Adoption IS a feminist issue

[Samurai_Writer]

I've been thinking about this since I posted about my birthson finally contacting me. The more I think about it, I am convinced that adoption is a feminist issue. What other 'industry' makes money off the heartache of women? What other industry manipulates and coerces women into surrendering their own child? What other industry uses women as incubators, so that they can satisfy their clients?

For any of you that are adoptive parents, unless your children's birthmother's rights were terminated for cause, or if your children were orphans, at least some of the above happened to your children's birthmother.

Yes, there are instances where women cannot care for their children. But adoption should be the last resort -- not a permanent solution to a temporary problem, which is mostly the case in today's society.

Closed, semi-closed, or open adoptions, it makes no difference. Women are still lied to, manipulated, and coerced so that adoption agencies can make money by placing women's children for adoption. Isn't that the highest form of misogyny?

What do you all think?

[ismnotwasm]

1. Oh yes

And you can take that thought and let it spiral down even deeper. What is a women's worth? What is her actual worth in societies in history, and on a more subtle level now?
The ability to bear Children.
It's quite possible at the bottom of all the efforts to control women throughout history. The very roots of sexism.
"Unfit Mother" has been in use long, long before "Deadbeat dad" "Pro-life? = control. Sexualization of women = control. I'm no fan of any one politician, but when Hilliary Clinton said "it takes a village to raise a child" she was not inventing a new sentiment, but repeating a profound truth. I remember Germaine Greer in one of her books, saying American hates it's children. Radical to be sure, but what if every child WAS valued? Every mother, no matter what the circumstances who WANTED to bear and keep her child was supported by that "village?"

Adoption is very much a feminist issue, and a very emotional one. There will always be women who don't want children. (They get a lot of shit, trying to explain that) There will always be ones who get pregnant who don't want to go through the pregnancy (We know THAT debate, it rages around us)There will always be women who get pregnant and feel unsupported, lost, broke, whatever, carry to term and give the child "up" (what the hell does that mean "up") for adoption and live their lives always wondering, always worrying, always feeling guilty or incomplete.

There are also the women who are able to give a child to adoptive parents and never look back, but in my experience, they tend to be a minority.

I know wonderful adoptive parents as well as adoptee's who have found their birth mother, with the blessing of the adoptive parents. Many adoptees want to know. It draws them, it doesn't lessen the love for their adoptive parents, but it's almost like a candle to a flame, unless there is a lot of anger.
My own two step daughters,(their mother passed away) have a brother out there somewhere. When she died, we notified the department of social services, we couldn't do anything else. Maybe they will find each other someday, I hope so.

[politicat]

2. Agreed.

The whole reproductive process is fraught with misogyny - from obtaining contraceptives on up.

Women have to justify their right to the Pill or whatever method to their doctors, even though the Pill is safer than Tylenol (in terms of deaths attributed to either per year - the former causes about 200 per year, the latter about 1000). If they can't tolerate the Pill or some other hormonal means, they have to get a barrier form, and that usually means a condom, which means convincing their partner to wear it. And getting a heterosexual male to wear a condom in a long term relationship is not easy...

There are a lot of group insurance plans that don't cover contraception, and some states don't cover it for Medicaid users. This affects women, not men. Not providing contraception is specifically misogynist, because it presumes that no woman has sex for non-procreative reasons, and that every child is wanted, and places the burden of the risk on women.

So even assuming that contraception is easy and works, and any pregnancy that does occur is planned and wanted, having the child is still medicalized and turned into a point of profit for the pre-dominantly male owned and operated medical establishment. If the mother is young, single and poor, she's likely to get little or no care because she's not profitable; if she's young, single and has parents supporting her, she's often pressured into being a womb for rent for either the grandparents (to have the vicarious experience of another infant without the midnight feedings and diaper changing) or for an adoption agency's profit. If she has access to insurance, she's more likely to get a C-section because they're more profitable.

She can't take time away from work without suffering a severe economic penalty -- even with the best insurance I ever had, that included a 6 month short term disability policy that covered pregnancy and the neonatal stage, I still would have had to give up 40% of my salary while I was off. If she goes directly back to work, the economic penalty of day care kicks in. Women can't win.

If she is coerced into giving the child up for adoption, she's not allowed to feel grief or loss because she did what society says is "best for the baby", even though studies show that adopted children do not do significantly better educationally than do birthed children when economic factors are controlled for. (I.e. a child whose parents make $20K a year will do about as well in school as any other child whose parents make the same, regardless of adoption or birth status; a child whose parents make $100K a year will do better than a child whose parents make $20K, but the difference is economic, not governed by genes or birth.) If she does allow her feelings, she's considered irrational and not to be trusted, especially if it's a so-called "open" adoption. She has to continue playing a role of grateful fallen woman to be allowed continued access to her child. If she fails to play that role, she's rejected from the child's life.

