In my Friday post about the Real Housewives of D.C., I wrote about Stacie's search for her birth mom, and I was kind of annoyed, so I was a little scathing. I was thinking about it today when I was looking for information about the Salahis, and I thought I would do a quick expansion of what I was thinking.
This is what I wrote:
"She's selfish," say Stacie's friends, and Stacie says that it would "rock" her birth mother's world if people knew she had a black child. But Stacie has a right to know, dammit. Everyone cries about the selfishness of this woman who didn't get an abortion some time in the 1960s and just wants not to have her husband get mad at her.
That sounds really harsh.
I still mean that for whatever reason, Stacie's birth mom carried a baby she knew she couldn't keep to term and gave her to an obviously amazing family - Stacie received an expensive education and seems to have started life with all the possible gifts of family support, culture and strong priorities.
And I do understand Stacie's desire to meet both her birth mother and birth father.
However, I have to say that my respect for Stacie's feelings does not equate to agreement with her stance. It no doubt feels to Stacie that her mother is being selfish in not telling her family about Stacie and not revealing Stacie's father's name.
That said, Stacie's mother already has made clear what she was willing to do for her daughter. What she was willing to do was carry her to term and give her to another family.
There were issues that caused this woman to give up the child: perhaps issues with race, with her relationship with the father, with the times, and with her own future. They are perhaps issues that might not matter if the pregnancy happened today - people had different value systems back thirty or forty years ago.
However, the issues might matter; who is to say whether this was a case of forbidden love or something different altogether? We aren't standing in that woman's shoes.
Stacie found her and the woman was willing to talk to her. I don't really know whether Stacie likes this woman at all; it sounds as if she is only reluctantly keeping her secret. Obviously, the woman was curious about the daughter she gave up.
However, she has repeatedly told Stacie that she doesn't want to reveal the name of Stacie's birth father. Perhaps she is concerned that he will step in and wreak havoc in her own life. Perhaps she is worried that her husband will find out. Perhaps she is worried about the life of the birth father? Perhaps there is another story that no one knows about?
I just think to label someone as "selfish" for keeping her part of a bargain made all those years ago and expecting other people to also keep that bargain is a bit unfair. She made a deal that worked for the conditions of her life and for Stacie's life many years ago, and to expect her now, in her old age, to uncover this to other people whose lives would also be damaged seems unfeeling in itself.
Stacie "wants," but she has no right to "expect." It would be a wonderful thing if her birth mother felt comfortable opening her life to Stacie and giving Stacie her full history. She's not required to do so, though - and berating her (albeit as an unknown entity) on television seems mean and unfeeling - despite the fact that Stacie herself said that it would be a "scandal" for her mother.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You write that Stacie's mother kept her part of the bargain,but in Stacie's case she did not have a choice nor was she part of a bargain. Her mother carried her to term, well good for her. She gave her up because she did not want her family nor the father to know because he was black.
I believe that Stacie's mother should not have let Stacie into her life without expecting her to want to know how she came to be.
Stacie has just as much right to try and find both her parents as her mother has the right to keep her secret all these years.
I actually agree completely with you that if her mother had really wanted to keep the secret, she should not have allowed Stacie to contact her (if in fact she did ALLOW Stacie to contact her).
That said, she also seems to have laid down the law about how much information she is willing to give.
Stacie certainly has the right to pursue her birth parents, and while she certaily has the right to hope and wish that her mother will give her the name of her father, it's not an entitlement.
I just mean that while we all want things, it doesn't mean we get them. This woman doesn't really owe Stacie anything more than she's given her - the fact that Stacie didn't get a say in the bargain doesn't mean that there wasn't one.
I also am unclear about whether Stacie found her without any precursor or whether she allowed herself to be found. If the mother allowed herself to be found - if, say, someone contacted her and said that her daughter was trying to locate her, and she called Stacie, then she's just a fool to do so without expecting any questions or expectations of embracement.
If Stacie contacted her out of the blue and she was taken by surprise - then it's all on Stacie. I don't mean that Stacie was at fault - just that she can't expect the woman to give her all of the answers she wanted.
In a perfect world, Stacie would get her answers. In a perfect world, this woman would not have to feel shame - and not just about race, but also about 1960s morality and expectations.
There are a lot of questions that, if clarified, could probably shape my views differently. But I do stand by my belief that to call this woman selfish is to be unfairly judgmental of the set of expectations she had for her own life - and more than that, doesn't pave the way to warm, fuzzy giving away of information.
It's a sad situation all around.
Post a Comment