U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Adoption
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-20-2014, 06:57 PM
 
13,147 posts, read 20,728,258 times
Reputation: 35341

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheena12 View Post
Experience is subjective. My daughter is also adopted. She came home at four months. My guess is that you are the other "antis" would discredit her experience, and the experience of thousands of other well adjusted and happy adopted people.
You guess wrong. I'm not anti anything, except arrogantly declaring that because it hasn't happened to me, it must not exist.

My interest in this forum is usually only as a reader. My good friend has a preteen she and her husband adopted from Guatemala as a baby. He's a lovely boy, but it hasn't been smooth sailing with him either. He has a certain sadness about him that is hard to explain. I was going to send her this link, but I think it would upset her to read how adoptees are sometimes treated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-20-2014, 07:25 PM
 
Location: The New England part of Ohio
18,598 posts, read 23,156,163 times
Reputation: 48590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattie View Post
You guess wrong. I'm not anti anything, except arrogantly declaring that because it hasn't happened to me, it must not exist.

My interest in this forum is usually only as a reader. My good friend has a preteen she and her husband adopted from Guatemala as a baby. He's a lovely boy, but it hasn't been smooth sailing with him either. He has a certain sadness about him that is hard to explain. I was going to send her this link, but I think it would upset her to read how adoptees are sometimes treated.

Mattie, did you read my post. or skim it?

I did not ever say that "because it hasn't happened to me, it must not exist".

I said in fact, that the fact that you are an adopted person, does not make you an expert in adoption.
I also added that my own 18 year old daughter, who was adopted; is equally not an expert in adoption.

Adopted people, like any other people have feelings.. However, feelings are different from facts. I rely more on fact.

Nacey Ferrier and other pop-psychologists are also not experts in adoption. I don't read pop-psychology.


I have done extensive reading about adoption, including several books from the trans-racially adopted person's perspective, in order to prepare myself for any challenges that we might face.
However, I have not read anything from the "anti-adoption" movement, because frankly; I'm not interested. Does that not make sense to you?

I have a deep interest in children and I have read much about the damage caused by ill-prepared, young and poorly educated children who become pregnant and decide to keep their babies.
I think that adoption is a much better option for young girls who find themselves in this situation. I think that these girls should be encouraged to relinquish their children as they were in the 80s and before. For their good, and for the good of society. That's my opinion, after much study in the fields of social psychology and family systems.

Your last paragraph about your friends adopted son, reveals clearly your anti-adoption agenda. There's a "sadness about him"? Did you "feel" that?
Perhaps he has a solemn demeanor. Did that ever cross your mind?
Instead you have automatically attributed this "sadness" (that you subjectively "feel") to his longing for a Guatemalan birth parent that he may have "met" for an hour.

Last edited by sheena12; 03-20-2014 at 07:36 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2014, 11:03 AM
 
Location: Chapel Hill, N.C.
36,480 posts, read 43,627,993 times
Reputation: 47225
Mattie-

to answer your question--- I very much acknowledge true feelings of unhappy adopted people. I'm hurting for them just as I would hurt for any miserable person. However too often we read (and especially here since September of last year) from adoptees who say all adopted people are miserable, have a deep longing for their biological parents and/or homeland but don't express it and end up resenting being taken away from their original families. This simply isn't true. That is why many of us call these people Anti Adoption. Some are hell bent on stopping all adoptions, no matter the circumstances.

You know I have 3 internationally adopted daughters. Happy to say all are well adjusted and happy with their lives. I've also known many other adopted people who feel the same way and a few who are deeply unhappy. I certainly would never say all adopted people are content so I don't like to hear others say all adopted people are unhappy. It simply isn't true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2014, 01:35 PM
 
13,147 posts, read 20,728,258 times
Reputation: 35341
Absolutely NoKudzu, I understand what you are saying. But, CatDancer didn't generalize her experience either, yet she was roundly dismissed, for her personal feelings. That's where my objection arose.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2014, 05:14 PM
 
1,851 posts, read 2,982,121 times
Reputation: 2365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattie View Post
Absolutely NoKudzu, I understand what you are saying. But, CatDancer didn't generalize her experience either, yet she was roundly dismissed, for her personal feelings. That's where my objection arose.
Um, how was she dismissed? She wasn't. People just didn't agree with her Primal Wound Theory. And, they gave personal experiences as well. I see a difference of opinions AND experiences but not dismissal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2014, 11:11 AM
 
1,097 posts, read 1,728,963 times
Reputation: 1590
I think that some folks are looking at Verrier backwards - - The 2 issues she focuses on are not issues that are caused by adoption. One could say they are only if one believes that infant adoptions are forced; otherwise she presents them as issues which adoptive families might confront. When some read Verrier they perceive her thesis as being against adoption. I don't see it that way. There are 2 points which get the most flack:

- Verrier, an adoptive parent, believes that a child raised within their biological family is the ideal for developing a child's sense of self and identity. She believes that optimally infants have a better chance of not having identity issues when raised within a group with whom they share genetic commonality, an idea not unique to Verrier. Not all agree with the degree of importance of genetic mirroring, and I think most believe that it is an acceptable trade-off [ie; better situational circumstances]. Many infant domestic adoptees who feel perfectly happy in their adoption, still feel at some point in their lives the loss of this genetic connection. Sadly they are 'feelings' and measurable only by self-reporting and thus open to dismissal as inappropriate, silly, not scientifically provable etc. That's psychology for you, it's about feelings and behaviors - - However saying or believing this is not intrinsically anti-adoption.

