Skip to content

Joan Wheeler is a BASTARD!

by on January 7, 2012
 In the libelous book, Forbidden Family, chapter 34 is called Comments, Assumptions and Questions. My first thought, as I read that title, was ‘hasn’t she said enough already!’ Apparently Not! This chapter is Joan’s great AGENDA; this chapter is not about ADOPTION REFORM, it is Joan’s personal subjective opinions about why, she thinks, reform is needed. There is no shred of ‘scientific’ or ‘social’ evidence to substantiate her claims. It is a totally self-serving piece of garbage.
While there is some truth to the fact that many things benefit from reform and that change can often be a good thing, when it comes to the human being…you are what you are…you are your genes…you are what nature created and there are some things that just can not be changed. For example, if you have a mental illness you just cannot change that, nor can you change the color of skin. A human being is also a product of their upbringing, as example being a bigot because you were taught to be a bigot or religious fundamentalist because of indoctrination and training. In order words, learned behavior.
When a person hides behind others, saying over and over again that ‘it’s the other guy who is to blame’, then that person is a hypocrite and a coward for then…It is not others who must change, but you…Swami Prajnanpad
What Joan has never learned, about aspects of life, is to face it, accept it, deal with it, and then, let it go!
Personally I don’t care about adoption or its reform. Certainly I have my opinions just like everyone else. I do care about how Joan, in particular, skews the issues with her own out of whack thinking and how she has exploited the adoptive and birth families in the process. (skews…tilted or inaccurate position: a position that is not straight but that slants or twists out of correct alignment)
Pg 411 starts off ‘My unusual family background became a natural part of me…’ this begins Joan’s twisted logic of her very existence. Contrary to what she thinks, she is not a unique individual. She goes on to state that she does not have ‘…split personality or severe psychosis…only normal responses to extreme and prolonged stress.’ Joan’s twisted logic is a self-diagnosis of her own strange behavior and/or her attempt to fit herself into the prescribed clinical descriptions that she ought to be in or have as an adoptee. Most of the stress that Joan says she has had over her life is mostly self-inflicted. Her twisted logic states that she has ‘added stress of coping with traumatic hateful abuse and adoption trauma for decades.’ As we birth sisters are pointing out, in this refuting blog, there has NOT BEEN any abuse from the birth family to Joan, on the contrary the abuse has been given to the birth family and the adoptive family, from Joan herself! 
She insists on telling everyone she meets every little detail of her ‘dual identity’ and then wonders why people ‘…were cruel or discouraging…’ Why didn’t she just learn to be a bit more discriminating in whom and how she answered such questions? But of course! To not say anything about her dual identity would be unthinkable to her! She loves to ‘get into it’, the telling of her story, that is how she lives her life, not by the living of it but by the telling of it!
She has an extremely naïve view of how societies work, how they change, what is needed for a society to grow and how it falls apart. She obviously has not studied any history! She believes that she has a wealth of knowledge and experience, because of her adoption, and by ‘…explaining my reality, I made people think.’ There are so many reasons for why people have children, or not, and how and why children are abandoned and/or adopted; there is no ‘one size fits all’. So the logic that Joan has, about adoption reform, is to banish the process and procedures because of the ‘harm’ it causes. Joan’s logic doesn’t want to ‘see’ that there are real and positive outgrowths of adoption.
Everything that Joan discusses is filtered through her very subjective mindset. Worldviews that she was brought up on, from the adoptive family, color and inform the way her mind works. She is not unique in that, but she believes she is, therefore, there are no other ways of seeing anything from her perspective. This entire chapter is filled with her ‘unique’ worldview and there is very little of real value in it. This chapter, as with the entire book, is just a platform, a soapbox, and a ‘bully pulpit’ for Joan to mouth off.
‘No real parent would do such a thing!’ (pg 414) is a typical response, Joan says, from people first learning about a parent ‘giving up’ their child. Romanizing parenthood and other socio-political notions are a product of today’s post-modern global mindset. There was a time and probably still is in some places in the world today, where parents would ‘expose’ their infants, to eliminate them, for any number of reasons. Just because an individual or a group or a society, has an abhorrence to some practice doesn’t mean that that practice doesn’t have some measure of reason behind it. Those are the questions that any society, at any time period, face and find the means to change what needs to change. And the means of change come from sound reason and implementations not from angry rage outbursts, as this book is or on public internet newsites where Joan and other angry adoptees go to browbeat anyone in favor of adoption!
