Joan Wheeler mocks infertility, and her own sister’s miscarriage September 12, 2012Posted by Ruth in Contradictions of Joan Wheeler, Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family.
Tags: abuse, being downright nasty, contradictions, Disrespect, emotional abuse, hatred of infertile women, religious intolerance
I placed a comment on my sister Gert’s latest blogpost “Is infertility, by nature or by force, any reason to adopt? or is it a reason for mockery, by Joan Wheeler?”
But I also want to place it here, in it’s own post. Gert brings up the subject of how angry adoptees want everyone to feel sorry for their pain, yet those same angry adoptees don’t give a damn about anyone else’s pain. They actually MOCK people’s pain. And Joan jumps right on board the mockery train. here is my comment:
Joan routinely slams people’s religions – slams people’s choices in life. In her book, she slams poor people (yet laments she’s poor – oh that makes sense), slams people living on Buffalo’s East Side (even though she lived there too). All she ever does is MOCK people for this, for that, for ANYTHING! Then she wonders why NObody ever takes her seriously and runs the hell the away from her.
I myself am an infertile woman, and was on the receiving end of condesending remarks by Joan – LESS THAN A YEAR AFTER I MISCARRIED MY SON. We were on the phone in May 1987 (I know the month and year – I was packing, moving into the house I live in now). She had just gotten back from one her adoption conferences and started talking about infertility. I told her that I did not want to talk about. I was still greiving my son, who I lost after years of trying to get pregnant. She ignored my request and kept right on talking. I told her again. She ignored me again. I told a third time, a fourth time. She kept right on running her mouth and then made the statement: “I know more about infertility than you think I do.” I slammed the phone down and burst into tears.
What does she know about infertility? Book statistics? Listening to other people? Yeah, Joan knows ABOUT infertitly, but does not know the PAIN of infertility.
Come on Joan, tell the world how your rotten birth sisters never took the time to “understand” you, but don’t tell the world how you stab them in the back and more cruelly, stab them in the heart.
This rotten statement to me was made in 1987, and then in her book published in 2009, Joan continues to mock my infertility and miscarriage. She writes “at one point she (me) CLAIMED to want to have children,” – even though in 1983, while she was pregnant with her first child, Joan borrowed my books on pregnancy, breastfeeding, baby care. Why would I have those books if I merely CLAIMED to want children. But elsewhere in the book, she says that I was going to a fertility clinic. I never went to a fertility clinic (does she never do any RESEARCH?) – But that’s not the point – the point is – she contradicts herself. If I merely had CLAIMED to want to get pregnant, then why would I be at a fertility clinic?
Then she mocks me further in her book, because I made a rhetorical question “I don’t know how you find time to raise your kids and do all your writing?” Joan mocks me because I do a lot reading, and watch horror movies. Then she writes, “It’s just as well she didn’t get pregnant.”
Way to go Joan. Slam me, slam my dead son. Slam my infertility. Slam my life choices in recreation. Then slam me some more because I never took the time to “understand you.” Oh – go to hell Joan.
Evidence sent to Trafford Publications which resulted in the pulling of the book Forbidden Family by Joan Wheeler – Part 1 June 22, 2011Posted by Ruth in Announcements and updates, Lies in the book Forbidden Family, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, Statements from The Three Sippel Sisters.
Tags: abuse, adoption, adoption reform, adoption reunion, bigotry, embellishing the truth, false accusations, Forbidden Family book pulled from publication, harassment of an adoptee's birth family, hate language, LIBEL, Lies, obscence language, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, religious intolerance, SLANDER, spreading untruths, Trafford Publications
In our last post I stated “… Gert and I will be putting out on this blog those several pages of proof – because we are honest. We give our blog readers full disclosure of what we write and to whom. We deal in truth. – Not only do we deal in the truth – we deal in the truth to EVERYBODY! “ This is Gert’s narrative on how we decided to contact Trafford to make a formal complaint about this hideous book. Gert’s complaint to Trafford follows. My own complaint, because it covers so much material, is split into two parts, and will be posted either tomorrow or Friday, June 24, 2011, depending on time allowances. – Ruth Pace
We blood sisters had found out about the publication of Joan Wheeler’s book Forbidden Family around the end of 2009. I myself did not get a physical copy of the book until late January 2010. As I started to go over it I became quite upset, as were my other two sisters. Initially we three were just picking out certain things in the book and then it dawned on me to attack the book from the beginning. So I started to read it from the outside covers and from page one. It is not an easy book to read and that doesn’t mean just because we sisters are subjects in the book. It is a difficult read because of all the hate, mental disruptions and disturbances and outright lies that the author put out.