-Even at her most adamant she does not say all adopted children have problems because they are adopted. What she says is that all adopted infants have the potential for problems because of an initial trauma, shared by any infant who looses their mother at birth. The 'trauma' is not adoption. It is separation. What causes psychological problems will always be a matter for debate. One may certainly disagree that losing a mother at birth is a trauma for an infant.

I imagine she chose to apply her theses to adoptees separated at birth because she has one, & as a group they share both things which she focuses on:separation and lack of genetic opportunities for "mirroring". So --- she holds up an archetypal ideal, and then tries to identify how the adoption experience differs from that archetypal ideal, why, and ultimately, how to address that. This again is not intrinsically anti-adoption.

Again, I could see where her theses could be used by those who believe infant adoption is always forced relinquishment - as then those 2 issues would be avoidable. But since I don't believe all infant adoption is coerced, I am open to considering possible causes & paths for understanding issues some adoptees adopted at birth describe in themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2014, 09:00 PM
 
Location: Illinois
4,754 posts, read 4,311,203 times
Reputation: 12914
Quote:
Originally Posted by nj185 View Post
I think that some folks are looking at Verrier backwards - - The 2 issues she focuses on are not issues that are caused by adoption. One could say they are only if one believes that infant adoptions are forced; otherwise she presents them as issues which adoptive families might confront. When some read Verrier they perceive her thesis as being against adoption. I don't see it that way. There are 2 points which get the most flack:

- Verrier, an adoptive parent, believes that a child raised within their biological family is the ideal for developing a child's sense of self and identity. She believes that optimally infants have a better chance of not having identity issues when raised within a group with whom they share genetic commonality, an idea not unique to Verrier. Not all agree with the degree of importance of genetic mirroring, and I think most believe that it is an acceptable trade-off [ie; better situational circumstances]. Many infant domestic adoptees who feel perfectly happy in their adoption, still feel at some point in their lives the loss of this genetic connection. Sadly they are 'feelings' and measurable only by self-reporting and thus open to dismissal as inappropriate, silly, not scientifically provable etc. That's psychology for you, it's about feelings and behaviors - - However saying or believing this is not intrinsically anti-adoption.

-Even at her most adamant she does not say all adopted children have problems because they are adopted. What she says is that all adopted infants have the potential for problems because of an initial trauma, shared by any infant who looses their mother at birth. The 'trauma' is not adoption. It is separation. What causes psychological problems will always be a matter for debate. One may certainly disagree that losing a mother at birth is a trauma for an infant.

I imagine she chose to apply her theses to adoptees separated at birth because she has one, & as a group they share both things which she focuses on:separation and lack of genetic opportunities for "mirroring". So --- she holds up an archetypal ideal, and then tries to identify how the adoption experience differs from that archetypal ideal, why, and ultimately, how to address that. This again is not intrinsically anti-adoption.

Again, I could see where her theses could be used by those who believe infant adoption is always forced relinquishment - as then those 2 issues would be avoidable. But since I don't believe all infant adoption is coerced, I am open to considering possible causes & paths for understanding issues some adoptees adopted at birth describe in themselves.
Excellent Post! Very good explanation of PW.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 12:53 PM
 
Location: Down the rabbit hole
858 posts, read 946,940 times
Reputation: 2704
Quote:
Originally Posted by nj185 View Post
I think that some folks are looking at Verrier backwards - - The 2 issues she focuses on are not issues that are caused by adoption. One could say they are only if one believes that infant adoptions are forced; otherwise she presents them as issues which adoptive families might confront. When some read Verrier they perceive her thesis as being against adoption. I don't see it that way. There are 2 points which get the most flack:

- Verrier, an adoptive parent, believes that a child raised within their biological family is the ideal for developing a child's sense of self and identity. She believes that optimally infants have a better chance of not having identity issues when raised within a group with whom they share genetic commonality, an idea not unique to Verrier. Not all agree with the degree of importance of genetic mirroring, and I think most believe that it is an acceptable trade-off [ie; better situational circumstances]. Many infant domestic adoptees who feel perfectly happy in their adoption, still feel at some point in their lives the loss of this genetic connection. Sadly they are 'feelings' and measurable only by self-reporting and thus open to dismissal as inappropriate, silly, not scientifically provable etc. That's psychology for you, it's about feelings and behaviors - - However saying or believing this is not intrinsically anti-adoption.

-Even at her most adamant she does not say all adopted children have problems because they are adopted. What she says is that all adopted infants have the potential for problems because of an initial trauma, shared by any infant who looses their mother at birth. The 'trauma' is not adoption. It is separation. What causes psychological problems will always be a matter for debate. One may certainly disagree that losing a mother at birth is a trauma for an infant.

