Last Saturday, while talking with a man at a party, he mentioned that he and his wife had adopted a child. I try to help him see that his adopted child had suffered a trauma of separation at birth, but he denied that a trauma had happened. I told him: How are you going to help your adopted child resolve this trauma if you don’t acknowledge that a trauma has occurred?
Then at that same party, I talked to someone else who had been adopted. Still, in total denial of his own trauma and utterly unaware of how he will unconsciously and compulsively take revenge for what his mother did to him when he was just a little baby, on his own children and on other vulnerable pregnant women seeking an abortion under the disguise of wanting to protect their unborn children, so others have the same fate as him.
He told me that he had paid for an abortion when he was young and regrets it. Still, he does not understand that his unborn child is the lucky one that does not have to be the recipient of his repression, and the living children are the unlucky ones that are going to be the scapegoats, recipients of poisonous containers for his unresolved repression.
Repressed people want to protect the unborn, but the moment that new life is born, they do nothing to protect the rights of the new life; instead, after a child is born, they protect the parents. Especially, they idealize the mother, just like Alice says: “…I don't think that gender makes a difference when it comes to cruelty. Active cruelty is the effect of endured violence and perversion in childhood, and nothing else. Feminists dislike my statements very much when I write in many books (as the Drama, Banished Knowledge, Breaking Down the Wall of Silence, and others) that the space society gives to man to rage and destroy life with impunity is the war and to women their home where they can do whatever they want to their babies and toddlers to teach them to obey. What they do in this way, never controlled, never punished, is to cripple millions of people who will never accuse them of their crimes because every child loves her/ his mother and would never, never put her in trouble. Rather, they would hate the whole world or all women, but their own mother must stay protected from their hatred forever. In this way, we turn into a vicious circle of blindness. A brutally beaten child will, as an adult, prefer becoming a serial killer to accusing his mother of brutality. And the same is true for crazy dictators who even become "heroes" for whole nations because people learned so early to love and admire the persons who were cruel to them, no matter what they really did.”
Then at that same party, I talked to someone else who had been adopted. Still, in total denial of his own trauma and utterly unaware of how he will unconsciously and compulsively take revenge for what his mother did to him when he was just a little baby, on his own children and on other vulnerable pregnant women seeking an abortion under the disguise of wanting to protect their unborn children, so others have the same fate as him.
He told me that he had paid for an abortion when he was young and regrets it. Still, he does not understand that his unborn child is the lucky one that does not have to be the recipient of his repression, and the living children are the unlucky ones that are going to be the scapegoats, recipients of poisonous containers for his unresolved repression.
Repressed people want to protect the unborn, but the moment that new life is born, they do nothing to protect the rights of the new life; instead, after a child is born, they protect the parents. Especially, they idealize the mother, just like Alice says: “…I don't think that gender makes a difference when it comes to cruelty. Active cruelty is the effect of endured violence and perversion in childhood, and nothing else. Feminists dislike my statements very much when I write in many books (as the Drama, Banished Knowledge, Breaking Down the Wall of Silence, and others) that the space society gives to man to rage and destroy life with impunity is the war and to women their home where they can do whatever they want to their babies and toddlers to teach them to obey. What they do in this way, never controlled, never punished, is to cripple millions of people who will never accuse them of their crimes because every child loves her/ his mother and would never, never put her in trouble. Rather, they would hate the whole world or all women, but their own mother must stay protected from their hatred forever. In this way, we turn into a vicious circle of blindness. A brutally beaten child will, as an adult, prefer becoming a serial killer to accusing his mother of brutality. And the same is true for crazy dictators who even become "heroes" for whole nations because people learned so early to love and admire the persons who were cruel to them, no matter what they really did.”
So this man at the party preached to me how wrong abortion is and has no clue that he is driven by the dead hand of his own repression to unconsciously and compulsively take revenge on vulnerable women and children for the trauma he suffered as a little baby, so he can protect his mother from his latent hate. My date after asked me: Why did you leave me alone debating abortion with that man? And I told him: I have learned to walk away from people who are unable to open their eyes to see and feel. As a child, I could not walk away from emotionally blind people. Still, the beauty of being an autonomous adult is that we can walk away from anyone who refuses to open their eyes to see and feel, free at last!
