jump to navigation

Why does Joan Wheeler not answer our specific claims against her? by Gert McQueen November 24, 2010

Posted by Ruth in Joan Wheeler Speak - how Joan views the world, Lies in the book Forbidden Family, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

She isn’t interested in answering claims against her because she is and has already been the accuser, the witness, the jury, the judge and the executioner and we, and others, should have already been dead! Not once has Joan answered us, she only can scream ‘they are harassing me, get them away from me’.

Joan’s usual way of doing business is to lash out at anyone who crosses her and when they come back to her with their objections, Joan then screams things like ‘they are picking on me…they hate me…they harass me…they abused me…they tramatize me…’ and then she works on some ‘friend’ or ‘professional’ to get them on her side and gets them to speak to those nasty people that are harassing her or traumatizing her.

I’m going to give a sneak preview here on what’s in Chapter 35 of Joan’s book…oh yes, I’ve been busy and everything will be posted on this refutting blog in due time, but in the meanwhile…I want people to know that Joan has a long history of violating people…and how Joan has tramatized herself.

The following, in a different type face (bold)  is from my writing of Chapter 35 of the vile book, that has not been seen yet on this blog. The first paragraph comes early in this chapter, the other two paragraphs later in the chapter. The events of Joan’s relationship with this man takes place between April 2006 to May 2007 so it is recent history in Joan’s life and she still has not learned a damm thing and still insists that she is right everyone else is wrong, when clearly she ought have her head examined.  

I wonder if Joan got PERMISSION from the person, in this bizarre story, to tell ALL when he particularly said HE DIDN’T WANT TO BE IN THE BOOK! On pg 434, she relates an exchange wherein he specifically says ‘I don’t want people to know my private life…’ but she ignores that and tells all anyway! Does anyone know who this guy is so that he can be told that Joan violated his privacy as she has with everyone in her families?

And her assessment of the situation, ‘…if he had sought counseling none of this would have happened…why was I (her) paying the price for his violence…’ and then she launches into a rant instead of any reasonable social work account. When she finally has given way to her rage she tells us why he is in the book. ‘Yes, he earned a place in this book right along with the other examples of prejudice against adoptees – against – me – to be remembered for all the wrong reasons.’ So there you have it! This is the purpose of this book…to show everyone who hurt her that she will give them a place in this book…the book is just a place for her to vent her rage! And this helps adoption reform HOW?

Joan says on pg 453, ‘Many people can’t stop blaming me for their inner turmoil.’ Excuse me!!! Is this the great wisdom of a wise and experienced social worker? What kind of idiots does Joan Wheeler think people are? Other people’s inner turmoil has NOTHING to do with Joan. It is Joan’s inner turmoil that Joan OUGHT TO BLAME. And this book is to help adoption reform HOW?

And so if any friend of Joan’s out there who thinks they can get Joan to stop or shut up or get us sisters to go away think again because Joan will use you just has she has used everyone else in her life. Joan is a sick person and no sick person gets the right to tells filthy lies about me and my family and get away with it.

Facts are Stubborn Things Part 4 November 10, 2010

Posted by Ruth in Contradictions of Joan Wheeler, Joan Wheeler Speak - how Joan views the world, Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family, Lies in the book Forbidden Family, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

Facts are Stubborn Things Part 4
by Gert, with an introduction and additional comments by Ruth

Ruth:
On pages 218-220, Joan tells us she received an outlined letter from Gert and types out the letter on those pages. This letter is highly suspect. Certain things in this outline letter just don’t jive with the facts of the events that happened at the time. What I have done, is type out EXACTLY what Joan has in the book, and have included Gert’s answers, point by point.

Gert starts her post out by addressing Joan’s accusation that she wrote Joan a letter after child abuse was called on her about her daughter.

Gert:
Did I write a letter to Joan? Yes I did. Did I write the one, in outline form, that Joan presents on pg 218, no I did not. First the reader ought to go over various parts in Joan’s narrative of how and what kind of language her adoptive mother uses when describing things. One notices a pattern of language and angry responses that are typical only of that mother. Joan has me saying words and expressing myself in ways that I never have and still don’t do or use today. To the best of my memory I wrote one letter to Joan. And don’t forget, I left Buffalo in 1982 never to return. I didn’t get a damm about Joan so why should I have continued to harass her, let alone her mother. Unlike Joan I had a life to live, a job to go to, children to support and I wanted nothing to do with her, ever… facts are stubborn things.

Joan says that her mother said I kept calling her, not true. I called to tell the woman what Joan did to me, but what does Joan tell her mother, its about what Gert did to Joan. It’s all about Joan. She is ‘boiling mad with rage at (my) insensitivity in badgering her mother at this time’. (when Ed died). Excuse me! Joan can destroy my family, take my child away from, label me a child abuser, and then have the gal to say I’m insensitive!

Ruth: Now here is the outline letter that Joan alleges Gert wrote. Each numbered point is followed by Gert’s response in blue. Ruth’s notes are in italic.

Gert (supposedly) to Joan, in 1981. (but the incident with Karen was not until 1982 – again we see Joan plays fast and loose with dates).

1. I’m sorry your father died.
1. I don’t recall ever knowing when her adoptive father died. I didn’t write to express my sympathy.

2. You have no business butting into my family life the way you did. How dare You. Beth (Karen) is perfectly safe here. She just doesn’t want to follow family rules.
2.  true, if the child obeys house rules there are no problems. It is not up to Joan to decide whether or not my house rules are up to standard.

3. Karen has no problems relating to family. She joined a club at school in which there is a mother, a father, and all club members are sisters and brothers. I told her I didn’t like it. I told her that I’m her real mother, her brother is her real brother and she has a stepfather. She sees her real father on a regular basis.
3. This is purely Joan-speak.

4. Karen doesn’t like it that I divorced her father so that’s why she’s hanging with this club at school. She insists that this school is her family.
4. again a form of Joan-speak, redundant

5. Now, because of you my daughter was removed from our home and now I have to prove to the court I am a good mother! It will take months, if at all, that I get my daughter back! You meddling, controlling fucking bitch!
5. true it was because of Joan that my daughter was taken away from me. If Joan did not harbor a run away there would have been no problem.

6. And to think I loved you enough to find you! You have been nothing but trouble since I met you. You don’t drive and I have to pick you up and drive you wherever we go together.  You say the wrong things all the time.
6. Joan-thoughts. I never said anything about her not driving and that I have to pick her up etc She really does have a problem with this issue of her not driving, but I never said this. (Ruth’s note: please see my detailed note below about the issue of Joan not driving).

7. You try to fit in but you are an outsider. You were not raised with us so you have different ways of thinking.
7. guilty, its true

8. We are street kids, we think on our feet. (Ruth’s note: another dig against the Sippel Sisters – all over the book, Joan portrays us as inner city ghetto white trash.)
8. never said such a thing. I was not raised as a street kid, I was raised in the country (foster home) and have country values; values that Joan knows not. (Ruth’s note: I also was raised in the same foster home with country values – which included manners, and to respect people, something that Joan, who was raised in a better-off suburb was never taught).

9. You are a sheltered, naive, spoiled little brat who got everything you ever wanted (Ruth’s note: and Joan herself admits this several times in the book).
9.guilty, its true

10. I told you I like the finer things in life and now you’ve gone and ruined my life! You are cruel to turn me into the authorities. And for what? Because you don’t think that Roy should adopt Mark? I told you, I told you repeatedly that it is none of your business what we do in our house! No, we don’t care that Mark’s birth certificate will be changed! He’s 14, he knows who he is!
10.  What? Finer things in life? What the hell does that have to do with what I am angry over? Yes, guilty, it is and never was any of her business about anything within my family including my son’s adoption.

