Bad Seed?
k
This isn't a very informed/informative article in my opinion. It comes
from The New York Times.
What do you think of it?
Here's the blurb:
“We have racked our brains trying to figure why our son treats us this
way,” he told me. “We don’t know what we did to deserve this.”
Apparently very little, as far as I could tell.
http://nyti.ms/dBsPF2
~Katherine
from The New York Times.
What do you think of it?
Here's the blurb:
“We have racked our brains trying to figure why our son treats us this
way,” he told me. “We don’t know what we did to deserve this.”
Apparently very little, as far as I could tell.
http://nyti.ms/dBsPF2
~Katherine
lylaw
I find that article despicable. how can the human mind be so oversimplified
by someone supposedly qualified to analyze it. :/ and that second
patient who just REPORTED that his son was rude and wouldn't call his mother
on her birthday? does this psychiatrist not understand that there are
subtle dynamics to relationships that can never be fully and accurately
perceived by one member or the relationhip? wow.
lyla
by someone supposedly qualified to analyze it. :/ and that second
patient who just REPORTED that his son was rude and wouldn't call his mother
on her birthday? does this psychiatrist not understand that there are
subtle dynamics to relationships that can never be fully and accurately
perceived by one member or the relationhip? wow.
lyla
Sandra Dodd
-=-I find that article despicable-=-
I didn't think it was despicable.
Some people know they have a sweet "easy" child, even in the midst of
other children from the same tow parents.
If there is such a thing as a easy child, there is such a thing as a
difficult child. If there's such a thing as a naturally kind and
gentle child, there must be such a thing as a harsh, impatient chile
who lacks compassion.
On top of that simple genetic likelihood, there are factors such as
fetal alcohol syndrome, which can keep a person from synthesizing a
plan from information he can recite--he might know the whole schedule
for the day and be able to tell you, but then not be able to figure
out if there's time for a movie in the midst of it, or not be able to
know what that means in terms of his actions and need to leave early
to be places. Some fetal alcohol kids don't develop a conscience (and
it's probably related to the same inability to "put one and one
together."
Then there are adoptions. Some people so cover over their adoptions
that they get a new birth certificate made (which is the most horrible
abuse of public records I can imagine, to falsify birth and
parentage). And they want to teach the rest of the world a lesson,
so they don't ever discuss the adoption. And then they are resentful
and appalled if that child has the characteristics of his birth
parents, or the effects of separation.
Genetics are real. Patience and emotional range are biochemical, and
biochemistry is probably as individual as the shape of noses and ears
and the texture and color of hair.
Sandra
I didn't think it was despicable.
Some people know they have a sweet "easy" child, even in the midst of
other children from the same tow parents.
If there is such a thing as a easy child, there is such a thing as a
difficult child. If there's such a thing as a naturally kind and
gentle child, there must be such a thing as a harsh, impatient chile
who lacks compassion.
On top of that simple genetic likelihood, there are factors such as
fetal alcohol syndrome, which can keep a person from synthesizing a
plan from information he can recite--he might know the whole schedule
for the day and be able to tell you, but then not be able to figure
out if there's time for a movie in the midst of it, or not be able to
know what that means in terms of his actions and need to leave early
to be places. Some fetal alcohol kids don't develop a conscience (and
it's probably related to the same inability to "put one and one
together."
Then there are adoptions. Some people so cover over their adoptions
that they get a new birth certificate made (which is the most horrible
abuse of public records I can imagine, to falsify birth and
parentage). And they want to teach the rest of the world a lesson,
so they don't ever discuss the adoption. And then they are resentful
and appalled if that child has the characteristics of his birth
parents, or the effects of separation.
Genetics are real. Patience and emotional range are biochemical, and
biochemistry is probably as individual as the shape of noses and ears
and the texture and color of hair.
Sandra
lylaw
while I completely agree that genetics and biology are real and parents shouldn't be blamed across the board for their child's genetic or biological/chemical makeup (thank goodness for that or I'd be in trouble as a parent), to call a "difficult child" a "bad seed" is such a copout in terms of the parental responsibility to meet THAT child's needs, no matter how challenging, and the story about the adult who wouldn't call his mother on her birthday, to me, offered no evidence or compelling argument for genetic or chemical influences - there was NOTHING about that relationship, really, first hand. also, adoption and fetal alcohol syndrome etc, would make for an obvious "reason" for "bad seedishness" that would have been mentioned by the psychiatrist - not just - bad seed, no reason, if that makes any sense.
lyla
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest . Unsubscribe . Terms of Use.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
lyla
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest . Unsubscribe . Terms of Use.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=- the story about the adult who wouldn't call his mother on her
birthday, to me, offered no evidence or compelling argument for
genetic or chemical influences - there was NOTHING about that
relationship, really, first hand. also, adoption and fetal alcohol
syndrome etc, would make for an obvious "reason" for "bad seedishness"
that would have been mentioned by the psychiatrist - not just - bad
seed, no reason, if that makes any sense. ...-=-
The article wasn't a full analysis of a child's entire life and his
parents' entire upbringing and their genetic breakdown, though. It
was suggesting that it's possible that some kids aren't a "good" as
others.
