaching this to the general public can only be good.
there is no system
Come on Wanda there is no such thing as the system." There are many different cultures of adoption and some dont work but the majority of them do work. Well they run like a car on 3 cylinders but they work.
Robert Allan Hafetz Not Remembered Never Forgotten PathwaysinAdoptions.com
Alternatives?
I live in a country where there is no 'adoption industry' in the sense that I understand you to mean it in the US, adoption stats demonstrate how the popularity of adoption has declined since the Children Act 1975 and Adoption Act 1976 with a slight rise again following the run up to and implementation of the Adoption and Children Act 2002
See http://harritt.eu/stats.html and http://web.mac.com/harritt/adoption95-05.html
Leaves us with a lot of kids in care, I can probably find the stats for children in care if anyone wants
The problem with fostercare is lack of permanence, with a potential 'wound' every time a child gets pushed from pillar to post, I hear of children who have 20 or more placements before they 'age out'. A large proportion of our prison population is made up of people who spent their childhood or a part of it in 'care'. Care leavers make up the bulk of the young homeless in the UK
Adoption (and wherever possible that should be open adoption with the 'openness' enforced) offers a more secure grounding than other forms of substitute care
I'm wondering what alternatives you all see to adoption, to provide 'permanence' (the UK jargon) for children who really can not safely be returned to their parents or extended family?
Robin
(British Bastard)
*
I think guardianship --
I think guardianship -- permanent, in a safe and loving environment -- is preferable to adoption, always. It gets kids who need them into stable homes without setting up a "family myth" and ridiculous expectations that the child fits in as if born to his or her new caregivers. From a legal/rights perspective, there are no legal lies and no sealed records. There can also be better provisions for contact between the child and his/her family -- something that does not truly exist in open adoption.
We need to think outside the box; adoption doesn't work, and while there won't always be a way to prevent family-child separation, there are ways to handle it more ethically than adoption.
guardianship is pure semantics
There is no basis to proclaim adoption doesnt work. It does and without it childen would be worse off living in institutions on the streets in prison or dead. If youplace a child in a family it doesnt care what you call it. Semantics isnt the answer. Changing names wont help.
Robert Allan Hafetz Not Remembered Never Forgotten PathwaysinAdoptions.com
Guardianship is an entirely
Guardianship is an entirely different legal set up . . . it leaves the parents' rights in tact, it doesn't involve falsified birth records (which is exactly what an amended birth certificate is, and it protects the child's right to his or her own personal information. Its not a financial transaction, nor is it a business. It's a legal arrangement that would benefit children and families in ways that adoption does not.
Adoption may get kids out of one bad situation, but it only puts them into another.
Guardianship is permanent foster care
It isnt workable and no one will adopt. What does it mean to leave a birth parents rights intact? They can come back after 5 years and demand their child back? As a child I dont want guardians I want parents and a family. Adoptions problems wont be solved by leasing children instead of creating a real family. This is really permanent foster care and having worked in this system I can tell you thats not what kids want. There are better solutions. Open adoptions that can be enforced by law and uniform standards to regulate it. We should also be consistant with law as it is. When an adult binds a minor to a contract the contract ends when the minor becomes an adult. At that time an adoptee should have the right to have his adoption records and his original birth certificate. Adoption is based on the assumption that some women refuse to raise their children or cant raise them. This is a fact not in every case as some should be helped to stay with their children. But we cant say adoption doesnt work because there is abuse in the system. Or adoption doesnt work for anyone because it didnt work for me. There is zero chance of abolishing adoption or making it foster care. It is possible to make it work better.
Robert Allan Hafetz Not Remembered Never Forgotten PathwaysinAdoptions.com
Guardianship weeds out the
Guardianship weeds out the people who are doing it to "become parents" and paves the way for children to be placed with caregivers who value and respect every part of them, right down to their ancestry and family ties.
Leaving the parents' rights in tact means that there is no falsified birth certificate, no document proclaiming that the child's guardians are his parents, and no legal way for the guardians to disappear into the night, never to be heard from again. Whether or not the parents could reclaim a child after five years would depend on the individual situation, why the children were being raised with guardians, and what sort of relationship the parents had with the child.