At some point in December 2010 as I was reading chapter 38 I said out loud to myself…how did this f…ing book GET published? What kind of an publishing house produced this piece of garbage? It was at that time that I made my first phone call to Trafford, on December 14, 2010. As I spoke with a customer service rep and asked some questions, it became obvious, to both of us, that there were some serious problems with the content of the book. I was told that the author did NOT pay for editing services but had a ‘print ready’ manuscript and UNLESS there is a complaint the editing department DOES NOT look at the manuscript. I was told to send a email with some particulars of my objections to the customer service department. I did that and waited.
During the first week of January 2011, speaking with a customer service manager, I was told to send him a list of the most credible examples of libel and other evidences that we say the author had put in the book. Ruth and I did that. Then our father died and it was not until January 21 when I was able to speak with someone at Trafford, a top level manager, who took charge of our complaint. I spoke with Mr Hopkins many times between Jan 21 and May 6 when he finally told me that the book WAS pulled.
Ruth and I now submit, on this blog, the narratives and credible evidence we gave to Trafford.
Here is Gert’s complaint:
Evidence related to slanderous lies in the book Forbidden Family by Joan Wheeler, provided by Gert McQueen.
It is the opinions of Gert McQueen, Kathy Inglis, and Ruth Pace that our personal and family honor has been sullied and damaged by the publication of this book by Joan Wheeler.
Lies pg xv and xvi ‘why I wrote this book’
Fact: author did not do research to verify information nor speak directly to all individuals (speaking here for blood sisters) to provide the facts and their ‘versions of the truth’. At no time did the author discuss anything related to us sisters, with us, before publication of this book. We had no knowledge that this book was being written or that it was published until after the fact.
Fact: this section (why I wrote the book) written in 2006, was indeed written for vengeance, contrary to the author’s statement, ‘I didn’t write this book for vengeance…my intent is not vindictive or malicious’.
Lie: author states, pg 531, ‘each one of my sisters had something to hide, something they did not want me to write about, which I have not written about.’
Fact: This is a warning statement, of the threat of blackmail, from the author to us sisters.
Examples of how and why the author tells the family tales for vengeance and with malice…pg 543, 545, 546, 547
Fact: Chapter 35 pg 429 – 459 were written about events of 2006/07 with malice and for vindictive purposes. Pg 434 author states that her friend said ‘I don’t want people to know my private life’. But author disregards that request and tells all. On pg 452 the author states… ‘Yes, Jimmy 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. Of all the people who hurt me because they didn’t understand or approve of what I’m doing…I expose in my writings.’
Fact: Chapter 38 pg 482 – 566 were written April-July 2009, again with malice and for vindictive purposes to show, pg 484, how the author ‘was the only half-orphan treated differently’. This chapter’s sole purpose is for malice and vindictiveness.
Fact: on two separate occasions, 1992 and 2006, before publication of this book, the author had lied directly to me (Gert) about our relationship, leaving me to believe that she loved me, but then used those 2 occasions to further lie about me in the book.
Lie: the author’s position that this book is about adoption reform when in fact it is violently against adoption.
Fact: chapter 23 pg 238- 242 author’s views about the Catholic church.
Fact: pg 485 author’s statement against the institution of adoption. ‘my conclusion that the concept of adoption is corrupt…pathology lies in adoption itself.’
Fact: pg 566 author’s statements ‘adoption must end in America , I demand restitution for my life as a person duped by adoption.’
Fact: pg 473- 476 author’s claims of fraud against Surrogate Courts, Registrar of vital statistics and Catholic Church
Fact: Pages 348 – 356 shows some of the outrage and hate that the author has towards adoption.