No matter what a child's potential in any "intelligence" or physical
or emotional attributes, good parenting can make it better. Bad
parenting can make it worse.
This list is about how parenting can make things better, and how an
trusting atmosphere filled with opportunities for learning can help
people be whole, hale, happy adults. Or make it more likely.
There are no guarantees.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
birthday, to me, offered no evidence or compelling argument for
genetic or chemical influences - there was NOTHING about that
relationship, really, first hand. also, adoption and fetal alcohol
syndrome etc, would make for an obvious "reason" for "bad seedishness"
that would have been mentioned by the psychiatrist - not just - bad
seed, no reason, if that makes any sense. ...-=-
The article wasn't a full analysis of a child's entire life and his
parents' entire upbringing and their genetic breakdown, though. It
was suggesting that it's possible that some kids aren't a "good" as
others.
No matter what a child's potential in any "intelligence" or physical
or emotional attributes, good parenting can make it better. Bad
parenting can make it worse.
This list is about how parenting can make things better, and how an
trusting atmosphere filled with opportunities for learning can help
people be whole, hale, happy adults. Or make it more likely.
There are no guarantees.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Su Penn
On Jul 13, 2010, at 2:40 PM, Sandra Dodd wrote:
I have mixed feelings about re-issued birth certificates, but it's really standard now. We were not presented with any option to do anything but have Yehva issued a new birth cert with our names as her parents as part of the process. It makes many things easier--it's one document I have to present for proof of ID and relationship, rather than 2 (birth certificate and stack of papers from the court finalizing the adoption). It does seem strange to me, though. I would have been very happy with a birth certificate that reflected both birth and adoptive parents, and then, too, that would be a record that an adult adoptee, or her descendants, could use to trace both adoptive and biological families. It would be both more honest and more complete.
I don't think it's the most horrible abuse of public records imaginable, though. That's awfully strong language. People use public records to track and stalk ex-girlfriends, or to steal people's identities. Those are two things that seem worse to me than my daughter's birth certificate listing as her mother the woman who took her home from the hospital and who has cared for her since instead of the woman who gave her up at birth.
Su
mom to Eric, 9; Carl, 6; Yehva, almost 3
tapeflags.blogspot.com
> Then there are adoptions. Some people so cover over their adoptionsBirth, maybe. Not parentage.
> that they get a new birth certificate made (which is the most horrible
> abuse of public records I can imagine, to falsify birth and
> parentage).
I have mixed feelings about re-issued birth certificates, but it's really standard now. We were not presented with any option to do anything but have Yehva issued a new birth cert with our names as her parents as part of the process. It makes many things easier--it's one document I have to present for proof of ID and relationship, rather than 2 (birth certificate and stack of papers from the court finalizing the adoption). It does seem strange to me, though. I would have been very happy with a birth certificate that reflected both birth and adoptive parents, and then, too, that would be a record that an adult adoptee, or her descendants, could use to trace both adoptive and biological families. It would be both more honest and more complete.
I don't think it's the most horrible abuse of public records imaginable, though. That's awfully strong language. People use public records to track and stalk ex-girlfriends, or to steal people's identities. Those are two things that seem worse to me than my daughter's birth certificate listing as her mother the woman who took her home from the hospital and who has cared for her since instead of the woman who gave her up at birth.
> And they want to teach the rest of the world a lesson,This is really uncommon these days. It's generally considered healthier for everyone to be honest about adoption. I suppose it's kind of ironic that there is a big movement toward open adoption at the same time that revised birth certificates have become the norm--we have tons of info about Yehva's birthparents, for instance, although we do not have a fully open adoption. In the US at least it is pretty much not done anymore to pretend that an adopted child is biological, and it's common for agencies to advocate for open adoption with both birth families and adoptive families.
> so they don't ever discuss the adoption.
Su
mom to Eric, 9; Carl, 6; Yehva, almost 3
tapeflags.blogspot.com
Sandra Dodd
-=-In the US at least it is pretty much not done anymore to pretend
that an adopted child is biological-=-
Except in the one record that has commonly been useful for people to
know who their biological parents were.
We can't discuss genetics or biology in cases of parents and "bad
seeds" without discussing adoption. I'm happy not to discuss any of
it, but we can't start with the assumption that some children are very
different from others, and then pretend that "parentage" is adoptive
parentage.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
that an adopted child is biological-=-
Except in the one record that has commonly been useful for people to
know who their biological parents were.