“When did people start abusing their children? I do not know. In the 1980s, a spate of feminist publications emerged, featuring accounts of an early matriarchal community where, allegedly, there was no violence and everyone lived in peace together. I have no way of knowing whether this is true, but today I see that, IN TERMS OF VIOLENCE, WOMEN ARE NO LESS GUILTY THAN MEN. UNFORTUNATELY, THE PEOPLE THEY ARE MOST LIKELY TO DO VIOLENCE TO ARE BABIES AND SMALL CHILDREN. Accordingly, the question that interests me is not the theoretical issue of what things were like in the past, but rather what I see now, and what other people prefer not to see because it causes them pain. Speculating about earlier times does no harm, but neither does it suggest any solutions for the damage done to children at a tender age. The idea that things were better in the “old days” may stem from our childhood, a time when we found it impossible to believe that people could be so cruel to such tiny creatures. This made us hark back to better times. I am unsure whether they actually existed. Was there ever such a place as Paradise? And if there was, why did God set up such cruel commandments in that Paradise? Why should human beings not eat from the tree of knowledge?” Taking from the book: “Free From Lies: Discovering Your True Needs” by Alice Miller
http://www.alice-miller.com/en/the-feeling-child/
http://www.alice-miller.com/en/the-feeling-child/
People attack people like me who try to protect children, because it’s not my business how parents raise their children, they say. Still, it’s okay for them to interfere in a woman’s decisions about whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth to a new life. They don’t see their hypocrisy because a woman having an abortion has no effect on society. Still, parents having children to unconsciously use as their scapegoat for the wrongs done to them by their own parents affects all of us, just like Alice says: “Opposing Miller are those who claim that a law forbidding parents to hit their children brings us uncomfortably close to totalitarianism. Many people believe that smacking children remains a private right, and would have grave misgivings if government legislation intruded into an area as sacrosanct as the home. Her answer is emphatic: "You can't claim the right to play with nuclear weapons on your territory because they belong to you. Similarly, society's interests must take precedence over your pleasure and habits, and the government must defend these interests. “Parents may claim the right to hit children when they are small as though they are property. Yet as soon as those children become violent delinquents or drug abusers, the same parents are eager to turn the problem over to society. The anonymous taxpayer has to fund the hospitals and prisons that these once so eagerly disciplined teenagers will need."
http://sylvieshene.blogspot.com/2014/05/it-is-never-okay-to-spank-beat-or-hit.html"It is, in fact, not surprising to find that those who are both victims and apologists for the use of violence and severity against children are often those who most passionately proclaim their love of the unborn child, i.e., the kernel of life. Abortion can, indeed, be seen as the most potent symbol of the psychic annihilation and mutilation practiced since time immemorial on children. But to combat this evil merely at the symbolic level deflects us from the reality we should not evade for a moment longer: the reality of the abused and humiliated child, which, as a result of its disavowed and unresolved injuries, will insidiously become, either openly or aided by hypocrisy, a danger to society.
It is above all the children already born that have a right to life - a right to coexistence with adults in a world in which, with or without the help of the church, violence against children has been unequivocally outlawed. Until such legislation exists, talk of “the right to life” remains not only a mockery of humanity but a contribution to its destruction."From the book: "Breaking Down the Wall of Silence: The Liberating Experience of Facing Painful Truth" By Alice Miller
The adopted man tried to show me how successful he was as evidence of how well he had turned out, and he showed me pictures of his children. Still, financial success and having children are not evidence of how well they have turned out. He is too emotionally blind to see that I can see through the mask of success that he worked so hard to build, as well as the illusions and lies that he believes in. I am happy for me that I am free from the lies people try to feed me, and now I look back in my life and all the people that seemed so much brighter than me fell victim to society’s illusions and lies, and me, who everyone tried to make me feel stupid and less than them. Still, I managed not to fall into society’s traps, illusions, and lies, so who is the stupid one now?! This is why I am happy most of the time, and I have a permanent smile on my face, but it saddens me to see their children being victims of their lies and illusions and endlessly stuck in an emotional prison. Also, these words by Alice Miller come to mind:
Also, these words by Alice are so actual: “You are right, unwanted children are usually mistreated. But there exists, as a rule, also a huge amount of people who were "wanted" indeed, but only for playing the role of the victims that their parents needed to be able to take revenge on. They wanted to give their parents what their own parents had never given them: love, adoration, attention, and so many other things. Otherwise, why would so many people have five or more children when they have no time for them? Why do they adopt children if their body refuses to give them what they apparently "want?”
