Steak or Hot Dogs? Joan Wheeler hasn’t a clue what the Sippel kids ate – and this has WHAT to do with her adoption? November 9, 2010Posted by Ruth in Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family, Lies in the book Forbidden Family, Our Family History, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, Uncategorized.
Tags: adoption, adoption reform, adoption reunion, being downright stupid, Disrespect, embellishing the truth, faulty memory, harassment of an adoptee's birth family, passing assumptions off as truth, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, spreading rumors, spreading untruths, stupidity, Urban Legends, whining
From Gert to Ruth:
I just had to address this issue, saw it late last night and stayed up late to do it….so unbelievable even though it is out of sequence I believe that it will serve a purpose… that she is no social worker…so Ruth if you can post this soon….
Joan Wheeler’s book is so full of nonsense it is an overwhelming bunch of garbage.
Taking a peek ahead into the depths of the craziness that Joan has written, I found something that just boggles my mind and felt the need to bring it up now. Chapter 38 is called ‘unequal treatment of 1 half-orphan out of 36 resulted in a traumatic life outcome – a Social Work Assessment’
It begins with ‘April – July 2009’ meaning of course she wrote it or massively rewrote it just before publication. It continues ‘this assessment is complicated to read, but necessary to understand’. I ask you what has Joan written that has been easy to understand? This entire chapter was an ‘afterthought’ of Joan’s so she could continue with her rants under the guise of ‘social work’. What a joke Joan is! Anyone with or without a degree can tell that Joan is nuts. This is the chapter that she says our father couldn’t understand, which btw caused him to say to others that it belonged in the trash! I’m not ready to comment on this chapter in full…in time it will be addressed…but there is one short paragraph that caught my eye.
Under a title of ‘known and unknown rumors against my natural father’ it defies reason has to what that title or what she has in it has to do with her adoption and how it was an ‘unequal treatment’ and how it resulted in a traumatic life for her, for she wasn’t there. It is Joan’s attempt to prove that her traumatic life is because of all the things she has put into this afterthought chapter.
Steak or Hot Dogs?
I can’t imagine how she can believe or devise these tales but as always she has to put her own spin on it. There are many outlandish tales cooked up by the adoptive family because they had some kind of weird idea about my parents and our economic circumstances and Joan has taken them to be ‘true’ and the reason why she is so traumatized. Bull Shit. Here then is one small paragraph that Joan has written on pg. 542 which caused her trauma! (Ruth’s note: how in God’s holy trouser’s could what we Sippel kids ate for supper when Joan wasn’t living with us caused her trauma is way beyond me!)
‘One story that has circulated for decades is that in the years before and after my birth and disappearance to adoption, my father fed my siblings hot dogs while he (and presumably my mother and then my siblings’ step-mother) ate steak. When I asked Dad about this, his explanation made sense to me since I, too, raised children. Parents do their best to provide quality food, but when children prefer to eat hot dogs because they taste better to kids, it is easier for parents to give in than to fight about dinner. There is also another explanation – that my father sent my brother to the Broadway Market to buy hot dogs for dinner. He took his time walking home, eating the uncooked hot dogs on the way. There was no dinner for the rest of the family.’ (Ruth’s note: this sentance makes no sense – it does not compute! – When she says that there was no dinner for the rest of the family – does she mean to imply that my father and mother (or stepmother) ate a steak dinner in front of us kids while we went hungry? HOW DARE YOU JOAN! We kids ate supper EVERY FUCKING EVENING! My father and mother/stepmother was responsible enough to make sure there was adequate groceries in our house for EVERYONE to eat. Not like JOAN and her ex-husband – in another section of her book she says that money was short that often HER kids had one meal a day. That’s a reflection of JOAN’S poor parenting and financial irresponsiblity! She couldn’t feed her kids? Yet she had money to zip around the place attending adoption conferences! Or going to rock concerts! But when money was short, and HER kids ate only one meal a day – did she get off her lazy ass and get even a part time job in the evenings at the Tops Supermarket one mile from her house? Before Joan starts painting the Sippel kids as deprived, she needs to take a close look at how she treated her own kids – like crap!)
This is pure hogwash! I haven’t a clue how she could possible believe such a tale and then put it in a book about her adoption! The basic true story was related from birth relative to adoptive relative and then turned into totally false-hood by the adoptive relatives for reasons of their own. But Joan NEVER researched the truth of the story and instead adds things on, that are of course not true and embellishes it with her own ‘time period’ thought patterns.
One can tell that it is another ‘Joan centric’ tale because she starts it out with her birth and ‘disappearance to adoption’ as if B.J. (before Joan) had some kind of great turning point in the way our family lived.
Here is the truth and beginning of the tale: My father was raised an only child after an elder brother died. His mother was very protective of him and of his health in particular. She always maintained that her son should have the iron in steak so that his blood was strong and he would not become weak like the son that she had lost. When my father and mother married, his mother would bring a steak to my mother, every week, telling her it was for her son. My mother, being a good daughter-in-law, thanked her mother-in-law and put the steak in the freezer till she had enough to feed the entire family. There is nothing more or less to the story, simply that my mother was no fool. She knew enough to keep her family fed with or without the additional weekly steak that her mother-in-law, my grandmother gave her.