We can't discuss genetics or biology in cases of parents and "bad
seeds" without discussing adoption. I'm happy not to discuss any of
it, but we can't start with the assumption that some children are very
different from others, and then pretend that "parentage" is adoptive
parentage.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pam Sorooshian
On 7/13/2010 12:23 PM, Su Penn wrote:
at that time, a new birth certificate was issued that listed my sister
and her husband as if they were her birth parents.
I think it is odd -- it is a falsification of reality - 1984'ish. I can
see why it is convenient and I can't think of what harm is done by it,
but it is just weird to issue a birth certificate 10 years later to
replace the one that was issued at the time of birth.
-pam
> I don't think it's the most horrible abuse of public recordsMy sister adopted her daughter, though, when she was 10 years old. And,
> imaginable, though. That's awfully strong language. People use public
> records to track and stalk ex-girlfriends, or to steal people's
> identities. Those are two things that seem worse to me than my
> daughter's birth certificate listing as her mother the woman who took
> her home from the hospital and who has cared for her since instead of
> the woman who gave her up at birth.
at that time, a new birth certificate was issued that listed my sister
and her husband as if they were her birth parents.
I think it is odd -- it is a falsification of reality - 1984'ish. I can
see why it is convenient and I can't think of what harm is done by it,
but it is just weird to issue a birth certificate 10 years later to
replace the one that was issued at the time of birth.
-pam
Sandra Dodd
-=-I think it is odd -- it is a falsification of reality - 1984'ish.-=-
It makes the other birth certificates worthless. My children's birth
certificates prove absolutely nothing about them, in a state and time
when they can be officially falsified.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
It makes the other birth certificates worthless. My children's birth
certificates prove absolutely nothing about them, in a state and time
when they can be officially falsified.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
lylaw
-=-I think it is odd -- it is a falsification of reality - 1984'ish.-=-
It makes the other birth certificates worthless. My children's birth
certificates prove absolutely nothing about them, in a state and time
when they can be officially falsified.
lyla
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
It makes the other birth certificates worthless. My children's birth
certificates prove absolutely nothing about them, in a state and time
when they can be officially falsified.
>>wow, yeah! this is especially notable to me because my husband recently had to postpone a business trip to india, simply because he didn't have his birth certificate and couldn't get a visa. he has a passport, which requires all kinds of proof to get, and he has a driver's license, and marriage certificate - and the funny thing is, when he ordered a copy of his birth certificate, all that was required to GET it was a driver's license.
lyla
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Kelly Halldorson
+++++++++
My sister adopted her daughter, though, when she was 10 years old. And,
at that time, a new birth certificate was issued that listed my sister
and her husband as if they were her birth parents.
I think it is odd -- it is a falsification of reality - 1984'ish. I can
see why it is convenient and I can't think of what harm is done by it,
but it is just weird to issue a birth certificate 10 years later to
replace the one that was issued at the time of birth.
++++++++
Jeff was adopted at three his adoptive parents are listed as his birth parents. It is weird they even their ages at the time of his birth! They didn't even know him.
I remember the first time I heard about this was when I saw my highschool best friend's birth certificate, she was adopted. I talked about what a horrible injustice it was and how wrong it was to every and anyone that would listen. It was my first taste of what I saw as *government lies*
I think they should have some other notation. Wipe off the other parents, okay, but label the new ones as adopted. I think the effort is two-fold. Allow the adoptive parents not to tell the children and to protect the birth parent's privacy. Neither reason is for the child's good.
Peace,
Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
My sister adopted her daughter, though, when she was 10 years old. And,
at that time, a new birth certificate was issued that listed my sister
and her husband as if they were her birth parents.
I think it is odd -- it is a falsification of reality - 1984'ish. I can
see why it is convenient and I can't think of what harm is done by it,
but it is just weird to issue a birth certificate 10 years later to
replace the one that was issued at the time of birth.
++++++++
Jeff was adopted at three his adoptive parents are listed as his birth parents. It is weird they even their ages at the time of his birth! They didn't even know him.
I remember the first time I heard about this was when I saw my highschool best friend's birth certificate, she was adopted. I talked about what a horrible injustice it was and how wrong it was to every and anyone that would listen. It was my first taste of what I saw as *government lies*
I think they should have some other notation. Wipe off the other parents, okay, but label the new ones as adopted. I think the effort is two-fold. Allow the adoptive parents not to tell the children and to protect the birth parent's privacy. Neither reason is for the child's good.
Peace,
Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Bob Collier
--- In [email protected], k <katherand@...> wrote:
I think there are more useful clues in this article by Australian therapist Ian White:
http://www.parental-intelligence.com/issue158.html
"Infants from disadvantaged backgrounds, and even uncaring parents do NOT necessarily grow up with emotional deficits and personalities that we so often "think" would be the product of that background. Infants from the "perfect" loving family environment, on the other hand, do not necessarily grow to be the perfectly balanced and emotionally integrated adult that that early life environment would indicate."
...
