Here's "auntlori" again:

"I'm not sure I questioned your "qualifications" to comment on parenting. What I question is how you represent yourself and then hold others up against that representation. I also did not question your role, perception of the children in your life or their perception of you. And as I said, being a full-time parent vs. a PART-TIME step-parent, particularly when there is a biological father actively involved, makes for a DIFFERENT experience. Who said anything about biological parents getting "elevated status" due to biology? No one gets a "free-pass." Why are you interpreting the word different to mean less than? Different means different, not the same. Adoption is also different, with it's own struggles and wonderfully fulfilling experiences. Your defensiveness and slant on this aspect indicates an issue of your own. Again, my point is that it is unfair to hold other experiences against yours, particularly in the negative fashion that you do. This has absolutely nothing to do with parenting, in and of itself; it is simply about, as I said, representation and the differences in experiences.
Yes, I would expect that if someone were going to make negative comments about the "standard institution" of marriage that he would then not refer to his partner as his "wife." And I have heard you, numerous times, introduce your parnter as "your partner" and never before, except in this blog when hammering a point home, as your wife. THIS is my only reason for bringing this up. I think it is hypocritical, as I said, to speak negatively about something and then turn around and use it when it suits your purpose. Additionally, I was adopted by my step-mother and she referred to me all the time as her daughter. However, she did not ever negatively slam the "institution" of adoption or society's outlook on it.
You often make reference to yourself as having had two careers in your lifetime so far: a therapist and a writer. Are you trying to say that as a writer, writing publically, submitting pieces for publication, that you are not interested in what anyone thinks of your writing? Why write publically then? Why not simply journal? Also, who said anything about etiquette? Writing effectively has nothing to do with "etiquette" or being "congenial." Effective writing grabs the reader's attention and holds it. Great subject matter is controversial, even confrontational; presentation is everything.
One last note:
"As a father who has worked from home for most of my career, I have spent more time with my children than most biological parents of either sex, and having raised TWO generations of children I have spent more cumulative years raising children than most biological parents."
Because you used this statement as part of your defense or to back up your point, I must challenge you on this. A) Sweeping generalizations are often unsubstantiated filler. B) I most definitely question the time aspect you refer to. C) Are young children considered a "raised" generation?"

And here's LOFF56"

"Interesting back and forth.
I think I'd actually like to answer the questions you posed to Lori.
1. Yes you would be able to speak as authoritatively about parenting as an adopter as you would a biological parent. With the simple caveat (and this is the critical point) that your experience specifically may or may not reflect that of everyone's experience. Lori's point and Sue's (I think) is not that you don't have a valid point, but that you have one point among many. As Lori said, it's just "different" that's all.
Having never been a parent, adoptive or otherwise, I can't speak from personal experience, but I can make a pretty good educated guess that the emotional trauma (whether it's good trauma or bad trauma) involved with the process of giving birth, whether for the mother or the father, probably has a profound psychological effect on the parent. Again, for good or for bad. From your perspective, having not been through that trauma, your view HAS to be different. Again, for better or for worse. It could be that not having been through it, your perspective is not cluttered by the effects of that emotional experience and therefore may be more lucid. But irregardless, it IS different and for the sake of making your case about parenting, your specific perspective should be included in the argument.
(Now I know you're going to argue that somewhere along the line in making a decision to become an adoptive parent there was an equally traumatic decision to be made. Maybe so, but it's still a different trauma.)
2. If you were gay, I don't think it would be illegitimate for you to consider yourself "married".
However, for gay couples they don't have the option (in most states) of being legally married. So it's a little like comparing apples and oranges.
But I get the vernacular. And I think the use of the word "married" when not referring to the legally sanctioned version can be confusing unless you're familiar with your more modern interpretation of the institution. I do get Lori's point about knocking traditional marriage while using "married" to suit your point. But I think it's a question of semantics in the end. It could be helpful to your readers (and for your arguments) to clarify that your marriage is not a traditional marriage as defined by the law, but as defined by your interpretation of what marriage should be. (Actually it could be worth a blog subject for you to go into detail about that. (Or has there been one in the past that I missed?))
There's definitely something to be said about this modern type of "marriage" versus a traditional marriage. For one, traditional (legal) marriage is very restrictive and has a lot of serious consequences (both legally and financially, not to mention religiously if you're into that) for both individuals involved that drive people to fear the retribution involved in making difficult decisions about their spouses. (I should add that there are also benefits on all those fronts as well). Again with this in mind, your arguments about marriage has to have perspective because your type of marriage eliminates all of that fear. (Again, perspective - for good or for bad.)
In conclusion, I get the frustration expressed by others who have a different experience than you do in that you seem to be speaking for them as well as yourself by glossing over what your experience actually is. I don't necessarily share their frustration, because I'm not a parent, but I do see their point. But I say instead of trying to resolve that conflict of perspective, you should actually embrace that difference in perspective and use it to the advantage of the argument. Don't say "I know what it's like because I'm exactly like you", you should say, "Listen to this, because I have this different perspective, you should consider this point."
Another 2 cents, by Loff56."

PL: The only thing I'll comment on at this time is the notion that strongly criticizing the institution of marriage as it is lived out by so many people, while simultaneously referring to my love-life partner at times as my "wife" is hypocritical or self-serving. A short while ago, I wrote a blog piece entitled, "I LOVE MY WORK BUT I HATE MY PROFESSION." I guess following "auntlori's" thinking, I shouldn't be so harshly critical of the therapy profession and still call myself at a "therapist." Same with criticizing modern parenting and calling myself a parent, I guess. Etc.

No comments:


blogger templates 3 columns | Make Money Online