Most of the time during and after my mother’s illness and death we children lived with or were taken care of by our grandparents. Then Dad remarried and his mother came again to her new daughter-in-law, my stepmother with the ‘steak’ for her son. This did not go over well with my stepmother and it was probably she who fed us other meat, again, because she was the wife and in charge of the household and kitchen, not my father.
What Joan tells in this tale is not true and it suffers greatly from total fabrications. She says that she asked Dad about this, well I have no way of knowing if that is true or not but it seems that even if he attempted to give an explanation of it that explanation was embellished by Joan. Dad is a guy and some guys just don’t think about how and what kind of food got on the table. Joan doesn’t think! In the 1950s the world was different, the husband gave the wife the ‘grocery money’ and that was that. So Dad did not feed his kids anything, his wife did! And he ate what was put in front of him!
Joan states, ‘Parents do their best to provide quality food, but when children prefer to eat hot dogs because they taste better to kids, it is easier for parents to give in than to fight about dinner.’ This is Joan’s inner mind working again, subjectively and certainly putting words into someone else’s mouth. This might have happened in Joan’s home with her adoptive parents and then with her children but it certainly didn’t happen in my father’s home. This statement is an editorial comment, has nothing to do with the story at all. Joan was NOT THERE, she would not KNOW that as a child, in my father’s household, if you didn’t eat what was put in front of you, you stayed there all night till you ate it and if you didn’t you had it for breakfast, or, you went without and went to bed hungry! (Ruth’s note: This is correct, not only in our house, but our grandmother’s house, and in the foster home that we were in for a few years. This is why I will not eat, to this day: oatmeal, lima beans or brussel sprouts. The women in our lives, our father’s mother, our step-mother, our step-grandmother and our foster mother, were strict. They did not cook a meal only to have a child waste it).
Here are some other very important facts that Joan does not know about. While there was the Broadway Market it was not in the neighbor and my father would never have sent my brother or any of us there to purchase anything. There was a local butcher within 4 blocks from home where we went for meat. Joan doesn’t know that because she wasn’t there and the adoptive relatives were not there! All she and they know is the Broadway Market!
Joan then continues saying about my brother that, ‘He took his time walking home, eating the uncooked hot dogs on the way. There was no dinner for the rest of the family.’ Again, made-up, sounds more like something The Beaver would have done, but not a real kid who was sent to the store to get something. If anyone of us did such a thing forget about dinner, which was called supper at our house, you would have been sent to bed with a ‘licking’. (Ruth’s note: again, the women in our lives were strict – we got a good smack on our backside when we misbehaved. Something more kids need in this world of kids AND adults not having any self-control or sense of self-responsibility).
Joan knows nothing about what happened in our family because she either wasn’t born yet or she was adopted out as an infant. (Ruth’s note: this sentence makes perfect sense to me – how the hell does Joan know what we Sippel kids ate for supper? SHE WASN’T THERE! I WAS! I KNOW WHAT WE ATE, WHAT WE DIDN’T EAT – AND HOW OUR FAMILY EXISTED! AND SO DOES GERT AND SO DOES KATHY – NOT JOAN. Joan keeps saying that her adoptive family, both her parents and the extended Wheeler family LIED to her about her adoption, and the existence of her siblings. How does she know that they weren’t also LYING to her about our family life? And how the hell do THEY know about it? THEY were NOT part of our family growing up! The only contact between the two families was my mother’s sister Catherine – and she raised her kids the same dam way – her husband always had liverwurst sausage in the fridge and limburger cheese – and NOBODY touched them! – and by god NOBODY touched Uncle Ray’s stuff! BUT, I ate dam well at Aunt Catherine’s house and I ate the same food that my cousins Norman, Ida and Gail had! – so this bullshit about what we Sippel kids ate came from the LYING WHEELERS! – And they sure taught Joan how to lie).
These tales are fabrications told to her by her adoptive parents and Joan hasn’t got the good sense to keep them out of print. She really ought to be ashamed of herself. She really ought to go after her adoptive relatives and leave the birth sisters alone.
(Ruth’s note: a competent social worker would know not to publish “urban legends” such as the steak/hotdogs or Butch eating hotdogs walking down the street. Better still, a COMPETENT social worker would get to the root of the “urban legend.” But since Joan DIDN’T bother to consider a family anecdote that sprang from either a faulty memory, or out-and-out LIES from her adoptive family, this clearly shows us that Joan is no dam social worker).
Addendum from Ruth:
I have already addressed this family anecdote about us Sippel kids eating hotdogs in my post Photos from the Past March 15, 2010. You have to scroll down to see what I wrote. But to save you the trouble here is what I wrote:
Joan also says on page 542 that our father fed kids hotdogs while he (and presumably my mother and then my siblings’ step-mother) ate steak. This is a family anecdote that Joan in her “brain fog” has gotten wrong.