"Mothers often wonder what the hell they may have "done wrong" in the raising of an infant, when in fact, they may have done absolutely nothing "wrong." Children may puzzle about their own personality traits that our society tells us should be the product of disadvantaged and abusive infancy, but their parents are loving and supportive, and always have been.
Chaos! Randomness! However one toils over the "right" and most supportive and loving ways to provide the "perfect" environment for their infants, things always go amiss in the early affect encoding process."
Bob
>From a purely personal point of view based on four years of exploring the sordid mindset of modern psychiatry, I would have to say that my 'gut reaction' to anything written by a child psychiatrist is usually, "It's probably bullsh*t".
> This isn't a very informed/informative article in my opinion. It comes
> from The New York Times.
>
> What do you think of it?
>
> Here's the blurb:
> �We have racked our brains trying to figure why our son treats us this
> way,� he told me. �We don�t know what we did to deserve this.�
> Apparently very little, as far as I could tell.
> http://nyti.ms/dBsPF2
>
> ~Katherine
>
I think there are more useful clues in this article by Australian therapist Ian White:
http://www.parental-intelligence.com/issue158.html
"Infants from disadvantaged backgrounds, and even uncaring parents do NOT necessarily grow up with emotional deficits and personalities that we so often "think" would be the product of that background. Infants from the "perfect" loving family environment, on the other hand, do not necessarily grow to be the perfectly balanced and emotionally integrated adult that that early life environment would indicate."
...
"Mothers often wonder what the hell they may have "done wrong" in the raising of an infant, when in fact, they may have done absolutely nothing "wrong." Children may puzzle about their own personality traits that our society tells us should be the product of disadvantaged and abusive infancy, but their parents are loving and supportive, and always have been.
Chaos! Randomness! However one toils over the "right" and most supportive and loving ways to provide the "perfect" environment for their infants, things always go amiss in the early affect encoding process."
Bob
undermom
In most U.S. states those false certificates replace originals that are then "sealed" - kept in state custody but locked away from the person described on them. There's a movement of adult adoptees to gain access to their records without regard to whether or not such access is approved by the birth parents, on the grounds that access to the truth about oneself is a basic human right. There's an interesting history of altered birth certificates and sealed records on the Bastard Nation website at http://bastards.org/bb/
"The half-century old practice of impounding and sealing an adopted person's original birth records in perpetuity has had the disastrous effect of breeding deep and long lasting attitudes of shame in all areas of the adoption process. Secrets and lies abound. So we decided to reclaim the term "Bastard" -- to take it back and make it ours. In so doing, we hope to explode the myths of shame surrounding adoption and focus attention on the absolute necessity of changing the laws.
We at Bastard Nation believe that there is NOTHING shameful about having been born out of wedlock or about being adopted. We selected our name because we will no longer be made to feel shamed by the odious state laws that permanently seal our original birth records. We do not fling the word "bastard" at anyone. Rather, we wear it proudly as we work to achieve our goal of equal and unconditional access to original birth records for all adult adoptees." http://www.bastards.org/whoweare
Deborah in IL
"The half-century old practice of impounding and sealing an adopted person's original birth records in perpetuity has had the disastrous effect of breeding deep and long lasting attitudes of shame in all areas of the adoption process. Secrets and lies abound. So we decided to reclaim the term "Bastard" -- to take it back and make it ours. In so doing, we hope to explode the myths of shame surrounding adoption and focus attention on the absolute necessity of changing the laws.
We at Bastard Nation believe that there is NOTHING shameful about having been born out of wedlock or about being adopted. We selected our name because we will no longer be made to feel shamed by the odious state laws that permanently seal our original birth records. We do not fling the word "bastard" at anyone. Rather, we wear it proudly as we work to achieve our goal of equal and unconditional access to original birth records for all adult adoptees." http://www.bastards.org/whoweare
Deborah in IL
--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
>
> -=-I think it is odd -- it is a falsification of reality - 1984'ish.-=-
>
> It makes the other birth certificates worthless. My children's birth
> certificates prove absolutely nothing about them, in a state and time
> when they can be officially falsified.
>
> Sandra
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
k
The phrase "bad seed" seems to me kind of silly. The image from the
movie "Bad Seed" seemed like Twilight Zone on steroids.
I wonder if it's more frequently the case many cultures aren't
nurturing (and we know culture influences childraising and ideas about
children in general) not that parents *or* children are "bad."
It has struck me as decidedly weird that I'm the kid who might be
expected to be more dependent on my parents since I have profound
hearing loss yet it's the other way around and my other 3 siblings are
all about my parents, for the most part. Chaotic and random. :)
weren't. But they were hardly bad parents. It's just that being great
at parenting wasn't their goal. I could have asked them when I was a
child and I could ask them today, and the answer would be the same.