I imagine she chose to apply her theses to adoptees separated at birth because she has one, & as a group they share both things which she focuses on:separation and lack of genetic opportunities for "mirroring". So --- she holds up an archetypal ideal, and then tries to identify how the adoption experience differs from that archetypal ideal, why, and ultimately, how to address that. This again is not intrinsically anti-adoption.

Again, I could see where her theses could be used by those who believe infant adoption is always forced relinquishment - as then those 2 issues would be avoidable. But since I don't believe all infant adoption is coerced, I am open to considering possible causes & paths for understanding issues some adoptees adopted at birth describe in themselves.
I agree, Very well said.

It's hard to understand the amount of energy some people put forth when attacking this theory. I don't see the PW as an anti adoption piece at all. It's a tool to be used if or when an adoptee arrives at a point where they want to acknowledge and explore the trauma that occurred shortly after their birth.

I've read enough in the past few weeks to believe without a doubt that the separation of mother and child is indeed a measurable trauma. The attachment theory or understanding the parent/infant bond has been a hot topic in psychology for a while now. See - Attachment And Separation: What Everyone Should Know - The Natural Child Project or : Effects of Separation on Young Children: Implications for Family Court Decision Making

The way I see it, Verrier's theory is just a natural extrapolation of attachment theory and it makes perfect sense from a logical standpoint. I really don't get the "anti" sentiment from what she says at all and speaking of these "antis"........after looking into the "anti-adoption" movement, I discovered that the term is bit of a misnomer. "Adoption reform" is the term that mostly comes up and the people who are actually anti adoption make up a very, teenie, tiny portion of the entire reform movement. In general, screeching "anti" when confronted with something that doesn't fit one's world view, isn't exactly conducive to further discussion...........or is that the point?

To any parent who is secretly scared that one day your adoptive child may choose to explore his/her origins, I'll tell you what I told my own parents: Don't be afraid. There is nothing to be scared of. You are and will always be my parents. Nobody could ever take your place. My search into my past is no reflection on our relationship, on how you raised me or what you should or shouldn't have done, it's just me wondering about me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 02:18 PM
 
1,851 posts, read 2,982,121 times
Reputation: 2365
It amazes me how often people misunderstand Attachment Theory. Really amazes me!

To NJ, for me at least, I'm not looking at the Primal Wound theory backwards, or wrong. It's a flawed theory, plain and simple.

Why some can't understand that everyone isn't going to agree with this theory is a puzzle indeed. If it fits an adoptee's personality then he/she is free to use it and agree with it. But that doesn't make it sound research or valid. Sorry, it just doesn't. So, to each his own.

To potential adoptive parents or current adoptive parents, please do not fear what is NOT the norm in infant adoptions. Primal Wound Theory is highly, I repeat, highly speculative and really, really BAD science. It's not a study on human relations OR Attachment Theory; it's a re-telling of Verrier's sessions with her already troubled patients.

What makes it worse, is that Verrier did not use a control group, did not use a random sample of adopted and biological children (to compare behavior), did not use a control group made up of children separated from their birth mothers due to death of the mother or illness; and, she never did longitudinal studies on children who were placed for adoptions after birth through their teenage or adult years. THAT would be considered a VALID study on which to hypothesize a theory.

Another reason her theory is weak is that she has not done any follow-up with any of her subjects. She just gets the book reprinted. Her second book doesn't provide any further research either. What?? Pop-culture pseudo-science and new-wave psychology will always sell in mainstream society. Always. But be certain, there are no Nobel or other awards coming Verrier's way, she's no Pasteur or Salk. She's not even up there with the original authors of Attachment Theory.

Speaking of which...It's interesting that someone mentioned Attachment Theory being a "hot" topic in psychology today. Well, that's because it has merit and has been studied for over 50 years. It's not a new concept and has been validated by multiple disciplines.

For those interesting in reading what Attachment Theory is and is not, the following link provides a good general overview as well as sources for additional reading:

Attachment Theory

One finding that stands out which debunks PWT is this:

Quote:
They discovered that baby's attachments develop in the following sequence:

◦Up to 3 months of age - Indiscriminate attachments. The newborn is predisposed to attach to any human. Most babies respond equally to any caregiver.
This period, 0-3 months, clearly covers newborn/infant adoptions which Verrier's has the most problems with. A quick read of her negative reviews makes one realize that she is undoubtedly "anti-adoption."

Additionally, if prospective or current adoptive parents want to read about the propensity of depression among adopted children, this site offers some good insight and provides sources for additional reading:

Major Depressive Disorder and Adoption

Finally, the following is a more thorough examination of Verrier's PWT which some may find informative:

PACT: Point of View- The Primal Wound Theory?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 02:46 PM
 
Location: Chapel Hill, N.C.
36,480 posts, read 43,627,993 times
Reputation: 47225
Excellent post Jaded.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Adoption
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:16 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top