I know you haven't finished your train of thought with this, but I'm having a little bit of difficulty understanding why just because someone disagrees - they are called a bully? I certainly hope you aren't referring to my previous posts which I notice you idn't respond to? And that's fine but please don't take my words to imply something they did not.

Like you, I am a mother who lost my child to adoption. I've been around for many years in adoption groups and although I never cared for the term "birthmother", like you, I feel that every mother has the right to call themselves whatever they choose. But, I have come to agree from an intellectual point of view that the term can be insulting or at least an attempt to diminish the first mother's role.

I have been delighted at the direction Marley's blog has been going and the fact that Marley and a couple of the other "thinkers" like Ron Morgan are intelligent and fair minded enough to work through the issue,compromise and clear the air.

What bothers lots and lots of mothers these days (and I am not just referring to the women in Origins, as I presume you are) is that if they even attempt to change their mind after hearing an intellectual debate on the implication of the term birthmother and decide that they also no longer feel comfortable using that term, they are the enemy now and called extremists. Then pundits like you and Ms. Sterner mistakenly reported, they're accused of being forced to not use the B term - no one is telling them what word to use or not use (have you really read Marley's blog lately?) and it is insulting to these women that people who don't even know the mothers of Origins or Joe Soll are spreading mean-spirited gossip insisting that these groups are foisting verbage upon unsuspecting mothers! This is just plain ridiculous and implies that these women aren't thoughtful intelligent women who can make decisions on their own.

I have a couple of friends in CUB who have written to me privately that they have come to agree that the term "birthmother" or even "birth mother" seems a bit remedial and provincial, yet they don't feel they can rock that boat, lest they're attacked by you know who. Now allowing women to use language they're comfortable with is just an attempt to keep them disempowered, IMO.

Others who were not privy to the conference arrangements began telling fibs about what what actually happened with BJ. I won't dignify this malicious gossip with the truth that's been put out there because it's all been played out and explained on the Bastardette and even Marley admitted that Joe was a good guy and that she had gotten a bit carried away with some of her comments. I respect her for that. She even admitted that she got the story third hand. I respect that too. She didn't call anyone who disagreed bullies - why would you?

I happen to be a member of CUB, Origins, First Mothers Connect and a couple of other mothers only groups. As you know, sometimes we as mothers need a safe place away from adoptees. If you don't know that yet, you will come to learn this when you've been around. This language debacle has been blown way out of proportion mostly by a small handful of people who have irrational anger and hatred toward Origins and Crossroads.

Why can't people be like Marley and Ron Morgan on her blog and just accept that terminology is more important to some than others? Instead there is this need to argue this situation ad nauseum stabbing while pointing out that the other side is wrong.

The only bullies I see are the ones who keep insisting that BJ and CUB came up with the word "birthmother" and that HAS to be respected. These are the same angy folks who were posting with irrational name callinig comments on the blog on this topic - not willing to agree to disagree. Do you understand this is why the adoption reform movement doesn't get anywhere? Abnd, that all this infighting does nothing to help us grow?

Joe did not censor BJ - you've got to get the whole story before reporting these things. I think it's immoral to do otherwise. And, I think there was alot more censoring by Jon Klaren on the CUB list when he put everyone on moderated status, than anything Joe ever did. That was was totally out of line and you have no idea how many moms dropped off that CUB list when he did that.

I was directed to this blog actually because an adoptee friend had received Ms. Sterner
's 3 blogs with her version of what she thought happened with the conference. And it was clear that it wasn't just about censorship because she then went on a tangent about how these groups were anti adoption. Furthermore, hate to say it but it's common knowledge that Karen had a personal vendetta against Mr. Soll for an old issue having to do with money.

That's just not ethical to misrepresent this way. I've known Joe for many years and no matter what you are being told -there is no one more ethical than he is and that's why so many of us came to his defense. Not to bully or try to convince people about what term they could or could not use, but that a horrible injustice was being done against a decent good person in the adoption reform movement. I was taught that if you don't know someone - why spread ill will?

An do you know what else was interesting? Marley whom you think is so clever and bright and witty (and she is) is also anti adoption she admits. Why aren't people denigrating her for that viewpoint? Why if someone is anti adoption and prefers legalized guardianship is that so awful anyway. Lots of scholarly people have come to that way of thinking. It's just a personal choice as is being pro or anti choice regarding abortion.

Jan, you say you're new to this - I advise you to not get caught up in this smear campaign against Joe or Origins or anyone that has a different opinion about adoption issues because it just holds us all back. That's the only bullying that I'm seeing going on, not necessarily by you but the individuals who even after having the facts explained, keep the truth from their public. The rest of what you are inferring about Origins and Joe is just that - speculation and if you're not a member of those groups, it's poor form to assume you know everything about them.

If you thought I was posting on your blog to bully anyone, I am very sorry. I am the furthest thing from a bully that there is - I thought it was pretty clear that I was speaking up in defense of someone who I believed was being bullied with the defamatory comments. No where ever do you or will you see nasty comments written by Joe Soll, Karen Buterbaugh or other members of their groups against other groups.

If we can't all work together respecting and understanding that we were all hurt differently by our adoption experience and to respect the way others feel about their own - we will never be effective with the general public. In closing, I ask you to think about the small handful of people doing all this grousing about what happened with BJ? They're so angry and can't get past the fact that people and language evolves.That's just their loss because effective people don't waste their time doing such petty stuff.