11. And no, Roy doesn’t want to adopt Karen because she doesn’t show any love or respect for him. We don’t care about adoption laws and we don’t care that I have to sign relinquishment papers so that Roy can adopt Mark. This is our business and not yours!
11.  wrong, wrong, wrong. Joan has said this same kind of shit in this book about other members of the family because she was adopted out, no one loved her. Bullshit! There never was any question about love and respect about adopting or not adopting my daughter, this is pure Joan speak and it is totally untrue. Signing relinquishment is a Joan speak and a Joan issue. True, it’s our business never hers.(Ruth’s note: what Gert says here is absolutely true – Jim (Roy) wanted to adopt BOTH kids – but Karen wanted to retain her biological father’s last name. She loves that name. Even years later after she divorced her husband, she went back to using this last name).

12. We had to throw you out of our apartment because you made a big deal out of the birth certificate thing! I don’t care! Adoption is YOUR problem, not mine!
12.true.

13. While I’m on the topic, don’t say anything more to me about adoption! I should have left you alone where you were. I would have been better off without you! We all would have been better off without ever knowing you!
13. probably true

14. So Roy and I go camping and swimming in the nude. Big deal! We take Mark and Karen with us and Mark is fine taking off his clothes. Karen doesn’t want to do it and she thinks we are forcing her. We are communing with nature, as a family, and she is the one who doesn’t want to conform to a family structure. And you have to interfere.
14.  a form of Joan speak, I wouldn’t have gotten into this with her. She is the one who is hang-up on the skinning dipping issue. Again, that was a family issue not hers.

15. I see no reason why you had to go to the authorities! You took my daughter away from me! — Look at everything I have done for you! You ungrateful, conniving, little bitch!
15. true but I wouldn’t have continued on with it.

16. I can kill you for what you’ve done! Me and Roy, look out Joanie, because we are gonna pay you back for what you’ve done!
16. purely Joan speak, was I mad as hell, of course, but the give away is that I never called her Joanie!
Ruth:
No Gert, the give-away that this outline letter is concoted by Joan (probably using some of the real letter Gert wrote and then “Embellishment by Joan”) is the telling fact that I, Ruth, am not mentioned ONCE in this letter. Go back and read Facts are Stubborn Things Part 3  where Gert tells what happened in 1982 from her perspective. She says over and over again that it was Joan AND Ruth who were to blame for her family being split apart. So if Gert wrote this letter, she would not be only blaming Joan, but both “Ruth and Joan,” and she would be wording it “You and Ruth.”

And what’s with all the exclamation points? Nobody writes a letter like that. This is just Joan’s blowing EVERYTHING up!!!!

Now as to the subject of Joan “not driving.” This is pure nonsense. Joan says in her book that she learned to drive “at the late age of 22 (1978). On page 211, we are in the time frame of the winter of 1981-1982,(and this outline letter was supposedly sent a few days after Joan’s father’s death on February 15, 1982). On page 211, Joan makes this statement, while describing DRIVING to the hospital to visit her father: “At one point, I made a wrong turn one block away from the hospital and got stuck in a snowdrift for an hour and a half.”

To back up a bit: in May of 1981, I moved from the West Side of Buffalo to the East Side. While I was living on the West side, Gert lived only 2 blocks from me. There was a neighborhood movie theatre and in the early part of 1980, they were showing the Charlton Heston/Stephanie Zimbalist movie “The Awakening.” It’s about the re-awakening of an ancient Egyptian Queen. As Gert, Joan and I shared a love of Ancient Egypt, we all went to see it, at a late night showing. When the movie ended, Gert and I WALKED home and Joan DROVE home. Joan had a car – mommy and daddy bought it for her.

When I moved to the East Side in 1981, Joan visited me there and DROVE there. What we have here is Joan mixing up events again. Perhaps Gert had said something to her about not having the time to always drive her around when we first met her in 1974. Because in 1974, I didn’t drive yet either. But by 1980 – Joan WAS driving and was most definitely driving in the winter of 1981-82, because she says so in her book on page 211. So why the hell would Gert write this? Answer: Gert did NOT write this – JOAN wrote this – to make Gert look like the villian here. For shame Joan. And once again, we see that when a chronic liar keeps lying – the thing that trips them up is they can’t keep the lies straight! It’s too much to remember what lie was told, what version of the “facts” were told on one day, and what version of the “facts” were told on another day. Perhaps one day Joan will finally learn to tell the truth and stick to the REAL facts – because whether Joan likes it or not, FACTS ARE STUBBORN THINGS.

Gert – November 10, 2010

As I reread this section I realized that I could have said alot more about that letter..alas…there is so much to say so little time to spend on Joan…truth is by the time I had gotten to that ‘outline’ in the book I was burning out…Joan does have that tendency on people, and I wanted to be done with that chapter.

I do want to say that Joan does have me speaking words and phrases that I don’t use and while I certainly so swear I don’t usually call people a bitch or worst as Joan has me saying in the book.

I wrote about this chapter back in april and since then I have read, thought about, and written much more of the book and I’ve gotten to know Joan alot more than I ever wanted to know her. I’ve come to see how she writes, thinks, what favorite words and phrases she uses and most importantly, her world view and how she projects onto others and puts words in their mouths.

So I could say more about that outline but, enough for the moment…there’s lots more coming..

oh and btw, Joan…give me the book!

Evil is as Evil Does – Joan Wheeler needs to learn that doing evil eventually has it’s consequences. October 14, 2010

Posted by Ruth in Contradictions of Joan Wheeler, Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family, Lies in the book Forbidden Family, mental illness, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

Is it my imagination or does Joan seem to like to report on violence? She seems to revel in the violence around her.
Her book is littered with stories of violence – her mother throws pots and pans at her – her mother is always screaming at her – Joan actually gives her mother the finger, says Fuck You to her and even jabs the finger in her mother’s face – all this in the car while meek little Edward is driving. Joan is beat up by her black boyfriend in college. Joan is beat up by her boyfriend after she leaves her husband. Joan devotes a whole chapter – 24 pages – to a relationship with another violent man named Jimmy. She doesn’t say that this guy ever hit her, but she describes verbal abuse, psychotic behavior, and this guy even hit his dog twice in front of her! She writes that she was frightened by him a few times – but she stays with this loser for an entire year! Unbelievable!

Gert names her last post Psychodrama, Joan Wheeler’s book Forbidden Family – Personal psychodrama, lies and other things that don’t belong in a book. and she is correct – Joan and her mother are definitely psychotic. On page 132 Joan relates that her parents go with her to a public meeting of adoptees and Dorothy Wheeler stands up and starts screaming at the adoptees and ends up throwing a folding chair at the speaker. You don’t treat a fellow human being like that. And this is coming from a middle-aged devout Catholic woman? Who goes to church all the time?

This is sick. Sick. Sick. What kind of grown woman starts screaming at a public meeting and throws a chair at another human being? Listen folks, even with all the stuff that my sisters and I have blogged about Joan, (and much more, and much worse to come), yes, we may have raised our voices to Joan, but violence? NEVER! We weren’t raised like that. But the Wheelers are sick sick sick – Edward was a henpecked man, dominated by a violent, screeching, contradictory, alcoholic woman. Joan grew up to be the same way. Alcoholic, screaming, screeching, dominating, contradictory, and both women are liars to the Nth degree. Both women treat other people like dirt and see no wrong in it.

Not only are both women alcoholic and violent, Joan seems to revel in this behavior in herself. And true to her contradictory nature, condemns her mother for the alcoholism and violence, but actually seems proud of these behaviors in herself. And in the chapter about the psychotic boyfriend, she relates how she was coming drunk every night. (what a role model for her children). AND she relates an event of drunk driving by herself! She says she was ashamed of this, but somehow, I doubt it. If she was coming home drunk every night – she must have been driving drunk every night. Where was the money coming from for all this alcohol? I thought she was so poor?

Joan has been an alcoholic since the 1980’s – my husband John, his cousin Joyce, and I witnessed her drunk at my house several times – and she was driving. At one time, she showed up at my house at 5am and woke everybody up! Joyce’s little girls, Joy and Meghan, aged 10 and 6 were woken up by this screaming drunk lunatic! John, Joyce and I rarely drank. The girls were not used to this – they were scared! Joyce was pissed. I threw my arms up in disgust! I told John “that’s your “friend”, you take care of her – I’m going back to bed.”