Kids in foster care "want" adoption because adoption's been sold to them at every turn. They want what adoption pretends to be, and that's all.
I don't say that adoption doesn't work because there is abuse in the system. I say it doesn't work because the system itself is abusive.
How much sense does that
How much sense does that really make, Robert? You're acknowledging that adoption is harmful (and above you pointed out that the wound is very difficult if not impossible to resolve), but yet you say that adoption itself is still just fine as long as we try to heal the people who are damaged by it. We don't give attempted murderers a free pass because their victim's wounds were treatable. We don't give rapists a pass because their victims can get therapy. So why should the adoption industry get a free pass as long as it "takes measures to deal with" the suffering of adopted people and natural parents?
We need to preserve families at the start, and seek out more compassionate solutions for children who cannot be raised by their families despite help, but adoption is not the solution. Adoption is a failed experiment.
====================================================================================================================================
It makes a lot of sense when you avoid catagorical thinking. Surgery is harmful and it has benefits. LIfe is harmful and you dont see everyone jumping off buildings because of it. I might also point out that I never used the term' Just fine." I said adoption is a solution to a problem. Adoption doesnt equate to attempted murder and rape, please try and keep the hyperbele to a minimum. Adoption exists because there are mothers who refuse or cant raise their children. Exclusive of kinship adoptions which is another culture of adoption. If there was no adoption children would be growing up in institutions, mental hospitals and living on the street. You might try and be specific when you talk about compassion and preserving families those words sound nice but in the real world nice doesnt cut it. Some families cant be fixed some shouldnt be. Some mothers shouldnt be allowed to raise their own children. Some can be helped and some cant. Get real here. Adoption is not a failure its here to stay. The rational approach is to improve it which can be done. What doesnt make sense is to let anger and zero sum thinking lead the way of effective change.
Robert Allan Hafetz Not Remembered Never Forgotten PathwaysinAdoptions.com
demand side
Robert, as long as adoption is used as a solution to someones infertility problems, we are far from the situation where adoption is a solution for those children that need a permanent placement outside of their natural families. As long as adoption is promoted to women who find themselves "unexpectedly" pregnant as a deed of almost saintlike proportions, the child's best interest is not considered. As long as wellfare agencies have to meet targets of doubling the number of adoption, the child's best interest is not served. There is a need for permanency, whether it has to be in the form of adoption remains to be seen and I would never want to deny a child the opportunity to live with people who are safer and healthier to that child than the natural parents. But that's only one side of the coin. The other side is a demanding economy. For every so-called adoptable orphan in third world countries there are five families who want to adopt. For every "unexpected pregnancy" there are a multitude of people wanting to raise that child as their own. Adoption is so often not about neglected, abused children that get stuck in the child care system. Adoption is predominantly about infants, children that are thought of to have the plasticity to be molded and shaped as a natural child.
I don't see adoption as a
I don't see adoption as a solution at all. It's merely an exchange of one potential set of problems for another, more definite set. While not all families are willing or able to raise their children, that doesn't necessitate adoption. I see guardianship (as described above) as a much more reasonable and ethical alternative for those children.
I'm not adopted, nor have I lost a child. I have no reason to be angry over this issue. I simply don't believe that adoption is a solution for anyone.
Adoption is only here to stay if we are too ignorant and stubborn (and greedy) to eradicate it.
Infants feel they cant know
Pre cognitive infants dont know anything they can only feel things.
Robert Allan Hafetz Not Remembered Never Forgotten PathwaysinAdoptions.com
A Question
Robert
I understand, 'pre-verbal' but at what point does an infant become 'cognitive' and how do we know know when they reach that point?
Aren't we born 'cognitive' to some extent?
I'm looking at the dictionary definition given by the Oxford American Dictionary definition of cognition
Just to remind myself and check my understanding
Aren't we all born sentient and able to store what we perceive even if we are not yet able to verbalise it, or 'think' about it in using language internally as an older child or adult does?