The never-acknowledged, never-felt pain of their childhood calls for vengeance. They go to church, they pray, they honor their parents, forgive them everything – and they mistreat their children at home, often in a callous way, AS IF THIS WERE THE MOST NATURAL THING, because they learned this so early. Their children learn this perverted behavior, also very early, and will later do the same; and so this perverse behavior continues for millennia. Unless people are willing to SEE the perversion of their parents and are ready to consciously refuse to imitate it.
You are not being "sickeningly sarcastic," you only dared to speak out the truth that most people are afraid of seeing or talking about.”
http://www.alice-miller.com/en/unwanted-children/The never-acknowledged, never-felt pain of their childhood calls for vengeance. They go to church, they pray, they honor their parents, forgive them everything – and they mistreat their children at home, often in a callous way, AS IF THIS WERE THE MOST NATURAL THING, because they learned this so early. Their children learn this perverted behavior, also very early, and will later do the same; and so this perverse behavior continues for millennia. Unless people are willing to SEE the perversion of their parents and are ready to consciously refuse to imitate it.
You are not being "sickeningly sarcastic," you only dared to speak out the truth that most people are afraid of seeing or talking about.”
Are women Less Aggressive than Men?
In my view, women are by no means less aggressive than men. Of course, they are victimized and disadvantaged by men avenging themselves for the beating they received from their mothers. But women avenge themselves for such victimization and physical cruelty by taking it out on their little children, thus breeding new generations of avengers who consciously love and honor their parents.
I see no real difference between the cruelty of women and that of men, because both sexes have learned such sadism at the hands of their parents and caregivers at a time when their brains were still in the process of formation. As children, they were subjected to cruelty and even perversion, but they were not allowed to defend themselves. So later, they take out their repressed anger on other defenseless people, frequently in the same way their parents treated them when they were small. Women often vent this acquired sadism on their children. While men also give free rein to it by victimizing employees at work or lower military ranks, or else participating in orgies of violence like genocide or terrorist attacks. The causes invariably lie in the repressed and totally denied suffering of their childhood (though most of them will insist that they had wonderful parents). People who were not humiliated, tormented, or beaten in their early years are incapable of sadism.
Women can live out all kinds of covert perversion on their children and torment them with impunity as long as they call this behavior “good parenting.” Society idealizes mothers because people have never consciously realized that their own mothers oppressed them when they were small. Accordingly, women typically enjoy total immunity.
I see no sex-specific differences in the suicide bombers. I understand terrorism as an attempt to compensate for the humiliations these people were subjected to, but have never consciously perceived as such, by means of a “magnificent deed” (such as sacrificing their own lives for the sake of a group).
Although it is not difficult to understand this dynamic, there are not many people who would allow themselves to give up their denial and face the truth. The fear felt by the tormented children they once were can prevent this for all their lives.
From the book “Free from Lies: Discovering your true needs” By Alice Miller, Page 140
Right to Know One's Origins
“In all of us, there is a hunger, marrow-deep, to know our heritage- to know who we are and where we have come from. Without this enriching knowledge, there is a hollow yearning. No matter what our attainments in life, there is still a vacuum, an emptiness, and the most disquieting loneliness.” - Alex Haley
To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child.
- Cicero
Abuse in Adoption
“Regrettably, in many cases, the emphasis has changed from the desire to provide a needy child with a home to that of providing a needy parent with a child. As a result, a whole industry has developed, generating millions of dollars in revenue each year. ...” - United Nations, Commission on Human Rights, 2003
Adoption in the Netherlands is "undutch," while America's love affair with it continues.
Relinquishing a child for adoption in the Netherlands is considered "inhumane, unwomanly, undutch, not done," according to Theodore, one of First Mother Forum’s regular readers who comments frequently from across the pond.