And Joan has the nerve to say she is a therapist and social worker, then sees no wrong in her behavior. In fact she revels in her “wrong behavior.” For example – Joan has a little internet icon that says 333 and she writes – “I’m only half evil.”

Is this how Joan views herself? What a thing to say about one’s self! Half-evil or Full-evil – it doesn’t matter. If Joan is saying this about herself, if this is how she views herself, she must have a very low self-esteem.  And being on the receiving end of Joan’s lies and misdeeds, I believe Joan is FULL-EVIL. And that is disgusting, because EVIL is not the right way to live. EVIL has its consequences.

Joan may even label herself as an “angry adoptee,” but does that give her the right to treat other people like dirt? To trample on their human rights? How does being an angry adoptee give her the right to browbeat her adoptive mother? Or to treat other people the way she does?

Joan says on one internet post: “We adoptees all feel that way! Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Both families will criticize you, both will love you, and you will have contradictory feelings for all of them throughout the rest of your life. It IS crazymaking! That is why adoptees are often in mental health therapy because the situations themselves cause the mental confusion. What you feel is real and cannot be denied. It took me way too long to realize, and trust, that I belong HERE. My two families see it their way and can’t quite see another point of you — that is because none of them are adopted.”

No, I wasn’t adopted. And from what I can see about being adopted, there is still NO EXCUSE FOR BEING A DISRESPECTFUL IDIOT! BEING ADOPTED IS NO EXCUSE TO TREAT PEOPLE LIKE DIRT THE WAY JOAN HAS TREATED ME AND MY SISTERS AND OTHER PEOPLE!

As for the mental health therapy – THAT STILL IS NO EXCUSE FOR TREATING PEOPLE LIKE DIRT!

Joan may label adoption as a bad thing that happened to her. Her mother died when she was an infant. Well, guess what? MY mother died too. I was only 3 years old. Bad things things happen to people, but whining about it year after year, and saying to the world “poor, poor, pitiful me,” isn’t going to stop life. It’s one thing to acknowledge that a bad thing happened to you. It’s also ok to acknowledge that family members, yes, even parents, are not perfect, and if you can’t get along, or the relationship is detrimental to your self-being and self-worth, than it’s ok to cut the ties. You can leave an avenue open for communication to that person, and take the relationship day by day, or not. But I’m not going to let a detrimental relationship hold me back from living. Or turn into a chronic victim and whiner like Joan. And just because you don’t get along with someone, you don’t have the right to lie about them and try to destroy their reputation or their life. I am surprised that Joan’s therapist hasn’t told her all this!

Now hold on – in the chapter about her violent boyfriend, she says she is a therapist. – And she in therapy herself! Methinks Joan is waaaay screwed up – how can you be a therapist when you are in therapy yourself? Joan keeps saying she’s a social worker, she volunteered for suicide prevention, yet threatens suicide on an adoption forum because of my blog!

Oh puh-leaze! She’s permamently disabled, remember? She says she’s on SSI, remember? So how is she working as a therapist or a social worker? As for the suicide threats – she’s been doing that since the early 80’s – it’s just another attention ploy.  And if she IS giving therapy to people, while being unemployed and on SSI – she is guilty of 2 crimes – practicing medicine without a license – or it’s equivalent in the social work field, AND working while telling the government that she CANNOT work – otherwise known as FRAUDULENTLY COLLECTING GOVERNMENT BENEFITS!  Whatever she’s doing – God help those who seek her out for therapy – she will screw them up worse than they already are.

And she loves to pull out the stops and play the victim and tell people that because of this blog, she is “going inside herself again,” she is “falling apart,” and she’s “being driven to suicide,” This is merely to gain sympathy.

The only reason she wants sympathy due to my blog is not because we are trashing her – but because we are telling the truth about us, our family and about her. If Joan can write lies about us, we can write the truth about her. And Joan is terrified that the true evil of herself  is coming out for the world to see.

Joan Wheeler’s book Forbidden Family – Personal psychodrama, lies and other things that don’t belong in a book. October 14, 2010

Posted by Ruth in Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family, Lies in the book Forbidden Family, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

 By Gert McQueen, written April 22, 2010

‘Three things cannot be hidden, the sun, the moon and the truth.’…Buddha

 Chapter 15, as Joan is ‘preparing for Liverpool’, to see our sister who lives there, she tells us about meeting our father at work. I’ve addressed this in another post, but for accuracy sake and setting the record straight again, she misrepresents our father’s work situation. He was not a machinist, didn’t work in south Buffalo, at this time, 1976, he worked at the City Hall of Buffalo NY as a civil engineer and part-time at Sears as a sales representative. Our father’s natural way of discussing things is in a straightforward way and yes at times he can be abrupt. I am also that way, as I believe Ruth is. Joan does not understand straightforwardness or abrupt ways of talking that leaves no opportunity for argument. She only knows a sick sense of drama within life, one of arguments and tearing each other up and she got that from having been raised with hatred, rage and paranoia. This is why she ‘didn’t know how to relate to my father’ and many other types of statements that she has put in this book.

 We, the readers, are again subjected to Joan’s inner turmoil and negative self-talk as well as the adoptive family’s torments, paranoia and rage. Is it no wonder that these three people, Joan and the adoptive parents of Edward and Dorothy Wheeler have the medical issues that they had in 1976 and that have plagued them all their lives? This family is a sick, sick, sick family that feed on each other, over and over again. I can’t imagine witnessing a scene such as is on pg 132, adoptive mother throwing a chair at a leader of a public meeting of adoptees. see post Evil is as Evil Does – Joan Wheeler needs to learn that doing evil eventually has it’s consequences.

Why is it in this book? Is it good for sales?

 pg 133 tell us about Joan’s beginning wakeup call that comes with an interracial coupling, that she embarked on, without giving full attention to anything remotely related to the suitable compatibility nor any attention to the real possibility of the violent nature that such a relationship could bring. She should have ended it when she had the chance. Idealism doesn’t work in the real world! Oh yes being the only white woman in a black ghetto can be a wakeup call! But when I tried to tell her to think, I was all wrong! Joan Wheeler – Forbidden Family Chapter 14 – Refutted!   Ruth’s note – Joan states on page 133, regarding Manuel’s mother: “I admired the strength of his mother, a blind woman, who loved her children fiercely and raised them well despite the hardships.”         Excuse me, this woman did NOT do a well job of raising her TWELVE children! They were living in a slum tenement with cockroaches all over the place – and how did she raise her son – to beat up his girlfriend?  And she was blind! With TWELVE kids! I don’t mean to put down a blind poor woman, but obviously her handicaps prevented her from protecting her children from insects and raising her son not to be a batterer with a violent temper.

     Also on page 133 Joan says she marveled at the irony of the condition of an albino black man. What is there to marvel at? Why is she even mentioning this? Why is she mentioning the physical appearance of another human being? Does she marvel at a person who can’t see or hear? Or someone with Down’s Syndrome? Or a white person with red hair? How about a Native American woman with braids? Why the need to marvel at anyone’s physical condition?

 Got news for you Joan – blacks, albinos included, are simply PEOPLE. THIS is why her inter-racial relationship failed, because at her young age, and her being raised in the lily-white suburbs, never learned to see beyond the pigmentation of a person’s skin. No matter how much lip service she gives to wanting “equality for all people,” this little statement shows just what a bigot she really is. I mention Manuel’s mother’s blindness only because I am refuting Joan’s sentence that this woman raised her children well. In my opinion, she did not. Her son’s violence proves my point. 

Then we are subjected to more of the self-induced medical traumas that Joan has, throughout her life, because of her life-style of anger, hate and resentments. She has recurring bladder-kidney infections and wonders if they are related to genetics via our mother. If she ‘cleaned up’ her act and stopped the anger and hate the infections would have cleared out, but she doesn’t see the connection.