What happened was this: my father’s mother was from the old-school, she would send over a steak every Friday for my dad. My mother, and then later my stepmother would say “thank you,” and put it in the freezer and the next week, another steak would come, and then we all would eat steak. and yes there were times that we kids would eat hotdogs.
As to the next “story” that my father sent my brother to the Broadway Market for hotdogs, and he ate them on the way home, leaving no dinner for the rest of the family, this makes no sense. Broadway Market was 2 and a half long blocks up Smith St. and then 5 short blocks over. There was Matty’s Deli right around the corner if we needed something in a hurry. Besides, there was Loblaw’s at the corner of William and Emslie only 5 blocks away and Joan was not there, I was. I went shopping every week with my stepmother. We had money for dinner people. come on. What Joan is doing is having “brain fog” in hearing another family anecdote that my brother was sent to the store and probably did eat the hotdogs. I WAS THERE, I HAD DINNER EVERY NIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH! (Ruth’s note, November 8, 2010 – Gert is right – we did call it supper in our house. My husband John and I call it dinner in these present days of 2010).
And if we were so “poor” how come we had one cat, 2 parakeets, turtles, fish, Visible V8 Engine set, chemistry sets, build your own radio kits, a backyard gym/swing set, electric football game, kitchen sets with hoses to a bottle to supply running water, the first Easy Bake oven, Chatty Cathy dolls, Nancy dolls, Janet Lennon dolls, Elsie the Cow doll, some doll, if memory serves, The Breck Doll, sponsored by Breck shampoo, where you learned to style hair, and these weren’t Barbie doll sized, but big – their heads were at least 3 or 4 inches across! I had a Drink and Wet doll who was at least 15 inches long! The first Lite Brite sets. Sno-Cone set. I had a chair and desk set with reversible top – chalkboard on one side, artist easle on the other, paint by number sets, the original Cootie and Mr. Potato-Head.
AND we had our living room set from Ethan Allen furniture (NOT cheap) – colonial style! with a couch that opened to a bed. Colonial style rocking chair, coffee table (of which I had until the early 80’s), colonial style dining room furniture, of which I have TO THIS DAY, one of the chairs – it’s sitting four feet away from me right now! I vividly remember being with my step-mother and step-brother bringing home the living room lamps from downtown Buffalo, Hens and Kelley. AND if we were soooo poor, how come every week, my step-mother took me, my brother and stepbrother downtown to the movies, usually to see the new sci-fi, stuff like “The Cosmic Man” “Hypnotic Eye” “Attack of the 50 Foot Woman” “Invaders from Mars” “Darby O’Gill + the Little People.” We saw Fantasia, went to the circus, I vividly remember not liking the clowns and my stepmother holding me. And all the junk we brought home. I also vividly remember my stepmother taking ME alone to see the brand new Hayley Mills film, The Parent Trap. My brothers and I had Roy Rogers capgun sets, complete with belts, which my grandmother didn’t like. Rubber Jim Bowie knives, Davy Crockett hats. I had a Howdy Doody doll who came to the hospital with me when I had my tonsils taken out at 7 years old, where I threw a temper tantrum because they shut my tv off just as Chuck Connors The Rifleman came on! (I had to leave my rifle home, dad wouldn’t let me take it). All these brand new toys, and pets, but we were poor? I DON’T THINK SO!
(Ruth’s note, November 8, 2010: The Wheelers [but I suspect it all came from Mama Wheeler] thinks we Sippel kids were soooo poor. We came from the “inner city?” Oh yeah? Well, so did THEY! We lived on Smith St. They lived on Coit St. – ONE BLOCK OVER, TWO BLOCKS UP! So Dorothy/Doloris (yes, she goes by two names), take your suburbian snootiness and shove it – ‘cos you came from 3 blocks where we lived – THE INNER CITY!)
And pray tell: what does all this have to do with the supposed purpose of the book Forbidden Family – Joan’s adoption, Joan’s reunion with us and adoption reform? – ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
Gert – November 9, 2010
‘And pray tell: what does all this have to do with the supposed purpose of the book Forbidden Family – Joan’s adoption, Joan’s reunion with us and adoption reform? – ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!’
True, absolutely nothing! Joan is totally against any form of adoption, because, she was adopted and her adoptive parents, lied to her, kept secrets from her, betrayed her and when she was ‘found’ by birth relatives, her adoptive family further betrayed, lied and harassed Joan for having a birth family. Nasty business for sure from the adoptive family, but hey, that is not the birth family’s blame.
Joan repeats, at nauseum, her tramatic life as a basis for adoption reform. NO! Joan’s life is what it is because of Joan, NOT adoption. It’s about time that Joan got out of the fog and get the hell over it! She was dealt a raw deal, well she isn’t the only one. She is suffering now because she CAN’T stand the fact that three birth sisters are finally able to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Joan get a life before you find your self on your death bed all alone and wondering how you got there with no one!
This blog will continue to truth tell and refute everything in that book of garbage!