Positive change does not happen when there is a skewed, tilted or inaccurate position, at work. Positive reactions, which are looked for, fly out the window when the person that is speaking is full of hate, prejudice, bigotry, self-loathing etc. In other words, Joan ought not be a spokesperson for adoption reform because she is full of negatives and her views are skewed up!
Then there is this obsession and wrong-headed use of the word bastard. Yes, it is too bad that when applied to children it has a ‘negative’ connotation and that people ought to have opportunities to re-educate themselves about the word’s meaning, but as I said above, Joan’s views are all skewed up and she is not a good ‘educator’.
From my dictionary:
Bastard: 1 offensive term: an offensive term for somebody regarded as obnoxious and disagreeable (slang insult)
               2 offensive term: an offensive term for somebody born to unmarried parents (archaic or offensive)
               3 offensive term: an offensive term for something that is extremely difficult, trying, or unpleasant (slang)
              4 inferior thing: something that is inferior, debased, or of questionable or mixed origin (sometimes considered offensive)
Bastardry:  Australia obnoxious behavior: behavior considered to be mean-spirited, treacherous, or obnoxious informal
Bastardy: illegitimacy: the state of being a child with unmarried parents (archaic) sometimes considered offensive
As can be seen the word bastard can also mean someone who is obnoxious and disagreeable. So while I know that Joan’s birth and adoption was not related to any form of illegitimacy I would still have to say that she is a bastard because her behavior is bastardry!
Joan’s self-righteousness is so blatantly false! She speaks with ‘forked tongue’! On one hand, pg 415, she states that ‘…child is worthwhile, deserving of respect and equality with anyone else, regardless of the circumstances of the natural family’ and on the other hand she is totally ‘against’ adoption of any child for any reason! Joan rails against the use of profanity and derogatory language, pg 417, and its growing popularity all the while she herself uses it and applies it to her adoptive mother and her birth sisters! That is called ‘two-faced’! She brings the Bible into her diatribe but says she isn’t a Bible-thumper! She only does that to lay a ‘guilt trip’ on those that do. Then she becomes very condescending in the way she’d like the ‘reader’ to ‘get comfortable with the A-word’, pg 418! Yes, Joan is a bastard with bastardry behavior!
The balance of this chapter is about 10 common questions that Joan has been asked about her adoption along with her pontificating (speaking pompously: to speak about something in a knowing and self-important way, especially when not qualified to do so) about those questions and issues. It really is just an opportunity for her to use condescending attitudes as she peppers it with her own personal diseased mind thoughts.
1) She confuses the real social purpose behind the ‘nature vs. nurture’ issues with her own skewed views; it is NOT an issue of ‘choosing’ between birth and step or adoptive parents! And she says she has a degree in social work and she doesn’t understand what ‘nature vs. nurture’ mean! She pontificates that it is okay for stepchildren to love and be loved by the non-birth parent…but she is ALSO AGAINST the step and non-birth parent from adopting! Her diseased mind states she had to live ‘second-guessing’ her existence, because she had two families! And that it is ‘un-natural’ that society expects the adoptee to chose between the two. Why is there even a question of a choice? An adoptee has two families, great.
2) The question of the difference between searching and being found seems to be a reason for Joan to blame the messenger because by being found, by me a birth sister, Joan’s ‘freedom of choice’ was taken away from her! Just another expression of the ‘poor me’ attitude of Joan’s. Oh and BTW, there is NO place on this earth that guarantees anyone ‘freedom of choice’!
3) The grateful aspect of having a two-parent upbringing which adoption gives, vs. possible instability of the birth family really is an ‘irrelevant’ point, no matter whom brings it up. Joan, if she was really trying to re-educate people, would point that out, but instead she uses it so that she can continue on with her pontificating. Joan states, pg 419, ‘Nurturing doesn’t demand the offspring to be grateful or feel better off here than there.’ Well, the same can be said for the parents! There is NO god-given or ‘natural law of survival’ that states that a parent/child must love and be grateful to each other. In her assessments of ‘family conditions’ such as poverty, hardship, death etc. she is quick to say that those things ‘do not designate a family as a bad family’ but she does not use her own assessments when judging her family. She and she alone determined that my family (my husband and the children I birthed) was a ‘bad family’, that it was her duty to bring, to the attention of the authorities, that I was unfit and abusive to my children! She speaks with forked tongue and ought not be trusted!