As in Australia, England, and Wales, adoption rates in the Netherlands are dramatically lower than in the US.* With a population of 16.7 million, one-eighteenth that of the United States, the Netherlands has approximately 20 domestic infant adoptions each year compared to 15,000 domestic infant adoptions in the US. If Americans were relinquishing at the same rate as in the Netherlands, they would have given up a fraction of the babies relinquished today--a mere 360 babies, not 15,000. Why the discrepancy? We wanted to know. Theodore filled us in.
A Dutch native, he is familiar with the effects of adoption in his own family, due to what he refers to as an illegal grandparent adoption. He is currently working on a translation of a book about Jewish parents who were separated from their children in WWII, but got them back after the war.
RECOGNIZING LOSS TO MOTHER AND CHILD
As in the U.S., unmarried Dutch mothers suffered through a similar era, known as the Baby Scoop Era. The high point was 1970, when about a thousand babies were relinquished. The reasons for the decline in adoptions after that were multifaceted, as in America. Still, a less prudish attitude throughout the country allowed for good sex education, readily available contraceptives, accessible and abortion. At the same time, welfare benefits improved. "Unmarried mothers are common and widely accepted, while public perception of a woman who relinquishes her child is quite negative," he writes. "Surrendering one’s child became something simply 'not done.” At the same time, quasi-official support for adoption declined as professionals recognized the loss to mother and child. Today, adoption decisions are met with opprobrium; women who give up their babies are not looked upon favorably. (As they seem to be in America, we inject, given the kudos were given to Catelynn and Tyler of Sixteen and Pregnant, a celebrity.) About 50 percent of babies are born to unmarried mothers in the Netherlands, compared to 40 percent in the U.S. Today in the U.S., more than half of births to American women under 30 occur outside marriage--a reality that neither Lorraine nor I could have imagined when our children were born in 1966. We felt only deep shame and societal censure.
Unlike in the U.S., Dutch law allows adoption only by those who already have a parent relationship with the child, i.e., step- and foster children. There is no immediate handing over of a baby to a waiting couple or single adopter.
http://www.firstmotherforum.com/2012/04/adoption-in-netherlands-is-undutch.html#more
“Adoption’s inherent abuse of children and families
Adoption itself inflicts psychological harm on adoptees. Adoption means the near-impossibility of either adoptee or adoptive parent being able to take their relationship for granted. Because the parent-child relationship is established by law and not by nature, the relationship cannot be regarded as a simple fact of life, as it is in natural families, by either adoptees or adoptive parents.
Adoption itself inflicts psychological harm on adoptees. Adoption means the near-impossibility of either adoptee or adoptive parent being able to take their relationship for granted. Because the parent-child relationship is established by law and not by nature, the relationship cannot be regarded as a simple fact of life, as it is in natural families, by either adoptees or adoptive parents.
We often read of adoptive parents being the “psychological parents” of adoptees. Yet what does being a “psychological parent” mean? It means that the relationship is not natural, not clear-cut. It means that in adoptive families, the parent-child relationship may be something that must be continually proved because it cannot be assumed. One way adoptive parents may seek to “prove” that they are “the” parents and are necessary to adoptees is to make themselves essential, which may mean being more controlling than the typical parent. One way adoptees may “prove” they are their adoptive parents’ children is by being more childlike, more immature, more dependent than typical sons and daughters, even when they are chronologically adults. . . .
Yes, I know that some non-adopted children are damaged by abuse, poverty, or other ills. I know many single parents have one or more risk factors in their families. Yet, most, if not all, of the problems that face vulnerable natural parents can be alleviated by societal and familial support. In contrast, the issues that occur in adoption, particularly when the parents are infertile and the adoption is closed, are inherent in adoption and cannot be prevented or eliminated.”
http://pages.uoregon.edu/adoption/archive/AndersonCAAA.htm
http://sylvieshene.blogspot.com/2012/07/adoption-can-be-such-tragedy-part-1.html
http://sylvieshene.blogspot.com/2012/07/adoption-can-be-such-tragedy-part-2.html
Also, read Discussing Politics
No comments:
Post a Comment