“Vibration can calm you down or drive you crazy. It is the primordial essence of creation by which we create and re-invent our lives. Even our thoughts generate vibrational effects. Positive thoughts can inspire you and motivate you to be more than you are, while negative thoughts can depress you and generate dis-ease. ” –  Dick Sutphen

Then she states, on pg 134, that ‘…and a permission note from my natural father, we secured my deceased mother’s hospital records, as well as my hospital birth records.’ This is a lie and has been brought out in other posts by Ruth. Joan’s Insistence on Not Letting Our Mother Rest When our father found out that Joan got hold of the medical records he was furious. We don’t know what the records state about our mother’s stay in the hospital and so I’m stating that Joan’s presentation is highly suspect. Her presentation is full of hype; it sells books! Isn’t that what she is after in writing it, to sell books and make money! Not to present truth.

In Liverpool, now meeting her sister Kathy, on pg 138 she says ‘…I rubbed my thumbs and fingers against (her fingers) as our hands were locked tightly and our eyes stared at each other with tears of joy falling with each blink.’ Gee, I wonder, did she get any uncomfortable feelings here as she did with our brother or myself? Pg 143/144 she says ‘…we settled in for the night and crawled into (her) queen size bed. Mixed feelings came over me…like sisters…we stayed up in the dark…’

I, myself, in 2000, visited London, for religious/cultural business, and took a train across the island to see Kathy. I too shared her bed and we stayed up all night, but I only had 24 hours to be with her.

Pg 145/146 she says ‘…a nightmare, I screamed for her to hold me, I sobbed as my big sister cradled me in her arms…I missed being cuddled by my older sisters and brother…I was ashamed, stunned, by my own behavior…’ She then says that 15 years later, after learning about adoption psychology, she learnt that her need to be held was normal. So if this is the case, why does she state, as I brought out in a previous post, that my ‘affection and embrace’ to her were ‘sexual’? And did I really tell her not to speak about it? Or is that just another one of her attempts to make Gert the bad guy and sell lots of books?

 I asked Kathy to make some comments about this and another Liverpool visit of Joan’s: see her statement for more misrepresentations by Joan. Kathy Inglis’ answers to Joan Wheeler’s caricature of her in the book Forbidden Family

Pg 155 she tells us about the violence in her relationship with the black guy, he beat her several times. Now it is ‘…an unhealthy relationship due to his violent temper, society’s racial prejudice and my growing fear that I’d lose both my families if I kept up this mixed race relationship.’ She’s learnt something! I know about domestic violence, been there, and it does take a long time to learn and gain courage to ‘get out’, so I’m not without sympathy here, only pointing out here that I did try to warn her.

Pg 157/158, Joan relates a visit, Sept 77, with my father’s wife where she learns that Dad is going to adopt one of his stepdaughters. Here is the first time she uses her newfound militaristic crusade against anyone who gives up a child, on paper, to adopt the same child, but she is a tad shy yet. She states that she was ‘…told some rather unusual news…Dad was to adopt his step-daughter…quite a shock…step-mother said

she would have to sign papers giving up her legal right to her own daughter, just so Dad could adopt her.’ Then Joan gives her learned opinion ‘…didn’t think this was correct procedure, wasn’t sure, maybe she signed paper giving permission, didn’t seem right that a divorced/remarried mother would have to relinquish her child, would she lose all parental rights…we were both so upset that we cried.’

Ruth’s note: this makes no sense. Ginette is Eastern Orthodox, and was raised in Europe by a Greek father. She is of the “old school.” She had two girls from her first husband whom she divorced. In 1970, she and my father got married by civil ceremony. In 1980, she wanted to get married in the church. In order to do this, she had to have her first marriage annulled. In the spring of 1980, she and my father went to New York City to present their case to the Archbishop of the Greek Orthodox Church. The annulment was granted. My father and Ginette did get married in the Greek Orthodox Church where they were parishioners. 

A casualty of the annulment was that in the eyes of the church, my stepsisters, Mariel and Joselyne were deemed as illegitimate. My stepmother calmly told me that she didn’t like that, but it was necessary so that she could now be not “damaged goods” (divorced), and she was now free to marry in the church. My personal opinion of this is that it is disgusting. But that’s how her church operates, that’s how she was raised.

So I have to wonder, if having her 2 daughters now be considered “illegitimate” in the eyes of the church, be over-worried about the stupid red tape involved in the adoption process that had to be gone through over Joselyne in 1977. And the red tape was in the end stupid – first both parents have to “give up” parental custody of the child that is going to be adopted. That meant Ginette and her ex-husband Robert had to both sign the papers. Then, the adopting parents sign papers that they are taking up custody of the child. That meant that my father and Ginette signed papers. So in essence, Ginette signed away her custody of Joselyne, then 5 minutes later, signed papers acknowledging that she was GETTING custody of Joselyne.  In both instances, Joselyne’s adoption by my father and her annulment, and the church now saying that both her daughters were illegitimate, Ginette recognized it all being stupid red tape. She may have complained about the red tape, but she is not the type of woman to cry over it. She is a strong woman.

Remember all of that because Joan will do it again, to me, after she overcomes her shyness she will be very insistent that she is right, everyone else is wrong! But at the present moment in history, Joan doesn’t seem to see that she has done any harm and wonders why our father ‘yelled’ at her for interfering in his business, of adopting his step-child and upsetting his wife. Ruth’s note: and what ever ANY person does in their family is NOT Joan’s dam business! And if she sticks her nose into a  family’s personal business, or deigns to tell a parent how to raise their child (especially when she herself was  NOT a parent) – and she gets yelled at for her interference – well then, that’s too dam bad.

Pg 158 – 161, we are hearing about yet another mother/daughter assault upon each other with hate/rage. What does Joan think she is gaining by relating all those rages? Strange way to honor your mother! All it does is to show a very sick drama of mental illness. Is this Joan’s reason why people should not adopt? If so then all this business about the birth family and reunion is totally unnecessary. see post:  Evil is as Evil Does – Joan Wheeler needs to learn that doing evil eventually has it’s consequences.

Pg 161 shows us an example of Joan’s constant use of cognitive dissonance, which means an inconsistency, lack of consistency or compatibility between actions or beliefs. After we are told about the violence between mother and daughter then we get to see an entry in Joan’s diary where she states; ‘…mom doesn’t seem to be as threatened as she once was…both my adoptive parents are willing and eager to socialize with my natural father and stepmother…watching my two fathers playing with six-year (brother)…my two mothers sit and chat as if old friends…Mom takes a genuine interest in my sister in Liverpool…now we discuss the family situation…’ Excuse me! The two families, birth and adoptive, did not interact with each other! This is just another version of Joan’s ‘Jekyl and Hyde’ way of thinking and behaving! Its cognitive dissonance, believing two opposing ideas at the same time; like how Christians believe. But oh, fear not, the violent exchanges will continue on!

Pg 162, where Joan leaves college in summer 78, funny that she doesn’t mention that at that time I did drive down there to get her, with my children and our father. I also remember a conversation about what kind of a job she would be able to get with a Liberal Arts degree; apparently she doesn’t want to relate that tale. Wonder why? Probably doesn’t fit in with her ‘vision’ of the ‘reunion’.

 Pg 165 she now has her own apartment and the mother/daughter hate-fest starts up again. But after awhile Joan loses a job, and instead of moving back home, the adoptive parents ‘took care of Joan’, they paid her rent and brought her food, while she looked for a job, so much for living on your own, being an adult and handling hardships like the rest of her siblings had done.

I didn’t have a ‘security blanket’ when I left home. I got married one month after HS graduation and within 2 years had 2 children and a no-good husband. There was no such thing as ‘going back home’ or having my father ‘take care of me and my kids’. The school that I grew up on was the school of hard knocks, you made your bed, you lay in it and if you want to be an adult than you take care of yourself because you are an adult. Period. I raised my children that way. I’m not suggesting that that is the best or the only way but that is what I was taught by my parents and Joan was not raised that way.

I remember once, early in my first marriage, I had asked my father to co-sign for a loan so that we might be able to get our finances in order. He did reluctantly. And we were late on a payment and the bank called my father for the payment. My father came directly to where I was attending school and yelled at me for putting his credit in jeopardy. I understood, but it had not been me who missed the payment but my then ex-husband. I never asked my father again to help me. He and I believe that ‘you are responsible for your own debts’. 