4) She does not really answer, but purposely confuses the question, would you choose to be with natural or adoptive family. She immediately compares the question with a choice between two children as to which one would be ‘cast away’. She says it is a ridiculous question, but perhaps to the person asking it they are attempting to get to some ‘deeper’ level that Joan is incapable of going to. She says she ‘cannot go back and rewrite history’ and yet that is just what she has DONE with this book! She also says she cannot ‘pretend that she doesn’t have sisters and brothers’, but she does her best to condemn us!
5) This question is a variation of the theme and a repeat of #3 and she takes up three whole pages of ‘talking down’ to the reader and pontificating. Again she confuses the issues and compares her adoption issues with marital issues (infidelity), the two are not the same and so her ‘comparing’ is misleading at best. Parents, of any kind, make decisions for children, period, that is the way of the world. Joan has never grown beyond the ‘terrible twos’ stage of development. No child has the right to INSIST that they have been betrayed and cheated upon by their parents, natural or adoptive. That line of thinking only proves the diseased mind of the author. Joan wants to change society, in regards to adoption, but she plainly does not understand society’s NEED for adoption rules as they stand. Real change in society does not come about by one person’s raging angry outbursts, which are seen and heard as yet another form of fundamentalism, but by calm, clear, reasoning, something that Joan does not have. There are no new thoughts here, just a waste of paper while Joan rants on!
6) This one starts off with ‘since there were so many traumas in your life’ and asks ‘would it have been better if you never knew you were adopted’. Joan never lets an opportunity go by without reminding everyone of all the TRAUMAS she has endured! She states that the traumas were a result of ‘situations growing completely out of control’ and why is that I ask? Because of Joan! She makes a very big mistake in equating economic, educational opportunities and social standings as a ‘reason’ for the ‘key people in (her) life had traumatic pasts themselves’ and that, because of those ‘reasons’ they just couldn’t help themselves by passing the traumas onto her! What utter bullshit! Does she really believe that? Yep! Hate to break it to you, readers, and to Joan, but people with the highest social standing that are well-educated and wealthy are just as capable of having ‘traumatic’ pasts and in passing it on to their children. Joan is well documented; in her own words, contempt for the poor, low- and middle-income classes of society. As a so-called ‘social worker’ she is extremely biased, not a good sign for being taken seriously.
Then she has the f…ing gall to state, pg 423, that ‘(her) sisters and brothers suffered serious, extended childhood trauma…that resulted in them imposing trauma on (her), not because they are evil, but because this was how their suffering affected them.’ Just what power does Joan have that she could KNOW about her siblings’ childhoods, so personally, when she was NOT THERE to share in them? What power does she have to make those kinds of statements? None! Its all for show! It is made-up, from Joan’s mind.
This kind of statement, which she uses throughout the book, is called projecting and subjectifying and making facts about things and people that she has no humanly means of assessing, unless of course, she possesses some divine nature! No, its just the same old rap that Joan is so fond of, that everyone suffers great trauma and NEVER gets over it and therefore their lives and every life they touch is tainted with trauma!! No Joan NEEDS this kind of assessment, because without it, she can’t use the excuse of ‘I have post traumatic stress disorder’ and she can’t blame her birth sisters! What utter Bullshit!
This is again another ‘variation on a theme’ that she talked about in question # 3. Why is she repeating herself and making up more numbers of questions? To fill pages, to make herself look important.
She states, pg 424, that ‘the danger of never knowing, is that medical history can be crucial in diagnosing and treating a variety of illnesses.’ Okay, sure, but you know what, there are all kinds of people that DON’T KNOW THEIR FAMILY’S MEDICAL HISTORY. In other words, adoptees are not SPECIAL or UNIQUE.
7) Is about the fact that she doesn’t resent the natural parent, for giving her up, but she resents the adoptive parents FOR adopting her! Seems like a good question to ask and if I was asked that question I probably would take a second look at my reasons for that resentment. But, there is only one Joan, thankfully, and she apparently doesn’t see how her resentments are actually HURTING her cause. It is unfortunate that she ‘got’ a set of parents that had many issues themselves and well you know…no one is perfect…and any parent, natural or adoptive, are going to have faults and issues that the child resents. Please Joan, take a number, stand in line…you are NOT SPECIAL or UNIQUE, you are just human.
Joan resents everyone related to her because she was adopted. No one can win here because Joan has decreed that all relatives ‘willfully’ and with malicious intent, kept her identity secret! God! What a horrible crime against humanity!!! This is pure over-kill! Would she rather be one of those billions of children that have NOTHING! Again, this is NOT a reason for adoption reform.
8) This attempts to answer the baffling questions of why she feels she has to be an ‘activist’ just because she had a bad experience, which doesn’t mean that all adoptees will have a negative experience and that she is just complaining. Again, real activists would NEVER use their own personal experiences as ‘proof’ that something needs to be changed because that is ‘self-serving’. Joan spends two full pages detailing, yet again, her ‘grievances’ in her usual indignant judgmental ways! No one listens to that for long and such does not change public opinions.
Pg 424 is a great example of the purpose behind this book and it ISN’T adoption reform! It is Joan’s way of having the ‘last word’ on the subject to all relatives, birth and adopted, ‘for sticking their noses into my private life, for judging me…for criticizing me for going public…for harassing me…and snubbing me…’ and god knows what else. And of course Joan doesn’t do any of these things herself to anyone else, because she is special and unique!
I wonder how Joan would like to have been born in a country where the state, the society, doesn’t give a damn about the citizen and in fact would throw the citizen into jail for any kind of questioning of their laws and institutions. What gives Joan the idea that ‘adoptees need validation of their innermost thoughts and feelings, yet society denies and contradicts these feelings.’? Since when are ‘innermost thoughts and feelings’ a social issue that NEEDS reform? I certainly don’t want any government messing around with my ‘innermost thoughts and feelings’. Again, this just points to Joan’s own conflicting ‘feelings’ about a social issue. As a so-called social worker she ought to be totally objective but obviously is NOT.
Joan uses this chapter to repeat her mantra…over and over again…boring! She lists and expressing again and again all her grievances against all relatives. She again claims that her ‘…siblings took matters into their own hands without respecting my two sets of parents and without respecting the limits and boundaries of the adoptee.’ I have said it before, Joan was of legal age and we siblings had every legal right to make contact with her. Why, does she blame the messenger! And she is repeating herself in this very chapter; she addressed this issue in question #2. Has she forgotten? No, she likes to repeat herself.
How does she expect the entire world to behave? Who makes the decision of when search and contact is correct, Joan, or the laws? She either has delusions of grandeur or she sees herself as the great liberator and savior of all adoptees, for she is ‘not satisfied, she is an advocate and activist because she cares that American citizens are denied their birthrights. She won’t stop until all adoptees have 100% unconditional and unrestricted access to their birth records! She won’t stop until our government ceases its practice of falsifying and sealing birth and adoption records of its citizens.’ She’s got a long wait!
And after she is done pontificating about her crusade of salvation she then launches into ‘lip service’ and platitudes. ‘My story is not one of happy endings. It is one to shed light on the human tragedy that results from a closed system.’ Have you seen the ‘light’ brother? Have you heard the savior?
9) Are you against adoption? Is the question and her answer is ‘in its present form yes’. Okay, she is entitled to her opinion. If she or anyone else is interested in changing the way anything is currently done they really ought to understand that the ‘presentation’ is half the battle. Joan’s presentation is full of angry bitter resentments given in condescending language and attitude…a huge turn off!
10) Addresses a very important issue. ‘I’m interested in adopting a child, but you make me afraid of adoption. What do you think of that?’ Joan’s answer is ‘Good. If I made you think, I’ve done my job.’ What a complete ass Joan is! She has no sense of human compassion or the comprehensive behind the many reasons why people adopt. She is only ONE ANGRY ADOPTEE AGAINST ADOPTION and this entire book IS her life and her justification of living. She wants everyone in the world to FEEL HER PAIN and she cares nothing for any other human being!
As I said in the first paragraph of this piece, there is no shred of ‘scientific’ or ‘social’ evidence to substantiate Joan’s claims for adoption reform. This chapter, as well as the entire book, is a totally self-serving piece of garbage and the author’s means of ‘having the last word and rant’. Certainly not a self-less reason for adoption reform!
One Comment
  1. Reblogged this on Reclaiming the Sippel-Herr Family Honor and commented:

    a reminder of what she says in the book

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: