Saturday, March 5, 2011

What's in a name?

The topic of "positive adoption language" (PAL) and "respectful adoption language" (RAL) has been on my mind a lot. Mostly because of on-line groups where natural mothers are referred to as "BM's" - a rather unfortunate coincidence. But doesn't society generally regard women who give away their children as pieces of shit? So, I think I've decided I no longer care.

One of the first things I encountered when we first embarked on reunion was the controversy of what to call everyone - mostly, what to call me. A few choice terms are out there for me: abandoner, birther, whore, crackhead. I actually embrace those. This is not a problem for me because I know the last two aren't true; and I know the first two really are.

The one term I having the most difficulty with is birth mother. I don't even know what that is supposed to mean in the modern lexicon. I do know it's history. It's not kind. The short version is that it was formed in order to separate me and my relationship with my son from my son. That's the bottom line. I reject this term.

Carl Linnaeus is the "Father of Taxonomy." I see Linnaeus as the modern "Adam." Basically, he's this dude that decided to label... well... everything. Naming things is like claiming things. If you have the power to name, you have ownership, a vested claim in that which you've named. Hence his title of "father."

And even into the current day, there are problems within the scientific community with the structure and names chosen by Linnaeus. No doubt he achieved a monumental undertaking... but since nature and science don't rely on humanity's sense of order, there have been some point of debate. You know, the whole species and subspecies thing. But that's not the point, I guess. I think my point is: assigning a name is a declaration of power.

That's why I reject the name "birth mother." I'm not going to carry a name that was designed for my by a person who had a vest financial stake in the popularization and success of modern adoption practices. I am simply, mother. In no other human relationship is the woman who created, carried, and birth a person called anything BUT a mother. There are god mothers, foster mothers, step mothers, like-a-mothers, but none of those eclipses the person's mother. Except this one instance.

Steps have been taken to obliterate me from my son's life. I was removed from his birth certificate. His "birth" certificate now states that an infertile woman gave birth to him. How bizarre is that? I have no problem with people calling her his adoptive mother. But I am, now and for all of eternity, his mother. No other man and woman could have ever made him, except for me and his father. His fetal cells are still in my body. My blood runs through his veins. My traits and parts of my personality are apparent in him. I recognize many of my weakness and my strengths in him. Even his thought patterns are similar to mine - you know, how he thinks about things.

If you need to call me by some made-up word in order to feel better, then by all means, feel better. But you have no effect on me or my son. I am his mother. He is my son. My mistakes can't ever change that.

BTW - If I am his "birth mother" why isn't my name on his birth certificate? Hmmm? Sounds like a lot of semantic juggling to me.