I feel pretty sure I know from experience how I felt about what was happening to as a very young child in a children's home though there from 9 months old to 20 months, I also feel even 53 years later I have a genuine memory of what it was like before that, Some which has been confirmed by detail recorded on child care files
Robin
(British Bastard)
*
cognition VS emotion
There is no cognition at birth. There is no self at birth. There is one person a mother baby dyad. Cognition is not a highier or better way of awareness. Feeling memories can be very profound. To say infants record affective memories is not to say they are not important. Infants can only process emotion so naturally their memories are emotional. Cognition comes later but abstract thinking doesnt start until the age of 6. Thats when adoptees begin to understand being adopted means being given up. Thats when the self exploration begins. When we are born the brain works before its finished. The amygdala is working enough to process emotion. The hipocampus will help to store emotional memories.These two organs work both together and independently. Memories are stored with emotion and recalled with emotion. They never fade with time emotion keeps them "reborn" every time they are experienced. In adoption the memory of separation will be stored as grief. The grief will be experenced over and over with no cognitive way to understand it. Research shows that children who have traumatic pre verbal memories dont transfer their language skills to their old emotional memories. This is the trap many of us must find a way out of. There is no understanding of what we feel. If you were adopted at age 1 your going to have a somewhat explicit cognitive memory of it. If your adopted at 3 months it s going to be all emotion. Or as I use the term affect. Then as I said previously as cognition developes we cant simply self explore and comprehend the affective memories. Its a very difficult process that takes a lot of time. If we have adoptive parents that freak out when we try and do this then its even worse. The emotional brain doesnt understand the cognitve brain. For men its bad because we are taught to dissconnect from our emotions.
Robert Allan Hafetz Not Remembered Never Forgotten PathwaysinAdoptions.com
Written words...
Bob, with all due respect, considering your words are written by a man who has never experienced pregnancy, childbirth, AND adoption, how deeply and seriously can I take your understanding of the breeding ground of core adoption issues, and how they manifest in the word "money"?
Honestly, I think that's something only a bruised babe of adoption can truly appreciate.
Knowing and feeling are indeed two different things. Experience is what makes a memory, and from what we humans know so far, science has yet to prove what the brain can or cannot "know for keeps".
Tell me Bob, honestly, do you think the Adoption Industry would be scared to learn a form of autism - or let's call it "augmented growth" - could be caused by their profiting practice?
[Feel free to use the following as a Quick Autism Guide]
So wanda your pregnant alone huh?
Dont pull that crap on me, I cant paint and I know a Monet from a Van Go. When you are pregnant, are you pregnant alone my oh wise Wanda or are you pregnant together with another human being. Where do you think I came from a pumkin? Its not I am pregnant its we are pregnant unles youve got smothing else in there. Adoption doesnt cause autism. Knowing and feeling are parts of a whole of understanding. I have experienced pregnancy, I lived witha crazy pregnant woman, watched the childbirth, and done the whole thing. In fact I park in the mother with child space at Wegmans I earned it.
Robert Allan Hafetz Not Remembered Never Forgotten PathwaysinAdoptions.com
If I'd tried that "we are
If I'd tried that "we are pregnant" b.s. when I was expecting my kids, my partner would have laughed his ass off. If he'd tried it, he'd have gotten the tongue lashing of his life.
We are pregnant
When I said we are pregnant I meant the baby and mother not the dad . When a woman tells me shes pregnant I always asked her, are you sure its yours?
Robert Allan Hafetz Not Remembered Never Forgotten PathwaysinAdoptions.com
Bob, as a matter of fact, (if you MUST know)...
There were more times than not I was alone pregnant, in premature labor, and/or in various stages of recovery from OB/GYN related situations I care to count.
Women have no real choice in those matters, do they?
Sure, I could have said "No" to sex with my husband, but then, what sort of wife would that have made me, and how would that have eliminated the other health issues I had?
Contrary to your enlightened new-age thinking, my health goes deeper than my ability to make a man a "we". I am a "She", with different working parts that your tools of the trade. It's a matter of biology, Robert. Girl adoptees are born and built differently than boy adoptees. We were born to be just like our Mommies, whether we know them or not. Seems you, sir, have forgotten that little lesson during YOUR lamaze classes, haven't you?
Last but not least, for the record, my name is no longer Wanda. The United States made certain of that in 1975, years after I was born, thanks to my adoptive parents choosing "better" for me.
Wanda Dawn was never supposed to have been discovered. That's why she was blackened out, and removed from clear visibility. I was told by a social worker my non-id papers survived a fire, as well.
Imagine, what that does, Bob, to a person's identity, being blackened and torched for no reason, other than being born the wrong name or gender...
Can you imagine such a thing, Bobby-Boy? Why some and not others? I suppose only private agencies with crafty lawyers can know that for sure.
boys and girls are different?
> MALE VS. FEMALE AT THE ATM MACHINE
>
>
> A new sign in the Bank Lobby reads . . .
>
> 'Please note that this Bank is installing new Drive-through ATM machines
> enabling customers to withdraw cash without leaving their vehicles.
> Customers using this new facility are requested to use the procedures
> outlined below when accessing their accounts. After months of careful
> research, MALE & FEMALE Procedures have been developed. Please follow
> the Appropriate steps for your gender.'
>
> *******************************
>
> MALE PROCEDURE:
>
>
> 1. Drive up to the cash machine.
>
> 2. Put down your car window.
>
> 3. Insert card into machine and enter PIN.
>
> 4. Enter amount of cash required and withdraw.
>
> 5. Retrieve card, cash and receipt.
>
> 6. Put window up.
>
> 7. Drive off.
>
>
> **************************
>
> FEMALE PROCEDURE:
>
> Unfortunately, most of this part is the Truth!!!
>
>
> 1. Drive up to cash machine.
>
> 2. Reverse and back up the required amount to align car window with the
> machine.
>
> 3. Set parking brake, put the window down.
>
> 4. Find handbag, remove all contents on to passenger seat to locate
> card.
>
> 5. Tell person on cell phone you will call them back and hang up.
>
> 6. Attempt to insert card into machine.
>
> 7. Open car door to allow easier access to machine due to
its excessive
> distance from the car.
>
> 8. Insert card.
>
> 9. Re-insert card the right way.
>
> 10. Dig through handbag to find diary with your PIN written on the
> inside back page.
>
> 11. Enter PIN.
>
> 12. Press cancel and re-enter correct PIN.
>
> 13. Enter amount of cash required.
>
> 14. Check makeup in rea r view mirror.
>
> 15. Retrieve cash and receipt.
>
> 16. Empty handbag again to locate wallet and place cash inside.
>
> 17. Write debit amount in check register and place receipt in back of
> checkbook.
>
> 18. Re-check makeup.
>
> 19. Drive forward 2 feet.
>
> 20. Reverse back to cash machine. !
>
> 21. Retrieve card.
>
> 22. Re-empty hand bag, locate card holder, and place card into the slot
> provided!
>
> 23.
Give dirty look to irate male driver waiting behind you.
>
> 24. Restart stalled engine and pull off.
>
> 25. Redial person on cell phone.
>
> 26. Drive for 2 to 3 miles.
>
> 27. Release Parking Brake.
>
>
Robert Allan Hafetz Not Remembered Never Forgotten PathwaysinAdoptions.com
So you are a misogynist as
So you are a misogynist as well as an adoption proponent? Those two always go well together, I suppose.
I am the devil
A healthy mind can laugh. The damaged mind resorts to histrionics.
Robert Allan Hafetz Not Remembered Never Forgotten PathwaysinAdoptions.com
I'm perfectly capable of
I'm perfectly capable of laughing at things I find funny. I don't see humor in poking fun at things that are beyond one's control -- things like race, gender, and sexual orientation. Stereotypes about women don't amuse me. I'd have said something similar if you posted something racist or homophobic, as well.