Pages 357 –358, 367-368 shows the author’s rage and hate, in front of her children
Fact: Author published, whole or in part, the real names of her birth parents, which are my and my sisters’ and brother’s parents and institutions/city/state locations. The author provides sufficient information, date and place of mother’s death, full names of relations, living and dead, where in a quick search could reveal our names, pg 489 – 492. There are many pages, through out that contain real names of family members.
Pages that show documents of my father and mother’s names, 460, 462, 464, 466,
On page 302 and footnoted as #15 page 634, the author sites her article ‘the Secret is Out’, which contained the real names of birth family, and which was the reason that birth sister Kathy wrote a letter to adoption agencies, around 1992/93, to protest the publication of our real names, which the author then relates falsely as harassments pg 310.
Pages containing a living family member’s name, where is the permission? 466
Back cover of the book contains a family photo of my parents, my brother, my sisters and myself. Living persons in that photo did not give permission for that photo to be used on a book of lies about our family.
Lie, slanderous: pg 95 author states that I, Gert, ‘took a few puffs on a joint to get stoned’. I, Gert, never did that!
Fact, pg 93 author states that she, the author, ‘started smoking pot’
Lie, slanderous: pg 128 author states that I, Gert, got the author drunk, stoned and then made sexual advances to her.
Fact: I, Gert, never did that!
Lies, slanderous: pg 214 and pg 220, author states again that I, Gert, sexually abused the author.
Fact: I, Gert, did not!
Fact: Additional pages containing foul obscene language…pg 214, 360. The other pages as indicated in my original email complaint are, 160, 219, 220, 312, 313, 370.
Lie, slanderous: author states, pg 214, that I, Gert, used those obscene words, plus threaten to kill her, in letters and over a telephone,
Fact: I, Gert, did not! I wrote one letter, as referenced on pg 214, to author’s adoptive mother informing her of the author’s actions of interference to and against my minor children and myself.
Fact: pg 157, the author had a previous history, 1977, of interfering with and causing trouble because over my father’s adoption of his step-daughter
Lies, slanderous: Pg 213- 214 contains much that is an untrue account of the events that the author herself did to my (Gert) immediate family.
Fact: in 1981 my husband and I were in the process of adopting my own birth son, the author recklessly interfered in our parental authority, called me an unfit mother, told me I was doing great harm to my son, told my children they did not have to obey me. I was forced to remove the author from my home and forbid any contact with my children. As part of the adoption process my husband and I were investigated by the courts and were found fit, for adoption. But in retaliation for being forbidden to see my children, the author called in a child abuse report, which was quickly dismissed because we had just completed a adoption investigation. Fact: On pg 301, the author states that she had called in the abuse in 1981.
Fact: In 1982 my husband and I moved our family to another city in part to remove my children from the negative influence of the author. My daughter had behavior problems and after our physical relocation she ran-away, Sept 1982, back to the city we moved from. Again, in retaliation to me, the author used that occasion to call a second child abuse against my husband and me this time claiming sexual abuse.
Fact: In a Family Court hearing I requested, and was granted, that my minor daughter be placed in protective custody of the county and she was placed in a foster home. I then had a hearing about the child abuse against husband and myself. In March 1984 the charges of child abuse and maltreatment was found to be untrue and all records were to be ‘expunged’ from the record. It was as if it never happened, until the author lyingly wrote about it in the book.
Fact: I have scanned the first and last pages of that document to show that the charges against me were false to begin with, were expunged and that this episode should not have been repeated, particularly in print, it is a slanderous lie and misrepresentation purely for malice and vindictiveness. See additional documents
Fact: I, Gert, moved from the same city where the author lived in Sept 1982 and did not speak nor see her again until 1992. I had no knowledge of anything she did, or said, I had no contact with any person with whom I spoke about the author…I divorced myself from the author…for her interference, her alienating my children from me and contributing to the destruction of my marriage and family unit.
Fact: In 1992, at a family gathering the author and I spoke, I attempted a reconciliation, thought that the author was doing the same, until, she used my religion as a means to continue spreading lies that my mental health was in danger because of my religion and other hateful things against me to other family members. I then continued on with my ‘divorce’ and have not seen the author since 1992. Sometime in 2006, when my father was ill, I had a short phone conversation with author to which, she said she loved me and wished me well, knowing full well she was lying and was publishing a book of lies.
Lie, slanderous: author states, pg 243, referring to child abuse calls the author was receiving that I, (Gert) ‘obviously retaliated against me since I was responsible for having her investigated through the same child abuse hotline. The only difference was that (Gert)’s phone calls were based on revenge, not concern. My intervention with my niece came after I pieced together evidence of sexual behavior that threatened her well-being.’
Fact: as I had just stated, I had no contact with the author during this time-period (1984), I didn’t even know that the author had a child! I did not call any abuse on to the author. This lie is a continued accusation against me for alleged sexual abuse, in this case against my own child that was found to be untrue and was expunged from the record! It does show the fact that the author did indeed call in a false child abuse report upon me, Gert, in 1982, but here she lies about the actual truth of the circumstances.
Fact: pg 301, author states that she ‘reported fears to child protection authorities in 1981’. By the author’s own admission she called two false child abuse reports against me.
Lies, slanderous: chapter 27, pg 295-313, is a complete fabrication of the event.
Fact: it was a very brief family gathering, at a local park, with pleasant conversations, hugs, and a separate visit with author, myself and Ruth, at which time I shared with them my religious affiliations and activities. At no time did the author say anything negative to me about my religion, only to say that her husband had been part of SCA and she thought that was ‘my religion’; it is not. I thought and was lead to believe by the author, that perhaps a reconciliation could occur between us, as had occurred between myself and Ruth which ended the then 10 year silence and mistrust.
Fact: the next day, the author went to my father’s home, saying ‘Gert’s mental health must be in danger because there is something wrong with Gert’s religion’. (religious intolerance). My father told her that he knew of my religion and my mental health, that the author was not welcome in his home if she continued to spread lies and cause trouble. The author continued to argue, my father threw her out of his home.
Fact: It was my father who told me about the confrontation that he had with the author, at his home and what the author said about me, (Gert). I have not seen the author since that event of July 1992 and I have had one short phone conversation, again pleasant, in 2006!
Lies, slanderous: pg 301, author states that I, Gert, ‘got pregnant at age 17, married the 16 year old father to get out of living in a foster home and dealing with our father and stepmother.’
Fact: I was out of the foster home, my step-mother had died and both myself and my husband were of legal age and married because we wanted to.
Lies, slanderous: pg 308 –313, author states that we sisters did harassing letters and phone calls.
Fact: I, Gert, did not write letters or make phone calls.
Lies: pg 316 – 318 pertain to events about getting personal properties of Kathy’s back from the author that the author did not do in a timely matter.
Fact: Under pressures, from family members, the author enlisted the help of Doctor Hoksbergen. My sister Kathy wrote a letter to Doctor Hoksbergen after she received a very intrusive and intimidating letter from him.
See my email that contains my assessment of Hoksbergen’s letter as well as letter the author wrote to my aged foster mother attempting to gain information from her.
Lies, slanderous: pg 310 author states that she had spoken with a Joe Soll, adoption specialist, who had received letters from the author’s sisters.
Fact: see my email with copy of an email exchange that I, Gert, had with Mr. Soll, who denies everything the author had stated on pg 310/311.
Lies, slanderous: pg309, the author states ‘my sisters would do anything to prevent me from publishing my life story, they ganged together to destroy my soul so I wouldn’t be a threat to them, this surely was sibling rivalry and jealousy at its best.’
Lies, slanderous: pg 314-318, the author states that we sisters made many harassing phones and she enlisted the help from the police and they had some sort of recordings of what was said and can make identifications. She has a police officer saying this about me, (Gert)… ‘this one in ‘P’…what’s her name, oh here it is I’ve got her right here, ‘I’ she says she’s gonna bring the entire House of Thor to bring evil upon you, honestly, I wish these two were in Buffalo, I’d fry them like hotcakes.’
Fact: I, Gert, never made phone calls, there is no proof from any police dept. or phone company.
Fact: The statement about me bringing a god (Thor) is an insult to one of my Gods! To state that I would ‘bring evil’ is beyond slander it is hate speech towards my religion and my religious practices. The author only knows SCA activities from her husband’s association with reenactments.
Fact: I, Gert, am a well-respected innovator of the reawakening of certain ancient folk religions. I am a lore-teacher and writer in my religion of Anglo-Saxon Theodish Belief. Some of my writings and activities can be seen on the web just by googling my name. I take great offense having my religion and my religious practices misjudged and discussed so disrespectfully.
Fact: The author has also been very vocal and disrespectful about my sister Ruth’s pagan religion and my sister Kathy’s Jewish religion. These things are reported on our refuting blog. (religious intolerance – hate language).
Lie: page 359 author states that in 1999 she wrote a letter to our brother and ‘a similar letter to my sisters, that whatever they had against me needed to be talked out, resolved, so we could be a family again.’
Fact: I (Gert) never received such a letter. I attempted in early 1982 mediation with the author but the author said ‘go to hell’. After the betrayal by the author in 1992 I wanted nothing to do with the author. I attempted another reconciliation by phone in 2006 only to be betrayed again, by author.
Lie: pg 359 author states ‘my sisters retaliated with yet more hate mail and vicious phone calls’
Fact: I (Gert) never did.
Again, I must state that, it is the opinions of Gert McQueen, Kathy Inglis, and Ruth Pace that our personal and family honor has been sullied and damaged by the publication of this book by Joan Wheeler. For honor sake we ask that Trafford Publication look at the content of the material in this book and remove it from your selling markets.
Forbidden Family by Joan Wheeler Chapters 22, 23, and 24 pages 222 – 257 – REFUTED! – Part 2 by Ruth Pace March 25, 2011Posted by Ruth in Contradictions of Joan Wheeler, Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: abuse, adoption, adoption reform, adoption reunion, being downright nasty, bigotry, contradictions, Disrespect, embellishing the truth, harassment of an adoptee's birth family, misrepresenting one's credentials, misrepresenting one's employment, passing assumptions off as truth, passing speculations off as truth, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, religious intolerance, speculation, spreading untruths, stupidity, trailer parks, whining
I agree, more whining, more digs aimed at her birth sisters.
She starts out the chapter by saying that prayer and meditation from an aunt and uncle helped strengthen her spirituality. Influenced her in inner healing. Really? I don’t see much evidence to this. Her spirituality? To what? To have that confidence in one’s own spirituality that there is no need to trash another person’s religion? HA! We see Joan trashing the Catholic Church left and right and her sisters’ (me and Gert) Neo-Pagan paths. Inner healing? HA! All over the book and to this day, Joan writes about her tormented inner life.
On page 222, she relates how she saw two Liverpool, England musicians in concert in Buffalo, New York. These 2 people knew our sister Kathy in Liverpool. Joan writes, “I wondered why Edith (Kathy) didn’t take me to see them in Liverpool.” Oh whine.
Well, let’s see, why didn’t Kathy take her to see them? Does Joan mean to see them perform or see them socially? As the poor writer that she is, she doesn’t make the distinction. But there are lot’s of reasons why Kathy didn’t take her to “see” them. Maybe they weren’t performing when Joan was there. Maybe they were out of the country, performing in Germany maybe. Maybe one of them had the flu. Maybe one of them had a death in the family! Did Joan ever bother to ask Kathy? And maybe put the dam TRUTH in her book? NO! And quite frankly WHO GIVES A SHIT? And what does this have to do with Joan’s adoption, Joan’s adoption reunion, and Joan’s adoption reform work? NOTHING!
This is an example of why this book is a piece of shit! The book is peppered with these kinds of questions! Questions from Joan’s tormented mind – but she never gives her readers the TRUTHFUL answers to these questions. Joan just loves to SPECULATE on people’s motives of their day to day lives. She should stop that shit and pay attention to her own miserable life. Maybe put into practice what Aunt Helen and Uncle Dom were trying to tell her.
But Joan doesn’t want to do that – she doesn’t bother to do proper research – and tell the truth. It’s much easier to write a speculative question, because it’s a clever ploy – to show that Kathy was a negligent bitch to Joan – she didn’t take Joan to see a couple of musicians. You know, Kathy knows a lot of musicians in England, seeing as she is a musician herself. So Kathy is supposed to take Joan to meet every single musician that she knows. On the outside chance that they may travel to the States and perform in Buffalo. Yes, everyone on the planet must plan their lives to please Joan. Introduce her to EVERY person they know because if they don’t, she will feel slighted and insulted and whine about it in her book. And it’s a clever ploy to put another insulting dig against one of her birth sisters without the reader being aware of what she is doing.
On page 244 Joan writes this about me: “Brenda (me) was a big comfort. She loved baby Aaron (Joan’s son) and came to see us often.” Remember this when she writes all over the internet how I hate her kids. Notice how Joan contradicts herself left and right – that’s because she can’t stick to the TRUTH!
Another thing she likes to do is LIE about me concerning her kids is that I am jealous of her because she has two kids and I am infertile. In June 1985, I suffered a miscarriage, after several years of trying to conceive. Yet, she writes that I’m taking her son to outings in 1985. And both of her kids to the beach in 1989 and 1990. She just can’t stick to one story.
On page 248, she writes about the backlash of her doing an interview in the newspaper on adoption and getting a few facts wrong. This topic is covered in Gert’s post and I have already written about it. But she says on page 248 “There was no one to help me cope with my feelings, except my year-old son.” Um, what was I? Chopped Liver? I thought she said that I came to visit her often! She didn’t say between page 244 and 248 that we suddenly stopped speaking to each other.
On page 253, summer of 1985, she writes, “Brenda and I frequently took 18-month-old Aaron on outings.” Later on in the book, in the years 1988-90, she says the same thing, as we did go to the beach a lot with her kids. But on the internet, on The Huffington Post, she said that she didn’t have a relationship with me for more than three decades. Do the math people: 3 decades = 30 years. 2011 minus 30 is 1981. But it’s right there in black and white on page 244 we’re at the beach in 1984, and on page 253, we’re taking her son to outings in the summer of 1985.
On page 252 she relates how she goes to Charleston, South Carolina to visit her husband, who had gone there for a better job. She says she wasn’t impressed with the city. Well, she is entitled to her opinion, but on page 257, she states she didn’t like the houses in Charleston, because they were “poorly made with staples instead of nails.” What? She is a construction expert? Let’s see, she made this expert opinion in 1985. In 1989, Hurricane Hugo blew into Charleston. While two-thirds of the city’s houses suffered varying degrees of damage (Wikipedia), the city was not leveled. So I guess Joan’s expert assessment on building codes goes in the trash.
Joan goes on to say that her husband suggested a double-wide trailer. She writes: “Bad enough we were already poor; I didn’t want to live in a trailer park to become trailer trash. Maybe that was his goal, but it wasn’t mine.“
Trailer Trash? Trailer Trash? Where does she get off putting people living in trailer parks as trash? What a disgusting, stereotypical, discriminatory thing to say. Does she forget that her own birth brother and his wife, lived in a trailer park when they first moved to Arizona?
In a comment to my post What is the REAL reason behind Joan Wheeler’s rant on the Huffington Post? March 9, 2011, Gert listed the National Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics, “Social Workers’ Ethical Responsibilities to Clients.”
In Item 07 – Privacy and Confidentiality article d, we find the following:
Social workers should act to prevent and eliminate domination of, exploitatin of, and discrimination against any person, group, or class on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, marital status, political belief, religion, immigration status, or mental or physical disability.
Joan likes to spout off and brag that she is a “social worker,” but in her usual contradictory self, she also says she is “unemployed, due to disabilities.” If she’s unemployed, then she is NOT a social worker. She also brags that she is a member of the National Association of Social Workers.
WELL, in her putdown of people living in trailer parks, she is in violation of that code where it says “Social workers should act to prevent and eliminate ….discrimination against any ….CLASS…”
Okay, it talks about social workers and their clients, which Joan doesn’t have any clients, because she’s not working, but if Joan is feeling this in her heart and personal life, how would she treat a client if she had any? Just how would she treat a client that lived in a trailer park, considering she considers people living in trailer parks as trash. Perhaps we should count our blessings that Joan is NOT a working social worker – she’d be very detrimental to her clients with her bigoted way of thinking – and heaven help any client who ADOPTED a child. Yes, yes, I’m indulging in a bit of speculative thinking myself – but we all know dam well what Joan would do. It’s right there in her book – she has chronciled herself putting down people in meetings, classrooms, her own professors and classmates while getting her social work degree, even the Association of Social Workers. I guess I’m not really speculating after all – just telling the truth, using Joan’s own words from her own trashy book. After all, it’s right there in black and white on page 257: trailer trash.