Religion is primary. Parenting was just a role to them and we kids had
our own roles we were responsible for. That isn't MY perspective
though and it's pretty weird to me that it isn't, though I'm happy to
have the view that I do. Just seeing that the way I think is ok is too
much for them and I do struggle over that rift sometimes, but less and
less as time goes by.
I definitely don't think people are Bad Seeds though.
~Katherine
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Bob Collier
<bobcollier@...> wrote:
movie "Bad Seed" seemed like Twilight Zone on steroids.
I wonder if it's more frequently the case many cultures aren't
nurturing (and we know culture influences childraising and ideas about
children in general) not that parents *or* children are "bad."
It has struck me as decidedly weird that I'm the kid who might be
expected to be more dependent on my parents since I have profound
hearing loss yet it's the other way around and my other 3 siblings are
all about my parents, for the most part. Chaotic and random. :)
>>>Children may puzzle about their own personality traits that our society tells us should be the product of disadvantaged and abusive infancy, but their parents are loving and supportive, and always have been.<<<I wouldn't say that my parents were always loving and fair. They
weren't. But they were hardly bad parents. It's just that being great
at parenting wasn't their goal. I could have asked them when I was a
child and I could ask them today, and the answer would be the same.
Religion is primary. Parenting was just a role to them and we kids had
our own roles we were responsible for. That isn't MY perspective
though and it's pretty weird to me that it isn't, though I'm happy to
have the view that I do. Just seeing that the way I think is ok is too
much for them and I do struggle over that rift sometimes, but less and
less as time goes by.
I definitely don't think people are Bad Seeds though.
~Katherine
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Bob Collier
<bobcollier@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], k <katherand@...> wrote:
>>
>> This isn't a very informed/informative article in my opinion. It comes
>> from The New York Times.
>>
>> What do you think of it?
>>
>> Here's the blurb:
>> �We have racked our brains trying to figure why our son treats us this
>> way,� he told me. �We don�t know what we did to deserve this.�
>> Apparently very little, as far as I could tell.
>> http://nyti.ms/dBsPF2
>>
>> ~Katherine
>>
>
>
> From a purely personal point of view based on four years of exploring the sordid mindset of modern psychiatry, I would have to say that my 'gut reaction' to anything written by a child psychiatrist is usually, "It's probably bullsh*t".
>
> I think there are more useful clues in this article by Australian therapist Ian White:
>
> http://www.parental-intelligence.com/issue158.html
>
> "Infants from disadvantaged backgrounds, and even uncaring parents do NOT necessarily grow up with emotional deficits and personalities that we so often "think" would be the product of that background. Infants from the "perfect" loving family environment, on the other hand, do not necessarily grow to be the perfectly balanced and emotionally integrated adult that that early life environment would indicate."
>
> ...
>
> "Mothers often wonder what the hell they may have "done wrong" in the raising of an infant, when in fact, they may have done absolutely nothing "wrong." Children may puzzle about their own personality traits that our society tells us should be the product of disadvantaged and abusive infancy, but their parents are loving and supportive, and always have been.
>
> Chaos! Randomness! However one toils over the "right" and most supportive and loving ways to provide the "perfect" environment for their infants, things always go amiss in the early affect encoding process."
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Vicki Dennis
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Kelly Halldorson <kelly@...>wrote:
on my 'family tree', the more I was offended by the official lies.
Especially in the 50s and 60s in my state where a child born during a
marriage had the husband listed as the father regardless of reality. As
well as the requirement that a man must consent to being listed as the
father of an "illegitimate" child.........and the space for legitimate or
illegitimate was around for longer than many people realize. The ease of
DNA paternity testing as well as the high divorce rate and usage of the
testing has revealed inaccurate birth certificates did not always involve
adoption.
Single mothers needing or asking for aid used to be pressured to name a
father..........any father........and to seek child support which was
garnisheed to repay the government assistance.
That does not even address the falsification of biological relationships on
the birth certificates of the hundreds of thousands of children conceived by
AI going back nearly a century. And now when the woman giving birth may
also have no biological relationship to the child...........................
Like many "records" the attempt to have birth certificates serve dual
functions (tracing biological heritage as well as designating "legal"
relationships) means they are not very good at either.
certificate itself can reflect as amended and the original be "open". I
am fascinated by 'old' records (and love seeing the originals of released
past censuses.........the 2010 census will not be providing nearly as much
information) but have also learned that many expected "corrections" had not
made it onto the originals.............particularly in the case of adult
adoptions or name changes.
vicki
P.S.: I strongly believe that people have the "right" to know their
biological heritage.........whether they were the products of enhanced
conception or were legally adopted or were "taken in" by friends or
relatives. Or even if they were "stolen" by the state or individuals.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>Yes!! The more I learned about birth certificates, especially when working
>
> I remember the first time I heard about this was when I saw my highschool
> best friend's birth certificate, she was adopted. I talked about what a
> horrible injustice it was and how wrong it was to every and anyone that
> would listen. It was my first taste of what I saw as *government lies*
>
on my 'family tree', the more I was offended by the official lies.
