Reported post on "our"

I just read through the thread and did notice that everyone else referred to "our baby's bmom" or DD's bmom, etc. Except for the one who said "our social worker" (Yeah, I know, that doesn't have the same emotional power.) Seriously though, I will talk to Janey. I've been trying to think how else you could describe her: the emom who has chosen us to parent her baby (trwhcutphb for short?)

This is frustrating for me - because I honestly see some folks embracing the 'victimization' so much that they can't see past the words to read the message. There are a lot of words used by women who placed (or were forced to place) during the "BSE" that can be and are hurtful for others.If we got to the point where we limited everything said on the forums so that no one would be offended, we'd have 100 daily threads about the weather - and even that would be heavily moderated. There HAS to be some willingness to read and understand that while the words may be a trigger for you - they aren't said as an intended trigger. If someone were saying it and meaning it the way that Janey is taking it (to imply ownership) then I think that person needs to be educated a bit more on adoption - and I think that's part of why the community is here - to do just that.But more often than NOT - it isn't said that way, it isn't mean to imply ownership - people use the "our (insert whatever here)" to talk about a number of things.Our therapist.Our gardener.Our pastor.Our mechanic.Personally - I would be MORE triggered by (and often am, to the point that I have to walk away some times) by "The Birthmom".It's very possible (and even likely) that the alternative to "our birthmom" would be something even less appealing. Like "The Birthmom"Talk about depersonalization of someones role in the adoption triad. I think we've taken the language 'fight' as far as we're going to take it - the birth mothers on the forums are the only ones who have an auto-censor in the system for the initials for birth mom - again, another case where someone took someones well intended message and read what they wanted and in the end, got the censor - I'm not sure it's a decision I would have made personally - I think that we could have dealt with the actual issue on a more one on one basis.Like if someone posted "'she's a bee emm in more ways than one!" - that is being hurtful.Posting, "I am looking for my bee emm" is not - and in fact, the attacks resulting from the bee emm usage is often so hostile, I'm shocked people even come back from time to time.Anyway - sorry - tangent. No, we won't be amending our badges to say "Language Police" - sorry.

Case in point: [url]http://forums.adoption.com/search-reunion-stories/369231-reunited-callie.html[/url]Read this thread - it's FULL of language that adoptive parents (and even adoptees) might find hurtful and offensive.It's all about how you read it - as well as your ability to 'tune in' to where they are coming from.People don't post stuff to be mean or hurtful - usually they post it out of lack of education or understanding how their words might be hurtful.That is why its Ok to open dialogue with someone regarding their language and talk to them about it - but usually, that isn't what happens - it's a full on attack :(Anyway - I just wanted to show that the language goes both ways.I shudder to think about what would happen if an adoptive parent or even an adoptee tried to 'educate' that user.

Well, I hope they wouldn't do it on the thread itself. I mean, she's happy to be in reunion and to me it's not the place for it.But ya...it's everywhere and that's why I said I wasn't going to be posting a forum reminder on the "our". I wonder if Janey has truly given it any thought in regards to "the" and how that would make her feel "less than"? (just based on her personality, that's how I imagine it would feel to her)

On the other hand, at least I've convinced her to report the post rather than attack within the thread! I do spend time with her trying to get her to see things in different ways, honest!