When my own children made the decisions to become adults, each in their own way, they became adults. Even though they did so earlier than I would have wanted them to and in the ways that I wished they didn’t, nonetheless they declared their adulthood to me. They got their freedom to live their lives the way they wanted and so did I. That is the usual, normal and right way for children and parents to part ways, not the way Joan and her possessive adoptive parents were.

So what does she do when she gets a job? On pg 169 we find out that she “immediately began saving my money for a trip to Liverpool…’

Priorities! Never ceases to amaze me about people’s priorities. Trips, vacations and luxury stuff long before thinking about long-term security, like a good job, food, rent, utilities, and insurances. I have come to the conclusion that people continue to do this because they KNOW that the SYSTEM will bail them out, be that system some parent who doesn’t want to lose the kid or the society that does not make people WORK for their checks.

Ruth’s note: oh yes Joan has her priorities. I know I’m jumping the years here, but in July 1986, me, Colby and Joan went to Chautagua, NY to see the 60’s rock group The Monkees. In September 86, they added Buffalo to the tour. Joan just HAD to go see them. Then two weeks later, she calls me up, crying – her electricity was getting shut off. So we have here, a 30 year old married, 8 months pregnant woman, with a 3 year old at home, with a shut off notice. Shut off notices don’t come unless you haven’t paid the bill for a few months. But she spent money to see a rock group, not once but TWICE! Oh never fear – Mama Wheeler came through for spoiled little Joanie – and paid the bill.  Oh by the way, when we went to see the Monkees in July – Colby and Joan paid for my ticket – they owed me for long distance calls Joan made on my phone. So if you have money to buy THREE tickets to see a rock concert – why can’t you pay your electric bill? Answer – they obviously didn’t have the money to do both – so like RESPONSIBLE ADULTS – they neglect paying their utility bills and go see a rock concert.  So what’s Colby’s excuse? He wasn’t ADOPTED – no, adoption has nothing to do with this fiasco – JOAN AND COLBY ARE BOTH SPOILED BRATS WHO MOOCHED OFF MAMA WHEELER AND THEN TRIED TO MOOCH OFF ME AND ENDED UP STEALING CLOSE TO $900.00 DOLLARS FROM ME! Anybody who listen to Joan’s whines about how “poor” she is, should wake up and smell the coffee. For someone so “poor” how does she manage to travel all over the place? Wake up people! Joan is crafty at whining about her “poverty.”

On pg 167/168 Joan says that Dad told her the story of how our parents met. Well I’m stating here for the record that what Joan has written on pg 168 is NOT the same story that my father told me. I’m not repeating her falsehood here. Joan’s version of the story includes some pretty bazaar elements and people that I have never heard of and have not idea where she gets some these strange family connections.

Because my Dad is older now I don’t like to question him too much. If I ever find out more information about family connections I shall post them for clarity sake but for now, Joan’s story doesn’t ring true.

I did asked my father in March of 2010 about how he, my father, met my mother and what he told me is essentially the same that he has told me several times over the years and it is not the same as the one that Joan relates. My father’s father Leon and my mother’s father Jacob both knew each from work on the railroads. During a furlough home in WW11, my father and his father where coming home to Buffalo from an army base. My mother and her father where going to Buffalo after a visit in Iowa. During this time period soldiers had first preference to seats on a train. After my father’s father told him that a friend and his daughter were going to Buffalo on the same train my father saved 4 seats for them. This is how my father and mother met. They exchange contact information and that was that and as they say ‘the rest is history’.

Broadly speaking Joan does not know how to ‘take’ our father, simply because he is not the same as the adoptive father who was weak, timid, browbeaten and abused by a dominating wife. Our father also does not engage in useless arguments, like the kind that Joan is so used to having from her upbringing. Pg 169/170 she is ‘…so upset about an incident (with my father) that she sought counseling…to be told that ‘she must be afraid of men because you keep saying ‘my father gave me away’…and you cannot trust men…’ She finds a ‘real psychiatrist…with a sliding fee scale…’ Boy, for someone who has no money and has the ‘parents’ paying rent and food she sure can afford things what most of us can’t like professional help! By her description of these sessions it sounds as if either she is a fool, for paying for such incompetence or she is a fool to think that the readers would believe her nonsense that a psychiatrist would be that stupid! Either way she wins… the fool’s cap!

Seriously now, you know people, Joan is not the only child that did NOT have the father there. All of us siblings did not have our father either, and yes we all have had some difficultly with that issue, but, you eventually have to ‘get over it’ and not wallow in it forever. It’s called growing up and becoming an adult! That’s doesn’t mean that you will never have ‘issues’ over the lost parent or cold parent but at least you can get on with your life. The kind of shit, that Joan writes, does NOT make good book copy. Joan is not a good writer. She can’t tell her life story with any kind of compelling feelings that makes a book good or a classic, like the one I happen to be reading at the moment  (how appropriate). 

“Of Human Bondage” by Somerset Maugham (1915): ‘They seemed to be always on the verge of a quarrel. The fact was that he hated himself for loving her. She seemed to be constantly humiliating him, and for each snub that he endured he owed her a grudge.’ and ‘He thought she might beckon to him, he was willing to forget anything, he was ready for any humiliation, but she had turned away, and apparently had ceased to trouble about him.’

Back to Joan’s book, the episodes where she relates such issues as the bridal dress, which Ruth has addressed in other posts, the truth of what actually happened certainly is not how Joan has portrayed it. An event of a communion party and the inter-relationships between and with birth family that contains a step-mother, step-children and half-siblings, that Joan never knew 5 years before, yet has much ‘insights’ into them, is so out of character to what I actually know of all these people, is to question Joan’s account. For example Joan states, pg 175, that after our father called her I called her. Not true! She states that I ‘yelled at (her) for ruining the party and mistreating (step-mother)…’ and on and on ‘…and by the way, you need to return Momma’s wedding dress to…you have no right keeping it…(I) hung up’. Wrong, wrong and wrong! She seems to have forgotten that at that time, 79, I was busy with my own young family and I had very little involvement with my father’s family and/or with what Ruth was doing.  Ruth’s note: I address the communion party and the wedding dress in a separate post: Ruth Pace’s additional comments of Personal Psychodrama of Joan Wheeler

When reading anything Joan writes you must use the filter called ‘the Joan factor filter’. Joan herself can be quite rude and stupid because, by her own admission pg. 174, ‘I wasn’t taught to clean up. I had no social skills.’ And so, does that mean that everyone in the family or the world must take such lack of training into consideration when dealing with a woman, who at this time period was 23 years old! Was she just hatched? Had she never been to other people’s homes, did she not learn any social skills at college? Oh I forgot, whatever it is, it is never Joan’s fault.  Ruth’s note: and for someone who grew up without a mother, I think I had a lot more social skills than Joan. And later on in the book, Joan quotes her mother who was putting me and my sisters down: “they had no mother and look how they turned out.” Oh yes, Mama Wheeler, Gert, Kathy and I turned out a hell of a lot better than Joan. Just how the hell did you raise her? Not very well as I can see.

According to Joan there seems to be some kind of conspiracy against her by all of the birth family. Far from it, she portrays everyone in such a light as to say that everyone was ‘out to get her’. Dad is always yelling at her. Dad’s wife is upset with her. The stepsisters don’t like her. Ruth and Gert don’t like her. She has the audacity and stupidity to say, pg 176, that she ‘…could picture Dad yelling at my sisters for causing trouble with his second wife and third wife. I wondered if my sisters deliberately caused Dad to yell at me since he didn’t get that chance while I was growing up.’ What an asshole Joan is! Ruth’s note: I address this asinine remark of Joan’s in my post Ruth Pace’s additional comments of Personal Psychodrama of Joan Wheeler

She does not see Dad’s positive sides because she wants him to be some image of a real father that she has concocted in her mind instead of taking him for what he is. Of course he is ‘short’ in temper, who wouldn’t be when dealing with Joan, but of course, the readers of this book have no idea of what it’s like to deal with Joan.

She has zero information about Dad’s 2nd wife, she didn’t live with what we lived with, and she really ought to be ashamed of herself to put into print this garbage. Equally, she really ought to hide her face in the dirt for even suggesting that any of us siblings had any problem with Dad’s 3rd wife! She ought to hide in shame for suggesting it. Truth, Dad’s 2nd marriage was not a good one but we were all very young, innocent children and knew NOTHING about the real grown up troubles that my father had to deal with in that marriage. It is only in my own adulthood that I appreciate the pain that my father went through during those years.

Remember now that my father had been a widower twice before he met the woman that became his 3rd wife, and I was very pleased that he had married her. When he had made the decision to marry he asked each of us, long before we knew Joan, what we felt. Each one of us told him the same; that he should go ahead and marry and do what he feels is right. I was happy for them both. This woman had 2 little girls and I saw how she took care of them and my father and I somehow envisioned that what she did was what my own mother would have done, in order words, she fulfilled a space in my father’s life that was emptied by the death of my mother. How could I possible ever have a problem with this woman? No, never, she has always been a good woman, mother, wife, stepmother and friend. Joan knows not what she writes about! All she knows is how to be a ‘…victim, a pawn pulled back and forth at everyone else’s whims. In self-protection, I turned inward…’ Like everything else coming from Joan, it is from that sick inward self which does not reflect the true world around her.

From “Of Human Bondage”: ‘He talked of getting occupation of this sort so long that he had not the face to refuse outright….at last he declined the offer…it would have interfered with my work he told Philip. What work? Asked Philip brutally. My inner life, he answered.’

Gert – October 16, 2010

I want to point out that Ruth’s extensive use of details is very very important…It points to many facets of Joan’s lack of understanding other people do have long memories and accurate memories. Joan can say all she wants to about how bad her sisters were/are, but, that doesn’t make her statements correct.

thank you Ruth, for all the details that you provide for us…for it give a fuller picture.

and as Ruth as describe here about how a natural mother must SIGN papers in order to ADOPT her own birth child…that is correct…for I HAD TO DO THE SAME when my 2nd husband and I ADOPTED MY BIRTH SON.

Joan did not like that, oh no, and she caused great harm, she knew better than the adoption agencies who did very extensive BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS on my husband and myself, in order for us to adopt…that was not enough for Joan, she had to interfer and she caused alot of pain and trouble…more on that in my NEXT blog entry.

Joan hates anyone who adopts for any reason.

 

RuthOctober 16, 2010

As to Gert’s last sentance – “Joan hates anyone who adopts for any reason.” – I have to add this:

Joan also hates INFERTILE COUPLES or INFERTILE WOMEN, because they just might be adopters

Joan Wheeler – Forbidden Family Chapter 14 – Refutted! October 4, 2010

Posted by Ruth in Contradictions of Joan Wheeler, Joan Wheeler Speak - how Joan views the world, Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family, Lies in the book Forbidden Family, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

In Joan Wheeler’s book Forbidden Family Chapter 14, she tells of her college days and her struggles with being in an inter-racial relationship, her wanting to go to Egypt or England, and her budding anti-adoption thoughts. We are not interested in her adoption or anti-adoption concerns, because they do not concern us. We are discussing how her “autobiography” involves US, in particular raking us in her hatred of her adoptive parents. Gert McQueen has already written her take on this chapter in her post, What is a Birth Certificate Used For? Thoughts on Chapter 13 of Forbidden Family by Joan Wheeler  Gert answers Joan confusion and questions about birth certificates in the short Chapter 13, then goes onto addressing Chapter 14. 

Here is a brief segment from Gert’s post:

The times were the mid-1970s, Joan was a very immature sheltered girl who had no experience living with the racial tensions and riots that swept across the country. I, like many others, did. Interracial couplings were NOT the norm, they were scandalous and NOT for every family. The movie Guess who’s coming to dinner appeared in 1967, most families in America were NOT like the family portrayed in the movie. In real life the late 60’s and early 70’s were filled with much violence as the Civil Rights movement was stabilizing. Many whites might have been okay with mix-race couplings but many were not and the same can be said for the Blacks, if they did they were a minority keeping a low profile, something Joan knows nothing about. In many families the idea of crossing racial lines was just not done and the issue was entirely up to an individual family as to how they reached those decisions. When a child goes against the established core values of their family and the wishes of the parents, for shock value, for acting out, for rebellion, the situation never works out well.

This is what Joan did, she did it for rebellion reasons and she gives ‘lip service’ to it when she says ‘…years later that perhaps I used racial issues as a smoke screen – something to focus on instead of what was really bothering me.’ Again, too bad for me that she didn’t come to that conclusion sooner before she interfered with my parental authority and told my 13 years daughter that ‘your mother doesn’t know anything, don’t listen to her, if you want to date a Black boy do it’! But that’s a story for a later. She says that the interracial relationship and adoption issues ‘drove a wedge between her parents and herself…they fought bitterly.’ That is her adoptive parents.

As I stated in a previous post, as very young children, my parents and us 4 children, lived in the same house with a Black family and we were raised not as racists or bigots. My father, in particular, always allowed us to make our own decisions and if we were happy he was happy. My sister Ruth has had long-term relationships with other races and they were and are accepted within our family. My personal views were that it was not right for myself, or my children, even though they, my children, were free to have friends of different races and religions. As a parent I have the right to make the ‘established core values of the family’ and no one has the right to contradict them to my minor children, as Joan did.

On pg 122 Joan tells of a phone conversation with me, ‘the eldest…which made her an authority figure’, in which I tell her that ‘it’s your choice and you alone will have to live with the consequences, but you are young and don’t know what you’re doing…you can’t dislocate yourself  from your family…society isn’t ready for it and you have to live with the rules of society’. That’s correct, I said it or something like it and it was sound advice, then and now. But to Joan, she ‘…hung up the phone in disbelief…Gert must have been chosen to be the spokesperson to represent the entire Sippel, Herr and Wheeler family clans.’ Not true! I was stating my own personal opinion and speaking as a parent myself. It is only Joan who feels the need to find someone to point the finger at to say that they are the cause of her problems. So Be It!

So she gets back to having more dramas. ‘There was a Reunion in Progress but no one knew how to proceed.’ Did she? no she just lets more of her inner life talk to her and she comes up with ‘my families hated blacks, therefore, they hated me. I was a sinner in need of repentance….’   

Ruth returns:
ok, let’s talk about race, bigotry and Joan and how she CREATES problems where none exist.
MY personal choices in MY personal life are none of Joan’s concerns and I don’t see why MY personal choices of MY life is in Joan’s book. In 1974, I was living in my own apartment, paying my own rent – (with no help from ANYone), working a full time job, AND taking part time college classes. (so much for Joan’s put-downs of me that I never went to college). I was at this time, 22 years old and exploring MY own life and all that goes with it – the dating scene, etc. In late 1974, a very nice Palestinian man was admitted to the hospital where I worked. We had several talks. In spring of 1975, I was walking to work one night. (I did not own a car, nor knew how to drive – contrary to Joan’s assertions that I drove her around to family reunions in 1974). As I passed the window of a restaurant – there was Farouk. He tapped on the window, waved, and motioned me to come in to the restaurant. He was with a couple of friends, and he bought me a cup of coffee and then drove me to work. We exchanged phone numbers and then began casually dating. The friends he was with were part of a large group of friends that hung out together, and I joined the group. Many of these people are still friends with me today.Some have passed away, others have moved to other parts of the country. Farouk and I dated for about 3 months, and then went separate ways. One of the group, Abdo, asked me out in June 1975, and we fell in love, moving in together just 3 weeks after meeting each other. Our relationship lasted 10 years. He went back to his home country in 1985, and even when he came back to Buffalo in 1994, and I was with my present husband, Abdo and I remained close friends, and I was the one who handled all the legal issues and paperwork concerning his death in 2003.
    So we see again Joan not geting details of my life right, even though she deems herself an authority on it. On page 122 of her book she reports that I had been “seriously dating an Arab man,” in May of 1975. Who was she refering to? Farouk or Abdo? NO, she has to bring up the fact that I was involved with an Arab man, because she was involved with a black boy in college and her parents were not accepting it. Instead of writing about her problems with her parents, she has to drag ME into it. I am nobody’s role model. I knew Joan for one year at this point in time, what I did with my life then, now and for all times in the future and the past is NOT Joan’s business and she has no right to hold MY relationships up to scrutiny in her book. Or, as I suspect she did, to use as an arguing tool with her parents. She says her parents hated blacks. Really? well, then why 20 years later why was my current husband John, a black man, accepted by her mother as Uncle John to Joan’s kids (her grandchildren) and accepted into the family?