Especially in the 50s and 60s in my state where a child born during a
marriage had the husband listed as the father regardless of reality. As
well as the requirement that a man must consent to being listed as the
father of an "illegitimate" child.........and the space for legitimate or
illegitimate was around for longer than many people realize. The ease of
DNA paternity testing as well as the high divorce rate and usage of the
testing has revealed inaccurate birth certificates did not always involve
adoption.
Single mothers needing or asking for aid used to be pressured to name a
father..........any father........and to seek child support which was
garnisheed to repay the government assistance.
That does not even address the falsification of biological relationships on
the birth certificates of the hundreds of thousands of children conceived by
AI going back nearly a century. And now when the woman giving birth may
also have no biological relationship to the child...........................
Like many "records" the attempt to have birth certificates serve dual
functions (tracing biological heritage as well as designating "legal"
relationships) means they are not very good at either.
>Whether or not the new ones are actually labelled as adopted, the
> I think they should have some other notation. Wipe off the other parents,
> okay, but label the new ones as adopted.
>
certificate itself can reflect as amended and the original be "open". I
am fascinated by 'old' records (and love seeing the originals of released
past censuses.........the 2010 census will not be providing nearly as much
information) but have also learned that many expected "corrections" had not
made it onto the originals.............particularly in the case of adult
adoptions or name changes.
vicki
P.S.: I strongly believe that people have the "right" to know their
biological heritage.........whether they were the products of enhanced
conception or were legally adopted or were "taken in" by friends or
relatives. Or even if they were "stolen" by the state or individuals.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-Especially in the 50s and 60s in my state where a child born during a
marriage had the husband listed as the father regardless of reality-=-
That was the deal, legally, for a LONG time back in England (may more
or all of Europe)--it's why infidelity was such a raging big deal and
it was fairly acceptable for a man to kill his wife if he caught her
in bed with someone. It wasn't about sin or his shame. It was about
inheritance. The wife was risking causing him to be obligated to
pass on name, money, house, property, titles maybe, to someone who
wasn't actually his. For poor people, it could be just the obligation
to house and feed the child.
The women's movement had science on its side. Birth control was "new
improved" with the pill, science could prove the presence of sperm in
a rape case, DNA studies were coming along, and so it was no longer
just a man's right to ignore a woman's objections about a lot of
things, and women didn't "have to" have babies just because they were
married (or having sex), so hiring them for positions of
responsibility, and promoting them in companies, wasn't so crazy
anymore.
Younger women forget or never knew that. In 1982 or so, a 19/20 year
old friend of ours had an essay to write for English 102 and she came
to our house. One of her options was What the Women's Movement had
done to improve her life. She was going to write about how it had
done nothing to improve her life, that all the things she was able to
do were already available to her.
I thought of that story during the online unschooling chat Monday,
about people who come to unschooling lately (like this year) and very
condescendingly assure people that there's no need to be extreme or to
use any labels, that people can just pick and choose of all the
obvious idea lying all over the place for the picking. (I'm
paraphrasing, but I'm not exaggerating.) And they have no idea how
much adamant insistence on NOT diluting discussions and NOT
compromising went into developing, trying, honing and describing
clearly some of those ideas they think are everywhere.
In another thread someone mentioned sayings like "Time is Money" and
"You have to draw the line somewhere."
There are people quoting me, Joyce, Deb, Schuyler, Anne Ohman, and
they don't credit it because they don't know it was originally
someone's fresh idea, recently, in the last ten years. They don't
think the Radical Unschooling movement did anything to improve their
lives. :-)
This isn't about Bad Seeds anymore. It's about connections. It's
about how the changes in history and social acceptance changes
reality, in opportunities, birth certificates and parenting. Some
people enjoy knowing where their ideas came from. Some never
considered that ideas have origins and histories.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
marriage had the husband listed as the father regardless of reality-=-
That was the deal, legally, for a LONG time back in England (may more
or all of Europe)--it's why infidelity was such a raging big deal and
it was fairly acceptable for a man to kill his wife if he caught her
in bed with someone. It wasn't about sin or his shame. It was about
inheritance. The wife was risking causing him to be obligated to
pass on name, money, house, property, titles maybe, to someone who
wasn't actually his. For poor people, it could be just the obligation
to house and feed the child.
The women's movement had science on its side. Birth control was "new
improved" with the pill, science could prove the presence of sperm in
a rape case, DNA studies were coming along, and so it was no longer
just a man's right to ignore a woman's objections about a lot of
things, and women didn't "have to" have babies just because they were
married (or having sex), so hiring them for positions of
responsibility, and promoting them in companies, wasn't so crazy
anymore.
