"My whole career has been built upon being a contrarian. When other magazine editors ran treacly stories about readers reuniting with their birth mothers, I found a reader who did not want to meet hers--and had her tell her story...."So, that's what our stories are to Lesley Jane Seymour. Shall we all applaud her contrariness? Oh, her letter was headlined: GET OUT YOUR Handkerchiefs! It's hard not to be sensitive on this issue, but then I wondered: if she had been an editor during the first half of the 19th century, would she have run a story by a slave who was against being emancipated? No more free housing, food, et cetera.
Why not?
Email Ms. Seymour--who has probably never knew anyone who claimed to be a birth/first mother--at more@meredith.com. The magazine did not have a Letters to the Editor page in the June issue, probably a victim of falling ad pages.
Have a good day, you treacly sisters. --lorraine
PS: Wanna bet she loved Juno?
Lorraine,
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't waste my time reading a post from you about "GET Your Handkerchiefs, OUT! Isn't that quaint and old fashioned to say the least.
Kind of like our treacle stories,
1. contrived or unrestrained sentimentality: a movie plot of the most shameless treacle.
Maybe, there is some other reason this unmarried, woman doesn't want to read any more stories about mothers reuniting.
Wonder what her position is in adoption. My guess is she might be an adopter or ?
Shameful is the way mothers are treated, shameful is the secrets and lies adoption creates.
yts
ps Lorraine, I accidently deleted your post to my blog can you post it again, please.
". . . this unmarried, woman . . . "
ReplyDeleteDo you actually *know* if she's unmarried?
And if so, why would it matter?
Just curious.
Also curious to know there are any other readers out there who are as puzzled as I am about how an adopted woman who doesn't want to meet her mother can reasonably be compared to a slave who is opposed to emancipation.
Especially given the limited information we have about the story.
Well, doesn't the other woman have a right to her opinion? Not every birthmother waxes sentimental about meeting their relinquished children, you know. I think all sides should be told but it seems to me that this forum is only interested in hearing one side. Yes, I realize this won't see print, but I think you need to stop with the treacly and sometimes guilt-tripping stories. NOT ALL BIRTH MOTHERS WANT TO BE FOUND and that is a stone cold reality you should face!
ReplyDeleteUm, as someone who wears the editor hat a couple of days a week, I can understand why Seymour resists the reunion plot line. She may feel there is more conflict and more human interest in the story of the two people who resist reunion. I don't think that proves she 1. doesn't know any first mothers or 2. is an over-the-top adoption advocate. But what if she is? She's entitled to her opinion. I don't find your comparison to slavery persuasive. Maybe some people don't wish to meet. Is there ever a reason in your view not to? But the point is--it's not your call. It's their call, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteThere is indeed contrived sentimentality, and over-generalization in the way many adoption reunion stories are told. That is bad writing, or cynical exploitation to sell a show or story, not the inherent worth of the actual experience of reunited people.
ReplyDeleteBut there are mothers who don't want to meet their kids, and adoptees who don't want to meet their mothers, for a whole slew of reasons, some good, some bad. Those individual stories deserve to be told as well, as long as they are not used to justify keeping others from searching.
The whole truth should always be reported, not just one side, even when it is "my" side:-)For those searching, it serves as a caution and dose of reality among the overly-sweet offerings that not everyone who searches is met with open arms and flowers.
Kippa,
ReplyDeleteNO, I don't know but when one and myself included, isn't married, they usually have a Ms. in front of their name.
Usually, these type of posts, are one sided, coming from someone who has a vested interest in publishing, articles like this one which I didn't read. I have already read way to many of these detractors, who try to make a point, that finding, a parent who surrendered a baby to be potential problems for the searcher.
Just as I am against adoption, my posts are from my position, I have a real need to make sure young, women know the truth of what adoption involves and it is life long problems, beginning with surrender, then throughout the young woman's life, leading into the reunion and it doesn't end there. Just keeps on rearing its ugly head,,,
I don't care if she was married, to a monk, unmarried, but the Ms. kind of gave me a clue, and of course, I guess she could have been an adopter, an adoptee or somebody who KNEW an adoptee and of course knows whats best for them.
After, all aren't WE all "happy" when it comes to adoption and adopting. NOT!!!!
ps looks like Lorraine explained the slavery/adoption thing and I agree, taking, an identity, sealing records, pretending, that the child was born to another woman when it wasn't is a little to close to how the slaves were treated, by others. A little too close for MY liking.
YTS,
ReplyDeletehttp://www.more.com/2051/3130-my-new-life-begins-here
"Along the way I wrote a couple of books, married a wonderful man named Jeff and had two amazing kids, J.J., now 17, and Lake, 12."
Ms. is just a courtesy title that is used before a woman's surname.
It doesn't indicate anything about her marital status.
"NOT ALL BIRTH MOTHERS WANT TO BE FOUND and that is a stone cold reality you should face!"
ReplyDeleteThey do not want to be found, or they do not want the guilt/shame that accompanies BEING found? There's a subtle difference there.
P.S. There are a few mothers who seriously did not want or love their children. The fact is, they're also far in the minority.