As to Joan creating problems where none exist – on pages 120 – 124 she is relating her views of inter-racial relationships, even stating “I wanted equality for all people- black, white, women, men, adoptees and non-adoptees.” But she picks and chooses who should have equality. For example, for all her saying that my husband Abdo (Basim in the book) was a nice guy, she shows her prejudice against Arabs twice in her book and once in real life.

In late 1979 Abdo had gone to his home country for a visit of several months. In early 1980, Joan was dating a Jewish boy named Rich. One day, she was visiting me and asked me if there would be a problem when Abdo returned to Buffalo and found out that she was dating a Jewish boy. Oh? She wanted equality for all people? Then why the ASSUMPTION that Jews and Arabs don’t get along? Yes, we all know about the ongoing enmity in the Middle East between the Isrealis and the Palestinians. Abdo is not Palestinian. He is Yemeni. And just because there is a mess in the Middle East, and people living here in America may POLITICALLY choose sides, this does not mean that they are bigots. Joan automatically assumed Abdo was a bigot. On page 123 -124, she says that she almost went on a year long exchange program in Egypt, but was advised by her college advisors that she would have to escorted everywhere. She says she was terrified of living for a year in a country where outspoken women would be a target for ridicule, assault and rape. Yes, sadly, Joan and her college advisors were correct, however, to paint all Arabs as such, and to paint all Arabs as Jew-haters, especially one who she had known for 4 years is reprehensible.

Perhaps she thought Abdo would have a problem with Rich because there was a definite problem once with Manuel, the black boy. They both came up one weekend for a visit – in his car. We all went to Voelker’s bowling alley. I was in the ladies room and Joan came running in, scared out of her mind. Manuel had just threatened her. He had alreay beaten her up, and she was terrified he would do so again. Oh boy, more drama. What to do?  So I spoke to Abdo. Before we left the bowling alley we told both Joan and Manuel that we did not want any problems. It was decided that Joan would sleep on our couch, and Manuel was told to sleep in his car. (it was warm enough). Manuel had no problem with smacking around Joan, but he listened and obeyed when Abdo laid down the rules. The next morning, Manuel came upstairs, we had breakfast and the two of them left to drive back to college. I never saw that boy again and good riddance. Abdo did not have a problem with Manuel being black, but did have a problem with him hitting Joan and possibly creating a problem in our house. And when Abdo returned to Buffalo in 1980, Joan had already stopped seeing the Jewish boy, but I told him about Joan’s question. He couldn’t believe she would think that of him! Abdo was one of the sweetest persons on this planet and wouldn’t hurt a fly. Yes, we had our fights, as all couples do, and both our tempers got the best of us, but on the whole, Abdo was kind, quiet and gentle. There is another anti-Arab slur in the book, but I will deal that when we get to it. We are still discussing her college years and her problems with dating the black boy.

What’s with this statement of Joan’s on page 123 “My families hated blacks.” Where does she get this crap? Mayber her adopted parents had a problem with interracial relationships, but her birth family did not. At least her father and siblings. SOME, not all of my mother’s family don’t approve of interracial relationships, but have never held my choice in a life partner against me.

But this statement is included in a long winded paragraph, where she is going off on a tangent about her parents not happy with her choice in dating a black boy. Joan then comes up with this intelligent conclusion: “my families hated blacks, therefore, hated me.”

Where does she come up with this shit? Who the hell EVER said they hated her? In 1975, that is. All Gert did was talk to her on the phone about the possible repercussions of inter-racial relationships. Gert was giving her good advice, that if she wanted to date a black boy, she had better be prepared for any backlash. And I don’t mean from anybody in her families, I’m talking about society in general. In the 23 years that I’ve been with John, I have never been the target of any racial slurs, but on 3 occasions, all in restaurants, we did get some filthy looks, two occasions from whites, and one occasion from a black lady. John and I are mature enough to handle that, in 1975, Joan obviously was not mature enough to handle anything like that. My god, she couldn’t even handle me supposedly telling her around Christmas 1974 that she spelled our last name wrong, and she’s got herself imagining her families “hating” her because she’s dating a black boy. Is Joan a mind-reader? Or is she like Deanna Troi on Star Trek the Next Generation, who can sense other beings emotions! – Oh, yes, she already said in reporting on how she was a bridesmaid at the age of 18 for an adoptive cousin and she “sensed” people talking about her. Deanna Troi comes from the planet Betazed. Is Joan from that planet as well?
 
But see, this is how Joan embellishes things and blows them out of proportions. I don’t doubt that her parents were not accepting this relationship and some harsh words were exchanged – but how does she conclude that the Sippel family hated her? At this point in time, Kathy was living in England, not having even met Joan. I have no idea what my father or brother thought of her relationship – I don’t recall her even asking me about my relationship. so she gets some advice from one member of the Sippel family, and right away, the whole Sippel family hates her. And you know what? The Sippel family probably could care less who she was dating. We were all living our own lives, my family accepted Abdo and in turn John.

But hold on! Joan says at the top of page of 122 – “My sisters and older brother accepted my inter-racial relationship.” She then goes on to say that her natural father was outraged.” – Baloney! Gert has already explained that my father raised us NOT to be bigots, and since I was already involved with a man of a different race, why would he be outraged at Joan? This makes no sense! Maybe he was showing concern because his daughter was getting smacked around this particular black boy! Did Joan ever think of that? That our objections to Manuel was because of his behavior towards her? That we actually were concerned for her safety? Oh no! Because that would show that we actually CARED ABOUT HER – and this would go against her ASSUMPTIONS that we all hated blacks and therefore we hated her. And this would not make sense in her book, because her book is all about showing how the whole world and her families, detest her and give her nothing but grief!

And getting back to Joan’s statement about Gert when she advised Joan on the phone: “Gert must have been chosen to be the spokesperson to represent the entire Sippel, Herr and Wheeler family clans.” we see Joan’s propensity for BLOWING THINGS OUT OF PROPORTION! Somehow I doubt that a vote was taken by every member of my mother’s family, (the Herrs) the Sippel family, and the Wheeler family and they all chose Gert to speak to Joan about dating a black kid. What a ridiculous statement to make! Gert hadn’t met even one tenth of the Wheeler family, was busy raising her own two kids, didn’t see half of the Herr family, and the Sippels didn’t take a vote to elect her either! Why must Joan constantly speak in the superlative? Because she likes to embellish things – she likes to make things bigger than what they are. And if the reality doesn’t fit her fantasy of how things should be – she will just go ahead, make stupid conclusions, and publish them as facts. Hence the purpose of this blog – to point out Joan’s mistaken “facts” and present the true story of the Sippel family.

On page 122 Joan says there was a Reunion in Progress. (her capitalizations). She whines elsewhere in the book that now that she’s reunited with her birth family, she had these people to get to know. There was tremendous pressure on her, she was on display, they all knew her, but she didn’t know them, and blah blah blah.

At the time of our “reunion” with Joan, I myself was on a voyage of self-discovery. So was Joan, having found her birth family. Joan makes it out that she was the only one confused by meeting new people, etc. etc. Well, so was I. I was living in my first apartment, making choices in my life, including scholastic, career, sexual, and social. Are these not struggles for EVERY person on the planet in young adulthood? What makes Joan so dam special? She isn’t and the sooner she gets that through her thick skull the better she will be able to cope with life. I mean, come on! This happened in  1974. It is now 2010. THIRTY-SIX YEARS LATER – and Joan is still whining about how she was sooooo put out about her CONFUSION in meeting a whole new family!

