Guest post from Gert McQueen, March 8, 2010 March 8, 2010Posted by Ruth in Uncategorized.
UPDATE here…from Gert
this post got some views today, Oct 4, 2015 and so I decided to add a thought or two and then share this.The date of this post is from 2010, when we first learned of Joan’s libelous book, that book was pulled from publication by the publisher. In June 2015 Joan rewrote and published an e-book version. I have answered several reviews of that book, on Amazon and started a discussion on the topic of the ‘forward’. More will be discussed. I have created a new blog and facebook page to answer the contents of this ‘new’ lying book.https://gertmcqueen2.wordpress.com/ ‘duped by adoption’ a book study
Back to the original post…
From Joan’s eldest birth sister Gert McQueen, second posting about her views on the book Forbidden Family, which she just received last week. for her first post see The Three Sippel Sisters
What are my reasons for speaking out about Joan’s book?
Because as members of the birth family we have our own anger and grief, from losing our mother, separation from a sibling, and dealing with life’s hurts, to having this sister speak out with such fabrications and lies, with hate and venom about our parents and ourselves. We feel that others, that have a more reasonable mindset, that are capable of seeing both sides of an issue, can judge rightly who presents the truer picture of Joan’s book, her or other family members.
There is a wisdom that states ‘you are the company you keep’ so we are not speaking to Joan’s friends for they only wish to see her side or they are in some way obnoxious in Internet behavior and speech with ‘in your face’ attitudes. I don’t answer that type of dialog.
Joan has been mistaken that we sisters would not care what she wrote. Her fantasy of making millions of $ off one of life’s miseries upon a couple of families is her sole reason for writing it, she also believed that there would be a movie made of it. To continue on with her fantasy she has misrepresented and abused both her families. So these are some of the reasons for commenting, publicly, because she made it public.
Going back to the book itself:
In Dr Rene Hoksbergen’s foreward he states that Joan’s book is about ‘reunion in progress’. Fact, it ceased to be a reunion due to the adoptee’s that is Joan’s own actions towards the birth family. He states ‘the adoptee…fulfills the cultural role she is expected to fulfill…to be a grateful and dependent person…’. Where is such a perception coming from? No one in the family said that Joan, the found sister, should be grateful or dependent. We were glad and joyful about knowing her and having found her. I truly question the Doctor’s assertion that ‘Joan’s account is a true description’. He never questioned me to learn about my perception on this matter. He is guilty of promoting a one-sided presentation of the ‘reunion in progress’.
In Joan’s why I wrote this book she says her purpose was ‘to increase awareness and influence social change so that no adoptee will be lied to again and that…go through what I went through…’ Okay admiral goals but to do so she has ‘exposed her life’. Hey!!She doesn’t live in a vacuum, other people have been exposed here and exploited by her ‘noble’ purposes. Why is it that Joan’s words are true, that is researched to verify the info but her ‘extended adoptive and natural relatives have their own…based on hearsay.’? A good portion of her research comes from second hand and hearsay and anecdotal stories gathered from some family members who had their own reasons for ‘coloring’ the truth about any situation or person. It is a known fact that in every family there are people who don’t like each other and tell all manner of tales against them. It is also a known fact that there are some of my mother’s brothers who did not like my father and have told Joan some stories that are colored by their dislike of my father. For Joan to print these opinions and present them as a true story is what I and my sisters are refuting.
She is correct in saying basically that not everyone connected to her knows everything, but, she makes a mistake when she says that as the adoptee, her memory is the truth. No! Truth is Truth and no one has a patent on it. Joan’s truth is not my truth.
On her memoir page, she has a quote of Huxley’s, she would have written a better book if she heard herself before the book went to print. A more apt quote by Huxley is:
“Irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors” from Science and Culture and other Essays, “The Coming of Age of the Origin of Species”
Her citing of the commandments are truly unfortunate, for her.
Honor Father and Mother: She really has no concept of what it means, all she can do is to expose, misrepresent them and humiliate them to all the world.
Bear false witness: My sisters and I are pointing out the false witness that she has through out the book.
The Oscar Wilde quote, points to her obsessive compulsion that the only life that matters is her own.
On the back cover of the book: Yes I can see how she ‘protects the id’s of the natural family. Where is the picture of her adoptive family, why is this so one-sided, exploit one family but not the other.
And oh so much mellow-drama, ‘secrets traded across’ and ‘she had to be silenced’. Sounds like a movie poster!
Her use of mixing fictuous names with real names is so confusing. What method did she use, death or permission or capriousness? Her use of actual documents also makes it real easy to find out real names anyway, they are all public documents, so marking off names and dates is stupid.
You know contracting Joan, when she was 18, was probably not the wisest decision I ever made. But hell, shit happens! Actually we siblings all wanted to and it fell to me because I am the oldest. Before any action was taken to contact her I spoke with an attorney and an adoption agency and was told that there is no law against a sibling contacting another sibling that was placed for adoption. She was 18 and we were told that it was alright to make contact. It is the natural parent that was not to make the contact.
On pg 5 she misrepresents: We did not know that mom was pregnant, we were little kids, I knew she was fat. I didn’t know pregnant and neither would an 8, 6 or 3 year old know it.
On pg 6 she lies: she says she never came home from the hospital. Wrong. She lived with relatives of our mother. I saw her many times, I have memories of the infant and her baptism.
On pg 7 she lies: chain letter what the hell! we never did that.
Certainly I can not comment on the family that adopted her I only met them a few times but I had made my own opinions from observations and they don’t fall far from the brief discription of them on pg 19/20.
I do remember witnessing exchange between Joan and her adoptive mother who was making cloths for her and I though I wish I had a mother that did that kind of things for me. My mother did make our cloths and was a homemaker, I remember her vividly. But I lost her when I was nine.
that’s all for now