e-mail
When Betty Jean Lifton objected to the language Joe Soll replied, “Please don’t use the word. ….what does it cost not to use it?”
Three days after receiving her initial language instructions and his initial reply, Betty Jean Lifton sent an email to Joe Soll telling him she would not change her terminology. She had no problem if women wanted to refer to themselves as First Mothers or anything else, but she didn’t want their language inflicted on her. She reminded him of the provenance of “birth mother“ and that it is the accepted popular and professional term for women who have surrendered a child for adoption.
On August 27, she received this reply:
“Your negative response to our request not to use the “b” term was discussed by the co-sponsors. Since you only want to use “your language” at the conference, I’m sorry to inform you that the conference committee has decided it would not be appropriate for you to make any presentation.
“Adoption Crossroads and our co-sponsor Origin branches do not approve of the use of the “B” term in any way as it has come to be a pejorative.
“I’m sorry you won’t be part of the program.
Be well,
Joe and Karen
Three days before the conference Betty Jean Lifton sent the following letter to Joe Soll, and the sponsors of the conference “Shedding the Light”.
9/12/2006
Dear Joe, Origins members, and other co-sponsors of the “Shedding Light” conference:
I am writing this not to dissuade you from using your “first mother” term, but to throw a little light onto the history of “birth mother,” so that you do not see it as a “pejorative” term that is capable of “re-injuring” your members. And also, as a pioneer in the adoption reform movement, I’d like to recount a little history for your new members, who may not have knowledge of our struggles in the past.
The reform movement tangled with the issue of language as early as the seventies. Lee Campbell, the founder of CUB, just reminded me that I argued for the term “natural mother” because it was the one used in all the historical texts. It was the term I used in my memoir Twice Born, which came out in 1975. And I still prefer it. But somehow the struggle with the agencies and adoptive parent groups narrowed down to “birth mother” and “biological mother.” I was against “biological” because I saw it as a cold physiological term. While “birth” resonated with me, as it does with many adoptees, because it meant that we were born. And not only were we born, but we carried a longing for the woman who gave birth to us while growing up, no matter how close our relationship with our adoptive mother was. When in the eighties and nineties adoptees began to search, it was for the woman who had birthed them. That connection had not been broken after their separation, and is not broken even when a reunion does not go well. It seems to me that to deny the word “birth mother” is to throw the baby out with the birth water. They may take the baby away from you, but they cannot take the act of birth away from you. They can have Adoption Day, but it can never replace Birthday. You may pride yourself on being the “first” mother, but it does not have the primal quality or importance of being the “birth” mother.
We pioneers are proud that we won the language battle and that “birth mother” is now the accepted term in all usage. To show you how old this issue of language is, I have a chapter called “Birth Mothers – Are They Baby Machines?” in Lost and Found (1979). In it, Lee Campbell says things like “We’re tired of being considered mere incubators or baby machines.” (Sound familiar.) And she adds: “We’re grateful to you Adoptees for waking us up. If you hadn’t come out of the closet, we birth mothers would be in pain forever.” (I put capital A for adoptee all the way through that book, as a way of making us visible.) In that chapter (which I wish you could all read), I interview many women who surrendered their babies, much like Ann Fessler did in her excellent book. One of the women in my chapter says she’s more angry than depressed now, but is going to channel her anger into constructive action, working for social and legislative change.
One other “birth” thought – on the name of your group – Origins. According to the dictionary, origins means beginnings. And for the adoptee, the beginning is one’s birth. My son Ken was born in Japan in 1961. When we left the country, the stern immigration officer wanted to know his “point of entry.” My Japanese was not good enough for me to explain that I was his point of entry. Finally, through much pantomime, he understood. And so, though you all may value yourselves as “first,” do not denigrate the importance of being your child’s point of entry.
In closing, let me bring in one of the many ghosts who haunt my talks. At one conference I was listing the ghosts who accompany the birth mother the ghost of the child she gave up for adoption, the ghost of the father of that child, and the ghost of the adoptive mother. In the question/answer period, one woman said she’d like to add a ghost: “The ghost of the mother I might have been.” That ghost has been included in all my talks. I have great respect and empathy for her, and I hope that she, as well as all of you, accepts this letter in the spirit in which it is written.
Peace,
BJ Lifton
www.bjlifton.com
Please forward this to your members