Oh for crying out loud! When a person gets married – they have a whole new family of in-laws to meet and get to know and integrate into their life – you have to learn how not to piss off your mother-in-law, don’t serve meat to a cousin-in-law, because they’re vegan, don’t invite aunt-in-law and sister-in-law to the same party because they don’t get along. EVERYBODY ON THE PLANET THAT GETS MARRIED HAS TO MEET A NEW FAMILY AND LEARN ABOUT THEM! So when will Joan stop whining about having to learn about a whole new bunch of people! We weren’t axe murderers for crying out loud! Joan says nobody knew how to proceed with the reunion. Really? I did. I simply ACCEPTED HER! I RESPECTED HER. Was I perfect? NO! Did I inadvertently hurt her feelings when I corrected her misspelling of our family name? I don’t know. I don’t remember doing it. I am simply a flawed human being. HOWEVER, I never went out of my way to hurt her. The problems between us began in the 80’s when she began to disrespect me and go out of HER way to hurt me. But we will get to those later. I do want to touch on a statement of Gert regarding this “reunion in progress.”

“Joan never gave anyone the opportunities to continue with the ‘in progress’ because she was so argumentive and aggressive in her positions and would not allow others, particularly the adoptive and birth families, to have their own opinions and views on any social issue, it was always about Joan. “

Oh, yes, this is so true. Joan always was opinionated and she never learned to back off and let other people have a say. And by god, don’t you EVER take an opposing viewpoint to Joan’s. And I’m not talking about adoption – it’s EVERYTHING! She doesn’t like this, she doesn’t like that – everybody has to stop what they’re doing or thinking about and cowtow to Dictator Joan. Now you blog readers may or may not know that in the 1980’s I was a professional belly dancer. I had a scrapbook of pictures of belly dancers, and one day (in the early 80’s) Joan was at my house and she was looking at the scrapbook. She said, “I don’t approve of this skimpy costume.” What? Who asked for HER approval? Oh, well, every belly dancer on the planet – get rid of your dance costumes because Joan doesn’t approve of them. Oh, but wasn’t she complaining because if she lived in Egypt, SHE would be singled out for being an opinionated outspoken woman? So here she is singling out OTHER women because of their dance costumes? As I said before – she picks and chooses who should have equality. Does she have a problem with ballet dancers? Gosh, I can see every curve and bump on a male ballet dancer – and those tutus! Shocking! I can see all the way up to the dancer’s crotch! – oh, well they’re covered up with a leotard. Well, how about the staute of David – nude drawings by all the famous painters – The Vetruvian Man – Venus de Milo with her breast exposed – IT’S CALLED ART! Dance is an artform of the human body. I have seen nude dancers – and I’m not talking about the exotic dancers in strip joints – I’ve seen modern jazz dancers IN THE NUDE! Golly Gee, they didn’t even have on a skimpy belly dancing outfit! Let’s burn them at the stake! Why? Because Joan Wheeler would not approve of them.

Another time – it was 1983 – Joan, her husband Colby and I went to see the new Star Trek movie – The Search for Spock. Towards the end of the movie, there is a scene in a temple, with your usual Hollywood style temple maidens – all dressed in see-through white flowing dresses.  Oh boy! In the car ride home that was the whole topic of conversation!

Okay – let me expound on something here. I have had a crush on Leonard Nimoy and the character of Mr. Spock since the summer of 1966 when I saw the very first commercial for Star Trek. I didn’t even wait for the show to begin – I saw 5 seconds of him on a commercial and was hooked! In the 1982 Star Trek movie, The Wrath of Khan, Spock died in the end. Oh that hurt me. BUT we science fiction fans could see in the film’s last 5 minutes how they set it up for Spock’s return. So we knew he was coming back – we just didn’t know HOW. So now in The Search for Spock, we see Spock come back to life. And it was a pretty good movie! I was walking on air when we left the movie. In the next 10 minutes, during the 5 mile drive back to my house, all I heard was all about those disgusting white dresses and blah blah blah and I couldn’t wait to get the hell out of that car. I got in the house and I had a headache! Abdo asked me what was wrong. I said “I have a headache – that bitch just ruined my mood – Spock came back to life and all because of that idiot and her f’ing big mouth I have a headache!”

Even today, I am a huge Star Trek fan, and I also head up a local Star Trek fan group, called the USS Ari, a starship, formerly of Starfleet International, now an independent ship/group. FORTY-SIX YEARS OF LOVING STAR TREK and when Captain Ruth Pace, commander, USS Ari NCC 1723, comes out of a Star Trek movie with a headache and just wanting to run in the house – you have to wonder why! BECAUSE JOAN IS A PSYCHIC VAMPIRE! She sucks all the air out of the room. And when her mouth starts going and her voice starts getting shrill – all you want to do is get the hell away from her. I left her daughter’s fourth birthday party because she and her mother, in front of the birthday princess and all the guests – started SCREAMING at each other. My ears were hurting – I got John and said “I have to go. I can’t stand this noise.” So we left.

Another time on the phone, (around 1993, so much for her saying she hasn’t had contact with me) we were talking and all of a sudden we started arguing about the money she stole from me. She started yelling at me, I tried to tell her to stop, she kept on going off on a tangent – then she said, “and I know you hate the word, but I’m going to say it anyway: adoption, ADOPTION ADOPTION.” Then she hung up. WTF? first, I never said I hated the word, just dam tired of it. Second, the conversation was not about adoption, it was about the money she owed me. Third, her statement “I know you hate the word, but I’m going to say it anyway..”shows how SHE DOESN’T CARE ABOUT HOW ANYONE FEELS. SHE HAS NO RESPECT FOR ANYONE. Fourth, just like the rambling long paragraph on pages 122 and 123, where she starts out about her dating a black boy, gets off on a tangent about a woman dying leaving five little kids, throwing out stuff like “respect your elders, “What.,she’s angry? and concludes that everybody hates her! She gets herself worked up and when she gets going she can’t or won’t stop and ends up pushing people away from her. I have had way too many outbursts like that from her and for my own peace of mind – and the sake of my ears – (not to mention her stealing money from me, stealing the beads off my dead mother’s wedding dress, her disrespect of my wishes of not talking about infertility after my miscarriage and other things) – by 1990 I didn’t want any more “reunion in progress” with her – she ruined it. I don’t associate with people who treat me like dirt. Do you?

oh and Joan, your addition to your cyberbullying page – geez! This is how you honor Mom on her birthday? Slapping her obit up there and saying:  “Mom, I’m sorry your older daughters are making fools of themselves. I love you, Mom. I’m sorry you died too soon. If you had lived, we would be a loving family.”

See how Joan keeps trashing her sisters YET AGAIN on October 4, 2010 (got that Rus – see how Joan wants peace, yet keeps yakking about us?) Anybody who would put up such a birthday rememberance is NOT honoring the dead woman – anybody with brains can see what Joan is doing – USING a dead woman’s obituary and trying to say she loves her, and trashes her sisters in the same sentance. No, Joan, everybody can see who the fool is. And I said before – you can lie to yourself, you can lie to your friends, but you can’t lie to Mom. She’s not that stupid you know. and neither are we. roflmao!

1. Gert – October 4, 2010

Every human being is going to DIE, that’s a fact of life! Missing someone who has died is also a fact of life! To wish for things to be different is also a fact of life!

But…to use the dead and their memories to PROMOTE one’s (Joan’s) personal vindictive campaign against one’s own blood…and to invoke the dead against blood family…in the form of BULLYING…is not only dishonorable…it also shows the true nature of the one who is promoting their vindictiveness…Joan wrote and invoked our mother to use against us…shame, shame, shame!

Today, Oct 4, is our mother’s birthday! It is NOT a date for Joan to continue her lying and bullshit…Joan what do you really think our mother is thinking about you right now? Would she be proud of you?

Why don’t you just stand up like a woman and answer your blood relatives as to your actions against them? Why don’t you allow our mother to rest in peace?

Joan, you are a very sick person.

%d bloggers like this: