October 10th, 2006
Posted By:

If nothing else, the huge number of comments that her blog received have many bloggers green with envy. However, I think there is little chance that any of us can come close to matching M.’s satirical expertise. Like her or not, agree with her or not, she is one witty, sharp-tongued diva of the written word.

The diverse reactions came as no surprise. Whenever you talk about the “B” word (that’s birthmother)there will be hot and heavy debates swirling all over the place. That is not what surprised me. What I found somewhat of a revelation was the sheer venom of those who disagreed with M.’s right to even blog about the issue. One commenter is still posting about wanting an apology from her. I guess I don’t get that.

advertisement

As I also mentioned, my blogging partner wrote several blogs about the issue. One poster harangued her, demanding the posts be removed because she did not believe them to be true. Not only did my blogging partner get angry demands to remove her posts, but she was threatened if she did not. Huh?

Let’s see, I need to sum this up now. The people running the conference first told B.J. not to come if she was not willing to use the term they preferred. Then they changed their minds and reinvited her; she declined. Next, their angry supporters blasted M. Greiner for accusing them of censorship, B.J. for telling anyone about it and demanding apologies for their being “wrong” and saying mean things about Joe Soll.

They blasted mothers (aka birth mothers) who use terms they don’t like and poked fun at our ignorance for not thinking as they do. How dare we “sleep with the enemy” and allow ourselves to be referred to by such a derogatory term, they said. I threw in the “sleeping with the enemy” comment, they did not actually say that. That was how I perceived their comments.

Ironically enough, I agree that the term has become a derogatory term. That is why I prefer it as two words. However, I think we are all entitled to call ourselves what we prefer. If some birth moms want to call themselves, “birthmothers”, they are entitled to define themselves that way.

Next, they jumped on Karen because she did not blog about the story accurately, in their opinion. They demanded that she remove her posts! One of their supporters then emailed me and told me how terrible she thought it was that Karen had allegedly deleted some of their comments and refused to get rid of her blogs on the subject.

To Be Continued………………………………

One Response to “Bullies in Adoption – Part 2”

  1. pennylane says:

    Let’s see, I need to sum this up now. The people running the conference first told B.J. not to come if she was not willing to use the term they preferred. Then they changed their minds and reinvited her; she declined. Next, their angry supporters blasted M. Greiner for accusing them of censorship, B.J. for telling anyone about it and demanding apologies for their being “wrong” and saying mean things about Joe Soll.

    Jan you wrote the above and more and this is so sad to me because it’s wrong and you are repeating more gossip. Were you there when “the people running the conference” and BJ spoke? Of course not.

    This is not the way it went down. BJ was not asked to not use the word – all presenters were asked to be sensitive to the fact that some mothers found the word offensive and to use their judgement. That request (which was not a demand or even a requirement) was on both the call for proposals that all the presenters completed months before an a last minute email went out a week before the conference.

    BJ took issue because she claimed she was partially responsible for coining the term and accused them of censoring. There’s lots more to this story but quite honestly, I’m so appalled that you and your blogging partner continue to misrepresent this story.

    I also realize you are referring to me as someone who threatened Karen and I most certainly did not. Asking someone to correct a gossipy, prejudiced version of a situation or story that they (like you) heard third and fourth hand is reasonable and appropriate.

    For some reason you insist on blindly misrepresenting and defending your right to incorrectly report a story. Expressing your opinion if perfectly fine, but you’ve got most of the details wrong and my personal feeling is that is immoral.

    I won’t post here anymore because it is obvious to me that you are choosing to blindly follow the story presented to you by your fellow blogger. I can respect that but I would have hoped that you would have some integrity about being accurate in your assessment – especially when the real story was explained on several other blogs including Marleys.

    Crossroads and Origins didn’t suffer any ill effects from people like you who don’t even know them continuing to bad rap. The conference was excellent and people such as Edward Albee, Ann Fessler and plenty of others understood the request made of them and they didn’t accuse anyone of censoring or behave like insensitive little pouty children as did BJ. We all had a big laugh at how a few people tried so hard to malign Crossroads and it’s generally agreed it’s jealously of Joe.

    This is not a threat against you Karen but I notice that you don’t have much participation on this blog. You might wish to learn a lesson or two from even Marley and other blogs who continued on with the story that you continue to gossip about and allowed the truth to come out.

    I would be uncomfortable even looking myself in the mirror if even after I’d been told the correct version of what happened and I continued to misrepresent. Good luck in establishing credibilty with this blog.

    Penny

    ps. this is not a threat or anger of any kind. and by the way, the only reason that I wrote to you about karen is that she erased all of my blog responses so that she could continue her smear campaign about someone she has a personal vendetta about. Sad. Very sad.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.