If she defies everyone pressuring her and keeps her child, and for some reason, she finds herself in financial straights with a small child in tow, she's more likely to end up under the scrutiny of CPS, and is more likely to have her child taken from her than another single mother of greater means is. Her child ends up in foster care and if she is not properly cheerful and grateful to the foster parents, she is again labeled unstable and usually ends up losing her children. God forbid she have a mental illness or self-medicate because she does not have access to proper health care.

And no, I'm not describing situations from 60 years ago... These scenes play out in every state and county in the country today.

[MountainLaurel]

3. I think you're right

I recently read a book about international adoptions. One of the interesting things I noted was that in the case of Korea, the huge market for Korean children in the United States has played a major role in preventing the evolution of the culture and how unmarried pregnant women are treated. There's such an infrastructure in place for "dealing with" unwed mothers that the country doesn't have to examine issues such as patriarchal roles that discourage women-headed households and working mothers and don't require men to support their children out of wedlock, the lack of contraceptive options and support mechanisms for women to keep their babies, etc. Meanwhile, adoption -- and today, tourism from adoptees coming to the country looking for their "roots -- brings a huge amount of American dollars into the country.

And that was the situation for many years in the United States. It was assumed that unmarried pregnant women were going to put their baby up for adoption. Sometimes when those women had other plans, they were not given a choice. I've written here before about, when Googling my mother's maiden name, coming across an post on a board called angrygrandma.net from a woman looking for her half-sister: "It is believed that Baby C was adopted illegally. I would give anything to find you so you would know that Mom did not put you up for adoption. She left you at a home for unwed mother's so she could go to Wash, DC and earn enough money to come back for you and she rec'd a letter saying you had died." From what I can tell, the birth mother here was my grandfather's first cousin, 18 years old at the time of this birth in the late 1940s and a first-generation Italian-American. How many times was this story repeated during the 1940s and 1950s, that "golden era" that the Repukes would have us return to? :cry:

Somewhat OT, for an interesting change of perspective on international adoption, check out the Transracial Abductees site.

[Ayesha]

4. Interesting topic

and I agree to an extent, but I'm not so sure that a certain number of these children aren't better off, even though the birth parent(s) may be devastated. Shouldn't the best interests of the CHILD come before those of either the birth or adoptive parents?

My partner's brother is a birth parent in an open adoption. The little girl was adopted by a great family who is well prepared to deal with her special needs (which were not apparent at birth.) My partner's brother is a nice guy and has a good relationship with the birth family, however the birth mother is a mentally unstable nutcase (classic borderline, based on what I've heard). My partner's brother regrets ever having met her. She says she was coerced by her mother into giving up the child and has engaged in all kinds of inappropriate stalking behavior that has destroyed her relationship with her birth child and the adoptive parents. Was she coerced? I don't know, but if she was it was for good reason - she would have made a TERRIBLE parent due to her mental instability. She's not psychologically capable of raising any child, let alone one with special needs. Her child would have been abused, neglected and psychologically scarred for life. She probably would have ended up in foster care as an older, disturbed, hard-to-place child. Instead, the cycle was broken and she has a good chance of a normal life.

I also think it's wrong to assume that no sane woman would want to give up a child for adoption. Not every woman wants children or wants a child at the time an unplanned pregnancy occurs. Not everyone considers genes the most essential component of a family bond. Assuming women regret choosing adoption is just as bad as assuming that women regret choosing abortion. A few might, most don't because they had a chance to think about their decision logically and decide what they thought was best. Open adoption, in particular, reduces regrets because there are fewer unanswered questions for birth parent and child. It removes mystery and shame (the byproducts of our patriarchal society) from the equation.

Also, what about the times that choosing TO adopt is a feminist issue? Adopting a baby girl from China, for example, can be seen as feminist, as it's saving a child from a culture where women are devalued. In El Salvador, all abortions are illegal, even to save the life of the mother, and there are criminal investigations that include "womb inspectors" that can result in the woman being imprisoned. My partner and I just found this out and when we're ready to adopt in a few years we will seriously consider El Salvador as the abandoned babies there are the result of this law, not to mention that no girl child should grow up to face that horrible circumstance. Of course changing the law is what SHOULD happen, but we're not in a position to do that, and we are in a position to raise 1 or 2 homeless children who otherwise would grow up in that terrible environment.

[BlueIris]

5. Also from a way back, but something that's been on my mind lately.