I actually looked for your email to later intending to reply and could not find it. However, I try to reply to short comment, but really cannot reply to long ones - I just haven't the time.

I do not know Joe Soll, but I have read his books and like them. However, I have some concerns about him as well. B.J. was not the only person who questioned being told not to use the "B" word.

Disagreeing with others is not something I object to. Trying to aggressively tell others what to say or do, I do object to.

I do know Jon Klaren personally and just spoke to him about the CUB list issue and I do trust his judgment completely. Moderating a list is tough - I have done it and know from experience.

I do agree that all the fighting amongst the factions who have many similar goals is one reason that we have not progressed further in adoption reform. I am not smearing anyone - just expressing my opinion as to how I saw this situation.

Pennylane,
Sounds like your opinion, thats fine. Others might differ but is that ok for you?
I think Jan had an interesting point & you may have helped her prove it.
I would be happy to share my own experiences with Mr. Soll & Crossroads if you will email me.

Disagreeing with others is not something I object to. Trying to aggressively tell others what to say or do, I do object to.


I really do agree with you Jan. But your 2nd comment implies that Joe or someone "aggressively" told BJ or someone else what to do or say. I know for a fact that nothing was said aggressively and the entire story is spelled out as I mentioned on Marley's blog.

I would be offended too, if Joe or anyone aggressively insisted I should or should not say something.

I also think it's very positive that many people who have been around and have seen all the mud slinging are now realizing it's held us back. Not one single person who's been around or even is new to this is perfect. We're all human beings with flaws and warts. But to try to totally destroy someone's credibility because of something that was told 2nd or 3rd hand or becomes a gossip fest is deplorable and that's what happened with this situation.

Please don't misunderstand that I'm holding Joe or anyone up to some kind of saintly status. But I think there's alot of jealously his success and large membership and the people who haven't been able to achieve that go out of their way to imply that he's putting some kind of voo doo curse on people to get them to do or say what he wants. If anything - Joe's empowered literally hundreds and probably thousands of both mothers and adoptees.

He's certainly not the only one either - Nancy Verrier has helped so many adoptees get in touch with their issues yet I've heard mothers (both birth and adoptive) vilify her? We have so few spokespeople who have credibility and that devote their lives to this that it's a shame that amongst our own "movement", there are those hell bent on destroying their reputation.

Thanks for responding. I've really enjoyed your comments and believe we're on the same page. I honestly didn't come to your blog to start trouble. I think I mentioned that first one and then another adoptee friend sent me a link to your blog partner's critical reporting.

Others might differ but is that ok for you?

I say: Of course that's ok with me. How many times do I have to say that it's ok to agree to disagree.


I would be happy to share my own experiences with Mr. Soll & Crossroads if you will email me.

I say: Of course I will NOT email you to get some gossipy story. If you had a disagreement with or arguement with Joe, stuff happens in life. Whoever told you that everyone has to agree? Whatever your dealings were are not my business and it feels very uncomfortable that you want to email me privately about it.
But most importantly, you are missing the point of my post to Jan. You seem to be someone who is anxious to denigrate Mr. Soll, but there is a greater justice to be served here if any of us are to be effective in changing the adoption system in our lifetimes.

May I suggest that whatever he did or didn't do that you get over it so we can all get on about the business at hand? I do not like gossip. Period.

Gossip? I offered not gossip just my own personal experience. I asked you to email me following rules set up by Adoption.com asking not to to post overtly positive or negative information about those in the adoption field on this site and instead to ask it be pm or emailed. I am sorry if that made you uncomfortable.
You don't sound ok with someone who may not agree with you. You sound angry. Upon further consideration, please do NOT contact me. I thought you may be open to another's experiences, but I was incorrect.
You did say...
"Disagreeing with others is not something I object to. Trying to aggressively tell others what to say or do, I do object to."

I see your replys here as very agressive. And I respectfully disagree.
Best of luck to you

I am not anxious to denigrate Mr. Soll or anyone. I mentioned that I thought his books were very good. He obviously has many grateful supporters and that's fine. I do believe that he has done alot that is positive.

Since I have already written several more posts on this subject, I will finish discussing this. However, after that I am ready to go on to something else.

Peanut quotes: You did say...
"Disagreeing with others is not something I object to. Trying to aggressively tell others what to say or do, I do object to."

Peanut, I did not make that commment, Jan did. You probably should reread the exchange rather than looking to disprove someone who is merely posting a response.

Peanut then says:
I see your replys here as very agressive. And I respectfully disagree.


I am wondering why it is that because I said I preferred to stay on the topic of what happened regarding the "Shedding Light On Adoption Conference" and whether what happened was censorship, you feel the need to accuse me of being aggressive? I merely declined any interest either publicly or privately in having you share a personal story of you and Mr. Soll. I still maintain that to be inappropriate and off topic. If you wish to accuse me of being angry because I did not wish to participate in gossip about someone personal experience with an individual, so be it.

But thank you for respectfully agreeing to disagree and I offer you the same. I am not here looking to debate the merits of Mr Soll or anyone.

Jan, I have no interest either in debating or carrying on a long debate about this subject. I responded to your blog post, expressed my opinion I thought is the purpose of a blog. And to further clarify, I did not accuse you of wanting to denigrate Joe, I was responding to Peanut who offered to share some problem with joe with me privately!

I did not ever say my experiences with were positive or negative.