The Social Worker’s Code also doesn’t include a client’s income, but it does say CLASS, which in this case would be poor people. And Joan already said that her and her husband and year old son were POOR, so in other words, she was putting herself down.
After Joan puts down residents of trailer parks, Joan then says “I wanted a better life.” I can’t fault her there. Everybody wants a better life. That’s why they GET OFF THEIR ASS AND GET A JOB! TO WORK TOWARDS THAT BETTER LIFE!
In writing about her birth brother in 2003, when the family goes to Arizona for his funeral, Joan writes in her book about how “rich” he and his wife were. No, they weren’t “rich,” they were upper middle class. And their beautiful house was the reward of years of WORKING AT JOBS!
In 1976, when my brother and his wife moved to Arizona, they filed for bankruptcy, sold their belongings, packed up their little Toyota Corolla, and drove across the country in search of their better life. And through hard work, they achieved it. And yes, at first they lived in a TRAILER PARK! And they weren’t TRASH! But again, as we see over and over and over again throughout this TRASHY book, Joan M. Wheeler puts down her birth family as trash. The only trash from the Sippel family is Joan herself and her book.
Joan doesn’t want ADOPTEES to be discriminated against – yet turns around and says this discriminatory statement against residents of trailer parks.
My first apartment in 1971, was a room in a boarding house. I was working as a cashier for Twin Fair, a K-Mart type store. I then roomed with an older woman, while I took classes in 1972 to become a nurses aide in September 1972. In early 1973, I moved back to my father’s house to help out with the kids, while working full time nights at the hospital, where 38 years later, I am still working. During 1973 and into 1974, I saved my money and in May 1974, I got my first real apartment. In 1975, I moved into a larger apartment with my first husband, and each subsequent apartment was a bit nicer than the last. In May 1987, my present husband and I moved into a rented HOUSE, which in 1996, we bought off the landlord.
I’m also looking for the “better life.” And am working towards it. My husband and I are secure in our house, doing renovations as time and money permits. Our long term plans are to have the renovations done in about 10 years, and then turn our attention to the acquiring and landscaping of the empty lot next to us.
What’s Joan doing? Living in fantasyland. Waiting for a movie to made out of her trashy book. Sorry Joan, not even Oprah is going to feature this trashy book on Oprah’s Book Club – because when she sees how you put down trailer people, she’s going to see you for what you are – a bigot, and a liar. Someone who puts down and insults and lies about her own birth family. And don’t even try to ride in on the adoption coattail – just because Oprah recently introduced her adopted out birth sister to the world. Oprah isn’t stupid, nor is most of the world – we all see Joan for what she is.
And what will Joan do? Now that her meal ticket is gone.
addendum: March 26, 4:40am. by Ruth Pace
The following is from an adoptee forum. And I have a question for the author: Romany, have you Deeply Read the above and what your buddy Joan has said about poor people being TRASH?
Title: Re: Single mother’s…Thanks Huckabee for your insight..
Post by: Romany on March 06, 2011, 03:17:35 PM
The trouble is – people like him divide the world into “good” (educated, moral, productive, financially sound) and “not good” (uneducated, immoral, unproductive, poor). There are no educated, immoral, productive, poor people just as there are no uneducated, moral, unproductive, financially sound people – or any other combination. The “good” people have all the “good” attributes and the “not good” people have nothing. Morality (his version) leads to good things and immorality (his version) leads to bad things because that’s what his god tells him.
And according to her book Forbidden Family, Joan Wheeler also divides the world into “good” people – those who do not live in trailer parks, and “not good ” people – those who do live in trailer parks. I don’t even want to touch Joan’s “morality” because I dont’ think I can – she doesn’t have any morals.