I am not living a fate worse than death, although that's certainly the implication from a recent "Heroes Among Us" People magazine feature called, "One Mom's Mission: Help Others Adopt."
The Mom explains that she was motivated in her cause because she "can't live" with the idea of people living a childless life.
The heroine and I share one thing in common: neither of us could successfully conceive and deliver. We both had to come to terms with our grief and loss.
There is no express lane when to comes to reconciling infertility. Tomes have been written about the various options and the related emotional and financial gymnastics that ensue. There is no one-size-fits-all solution.
The heroine and her husband moved on to adoption while my husband and I came to the conclusion that fate had other plans for us -- what exactly we weren't sure but after nearly a decade of trying to create a family we were ready to find out.
Hmm. If ennobling adoption makes her a hero, then, conversely, does helping women move forward without children make me a goat?
Perhaps Kermit the Frog said it best: It's not easy being green -- or being someone who doesn't go on to parent after infertility. That's because the path is deemed unpalatable, deficient somehow.
How can I support such a claim? It's because I get emails -- lots of them from women who follow my various blogs and tweets -- who write about their turmoil, of feeling judged harshly, as one did last week, "Thank you for providing a forum and safe platform for all of us 'in hiding' on this issue."
"Safe?" "In hiding?" Yes, even I was surprised at these turns of phrase.
~~~
Pamela Tsigdinos is the author of the award-winning book, Silent Sorority.


Salon.com
Comments
We all know this, of course, but we all forget it too.
Nice essay.
@Jeanette: Likewise! We've come a loooonnnng way, haven't we?
Just because people gain from having children, doesn't mean that those who do not have children experience a commensurate loss, though many people with children apparently feel convinced it must be so.
Having kids gives a lot, but it changes/takes a lot too. It's ridiculous to think that everyone should or even could feel the same way about having children or not.
thx for the essay!
One thing that never gets discussed is how some people who followed that call to have children -- did so unwisely. I know a woman who in mid-life crisis throws at 45, had an egg donor baby with the sperm of an ex-boyfriend. Her life, as an older single woman of good education scraping by with menial jobs trying to support a child on her own, the child's relationship with his biological father and his family a confusing mess -- is not an enviable one. And it's unfortunate for the child.
As far as adoption goes -- two of my friends had to give up their children for adoption, so I know the painful side of a story that doesn't get talked about. International adoption also has its seamy underside. "A baby in every home" -- that's not necessarily the right answer, and I wish America could think in more creative terms.
I also adjusted to a life without parenting just fine on my own -- except for the propaganda that's unfortunately still streaming from mainstream media.
Parenthood, like marriage, is far-too romanticized in our culture. Baby's -- from a distance -- are irresistible, and I suspect that was part of God's plan for peopling this planet. And no doubt it is a great pleasure watching your child grow -- up to a point. But as I've said here many times, if the second ten years came first, there would be no second children.
"In a land where the river runs free
In a land through the green country
In a land to a shining sea
And you and me are free to be you and me"
Who knew I was so influenced by 1970s TV!?
@Tom: Thanks for your honesty. You're the 2nd person I know who has espoused the "cuteness" theory as a way to get more people on the planet. (My uncle said it first a few years back, after trying to manage his out-of-control toddler grandchild -- and wondering why anyone in their right mind had kids in the first place.)