Younger women forget or never knew that. In 1982 or so, a 19/20 year
old friend of ours had an essay to write for English 102 and she came
to our house. One of her options was What the Women's Movement had
done to improve her life. She was going to write about how it had
done nothing to improve her life, that all the things she was able to
do were already available to her.
I thought of that story during the online unschooling chat Monday,
about people who come to unschooling lately (like this year) and very
condescendingly assure people that there's no need to be extreme or to
use any labels, that people can just pick and choose of all the
obvious idea lying all over the place for the picking. (I'm
paraphrasing, but I'm not exaggerating.) And they have no idea how
much adamant insistence on NOT diluting discussions and NOT
compromising went into developing, trying, honing and describing
clearly some of those ideas they think are everywhere.
In another thread someone mentioned sayings like "Time is Money" and
"You have to draw the line somewhere."
There are people quoting me, Joyce, Deb, Schuyler, Anne Ohman, and
they don't credit it because they don't know it was originally
someone's fresh idea, recently, in the last ten years. They don't
think the Radical Unschooling movement did anything to improve their
lives. :-)
This isn't about Bad Seeds anymore. It's about connections. It's
about how the changes in history and social acceptance changes
reality, in opportunities, birth certificates and parenting. Some
people enjoy knowing where their ideas came from. Some never
considered that ideas have origins and histories.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Vicki Dennis
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote
taken for granted by folks perhaps only 20 years younger than me. And
the under-25 set seems to assume that what is now has always been!
vicki
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>I am sometimes met with frank disbelief when I point out that many things
>
> Younger women forget or never knew that. In 1982 or so, a 19/20 year
> old friend of ours had an essay to write for English 102 and she came
> to our house. One of her options was What the Women's Movement had
> done to improve her life. She was going to write about how it had
> done nothing to improve her life, that all the things she was able to
> do were already available to her.
>
> Was she able to 'process' the changes that created more options for her?
taken for granted by folks perhaps only 20 years younger than me. And
the under-25 set seems to assume that what is now has always been!
vicki
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-> Was she able to 'process' the changes that created more options
for her?-=-
Yes. What impressed me most that night at our house (I have vivid
memories of where people were sitting and standing even) was that
while I did expect my own strong reaction, as I was involved in lots
of women's awareness things in the early 1970s, I didn't expect Keith
to come on so competently to explain what she ought to write about!
Keith grew up with older, conservative parents, the youngest of three
boys, no sisters, and when I met him he was casually sexist and
ignorant. :-)
That's the first I saw him show what he had learned since we'd been
together, about the politics of women's this'n'that.
She wrote her paper about how the women's movement HAD helped her
life. <g>
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
for her?-=-
Yes. What impressed me most that night at our house (I have vivid
memories of where people were sitting and standing even) was that
while I did expect my own strong reaction, as I was involved in lots
of women's awareness things in the early 1970s, I didn't expect Keith
to come on so competently to explain what she ought to write about!
Keith grew up with older, conservative parents, the youngest of three
boys, no sisters, and when I met him he was casually sexist and
ignorant. :-)
That's the first I saw him show what he had learned since we'd been
together, about the politics of women's this'n'that.
She wrote her paper about how the women's movement HAD helped her
life. <g>
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Kelly Halldorson
++++++
Some people enjoy knowing where their ideas came from. Some never
considered that ideas have origins and histories.
+++++
Or maybe somewhere in between...or maybe both. The possibilities are infinite.
I enjoy reading/hearing/learning histories and origins but that doesn't mean that my ideas came from there. Sometimes yes. Sometimes no.
I was driving a friend's child to the lake, he is 5 or 6. Wolfgang was in front with me. The boy was telling me about how when we got to the lake he was going to fill up a balloon with water in the lake, to make a water balloon.
I started to say, "I'm not sure that is going to work. You need..."
Wolfgang put his hand on my arm and said softly, "He can discover that on his own. Can't he?"
I smiled and nodded my head. The boy continued talking with excitement about all of *his* ideas.
I hardly think he is the first person to have the idea to fill a water balloon in standing water and I don't think he was the first person to have realized it doesn't work very well for water balloons.
Those were *his* ideas and his discoveries and the only deep history behind them might be that someone created balloons and latex but none of that necessarily influenced him. Because if those people didn't invent balloons someone else might have...maybe someone else did...but they didn't know how to get it out to people.
Some ideas are simply logical conclusions on thought and sometimes it's impossible to conclude where or if they originated from anywhere specific. Everything is connected.
Just because someone thought it first doesn't make it their idea. Or does it? There is a possibility that someone thought it before them but never wrote it down or shared it with anyone.
I have an example of this...I discovered the Freedom to Learn Blog on Psychology Today back on Dr. Gray's very first post in July 2008. I posted both the first and the second entry on my local unschooling list. It spread, FAST. Now he is speaking at the Northeast Unschooling Conference. It that because I posted on our list, probably not. Was that a factor? Maybe...who knows.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who found it early on. I'm sure I wasn't the only one who read it and thought "unschooling!" But it was certainly my idea at the time. I came up with that connection but it was a logical idea. I'm clearly not the only one who has come up with it.
Also, there are plenty of examples in history about parallels. Societies and people making the same discoveries without ever having contact with each other.
Thought/ideas/conclusions are all evolutionary. They evolve for adaptive reasons, curiosity, connection or through mistakes and surprises.
They also devolve but that's an entirely different thing isn't it? Or is it?
There are connections, there are influences sometimes they are clear sometimes they are not either way they are everywhere.
Life, ideas, inspiration it ebbs and flows just like thought and and ideas.
Peace,
Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Some people enjoy knowing where their ideas came from. Some never
considered that ideas have origins and histories.
+++++
Or maybe somewhere in between...or maybe both. The possibilities are infinite.
I enjoy reading/hearing/learning histories and origins but that doesn't mean that my ideas came from there. Sometimes yes. Sometimes no.
I was driving a friend's child to the lake, he is 5 or 6. Wolfgang was in front with me. The boy was telling me about how when we got to the lake he was going to fill up a balloon with water in the lake, to make a water balloon.
I started to say, "I'm not sure that is going to work. You need..."
Wolfgang put his hand on my arm and said softly, "He can discover that on his own. Can't he?"
I smiled and nodded my head. The boy continued talking with excitement about all of *his* ideas.
I hardly think he is the first person to have the idea to fill a water balloon in standing water and I don't think he was the first person to have realized it doesn't work very well for water balloons.
Those were *his* ideas and his discoveries and the only deep history behind them might be that someone created balloons and latex but none of that necessarily influenced him. Because if those people didn't invent balloons someone else might have...maybe someone else did...but they didn't know how to get it out to people.
Some ideas are simply logical conclusions on thought and sometimes it's impossible to conclude where or if they originated from anywhere specific. Everything is connected.
Just because someone thought it first doesn't make it their idea. Or does it? There is a possibility that someone thought it before them but never wrote it down or shared it with anyone.
I have an example of this...I discovered the Freedom to Learn Blog on Psychology Today back on Dr. Gray's very first post in July 2008. I posted both the first and the second entry on my local unschooling list. It spread, FAST. Now he is speaking at the Northeast Unschooling Conference. It that because I posted on our list, probably not. Was that a factor? Maybe...who knows.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who found it early on. I'm sure I wasn't the only one who read it and thought "unschooling!" But it was certainly my idea at the time. I came up with that connection but it was a logical idea. I'm clearly not the only one who has come up with it.
Also, there are plenty of examples in history about parallels. Societies and people making the same discoveries without ever having contact with each other.
Thought/ideas/conclusions are all evolutionary. They evolve for adaptive reasons, curiosity, connection or through mistakes and surprises.
They also devolve but that's an entirely different thing isn't it? Or is it?
There are connections, there are influences sometimes they are clear sometimes they are not either way they are everywhere.
Life, ideas, inspiration it ebbs and flows just like thought and and ideas.
Peace,
Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-
++++++
Some people enjoy knowing where their ideas came from. Some never
considered that ideas have origins and histories.
+++++
-=-Or maybe somewhere in between...or maybe both. The possibilities
are infinite. -=-
I said some, and some. I did not say half and half. That there were
other degrees between those extremes was pretty clearly implied.
Some dogs are white. Some dogs are black. There's no sense or
benefit in someone saying "there are also spotted dogs, and grey dogs,
and bluish and stripey and brown dogs.
And the possibilities are not "infinite." There are some colors that
are not natural for dogs.
Some things are documentable and some aren't. Some people knowingly
steal ideas and some people do it more innocently.
Just because some ideas (puns, jokes, combinations of foods) come up
naturally and easily doesn't mean that EVERY recipe, joke or idea is
likely to spontaneously appear. There is such a thing as plagiarism
and of knowingly lifting other people's ideas without credit.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
++++++
Some people enjoy knowing where their ideas came from. Some never
considered that ideas have origins and histories.
+++++
-=-Or maybe somewhere in between...or maybe both. The possibilities
are infinite. -=-
I said some, and some. I did not say half and half. That there were
other degrees between those extremes was pretty clearly implied.
Some dogs are white. Some dogs are black. There's no sense or
benefit in someone saying "there are also spotted dogs, and grey dogs,
and bluish and stripey and brown dogs.
And the possibilities are not "infinite." There are some colors that
are not natural for dogs.
Some things are documentable and some aren't. Some people knowingly
steal ideas and some people do it more innocently.
Just because some ideas (puns, jokes, combinations of foods) come up
naturally and easily doesn't mean that EVERY recipe, joke or idea is
likely to spontaneously appear. There is such a thing as plagiarism
and of knowingly lifting other people's ideas without credit.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]