The Adoption post
Jun. 2nd, 2009 06:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
map_of_the_worldon my icon meme post several of you asked about my position on adoption. This is a collection of extracts of pretty much all my thoughts on the matter. This is a discussion post if you want it to be, so have at it but realise things might get really heated
The thing is that most adopted children aren’t orphans, domestic adoptions are caused by living in a fucked up system and not having enough support for families and internationally most adoptions are caused by the mess colonialism has made of countries infrastructures. I really feel that people who care about children should be dealing with these issues rather than adopting.I don't think any one should be adopting I think its immoral.
With actual orphans I would suggest that their extended families are given the opportunity and support to take them in.
But also all kids had mothers even if those mothers died and adoption tells the lie that the only “mother” who is important in the adoptees life is the adoptive one, so that actually leave no space for the adoptee to grieve the death of their mother (as adoption in general give adoptees no space to grieve the loss of their history, relatives, culture, being among people who are related to them)
Long term guardianship and adoption are not the same thing and are not interchangeable. Adoption is saying “I’m going to take this child who I am not related to, wipe out their history, pretend they are related to me, expect them to behave as if they are related to me while at the same time getting kudos from society for being a saint but getting really angry if the adoptee and adoptees in general are not grateful for my sacrifice”
whereas long term guardianship is saying “I’m going to look after this child who after all other options have been explored has nowhere else to go, I’m not going to expect them to be like me, I’m not going to pretend they are related to me, I’m not going to pretend their bio family and history and culture and name are not important to them”
I don’t even think adoption is right for kids in children’s homes (and not all kids in children’s homes want to be adopted) I think long term guardianship with access to other family members is the way to go, Adoption is a lie and it wipes out a child’s history and genetic connections, Also with adoption there are massive fucked up societal assumptions about it that really damages children.
It really, really bothers me that adoption is hardly talked about in feminist spaces, and when it is talked about it is uncritically with the classism, misogyny and racism totally unexamined and it is all too often about middle class feminists right to a child, not about the fact the system is so broken that children need to be adopted, or that there could be better, much more healthy alternatives to adoption.
taking a child away from a woman because she is young, poor, un(der) educated, disabled, has mental health issues or is otherwise disadvantaged is the antithesis of feminism to me. The feminist response and the anti consumerist response would be to support her in bringing the child up. (and no this is not what “open” adoptions are or do) children are not commodities and disadvantaged women are not baby providing machines
for some of us adoption isn’t a wonderful thing to be celebrated or encouraged, lots of adoptees do not see adoption as a good thing, as something to be happy about. It's painful, confusing, identity annihilating. we were not something to provide adults with a sense of purpose. We were not something to be “saved” (and then more often than not be forced to be “grateful” about being “saved) And we do talk about this. There are lots of us blogging about our lives, our experiences, but we don't get listened to, we get dismissed by prospective adoptive parents, by adoptive parents, by agencies and by people who have nothing to do with adoption because the societies we live in are so invested in the lie that adoption is a win/win/win situation for everybody involved when usually two of the three parts of that triangle loose something irreplaceable.
And I’m not just talking about adoptees who had abusive or bad adoptive parents, while we do exist and our voices are important, there are many adoptees whose adoptive parents were good people. but that doesn’t negate the adoptees sense of grief and loss
The adoptees still loose their culture and their name and have to pretend they are related to people that they aren’t.
And there is still a really strong culture of adopted having to be grateful to their adoptive parents even if they were really bad parents.I still don’t think the child is put first. Adoptive parents adopt to fulfill a need in themselves not to full fill a need in their children
so many people are like "having adopted children is just the same as having bio children" and that really irks me, of course its not the same! it cant possibly be the same, its such a massively different process biologically for a start, and you can be sure as hell that it isn't the same for the child, with the best will and all the support in the world adoptees will always have attachment and abandonment issues that non adopted kids don't have. Even with very young children there are many studies showing that removing a child from the woman that gave birth to it for any length of time leaves the child with serious emotional issues because its not something that is supposed to be done.
middle class parents are almost always seen as more suitable parents so basically working class women are providing children for middle class women. Also middle class families are seen as automatically less abusive, i know way too many adoptees who ended up with abusive but middle class parents, and there isn't a significant difference in the number of abusive adoptive parents than non adoptive parents, when really if the system worked there should be no abusive adoptive parents because really what is the point of taking a child out of one abusive situation and putting them in another?
Some people just can't look after children i know that but if we lived in a society that was more communal, less individualistic, worked less hours we would be better able to support those people to but i know that there are some people who are so damaged that they just cant do it (I think my first mother was probably one of those people) but i still don't think adoption is the way to go, children pretty much have no say in the matter, nobody asks them if they want a "new mummy and daddy" and they get taken from everything they know. their heritage, their blood, people who look like them. who think in the same patterns. And often they are not allowed to grieve their losses. And the expectations society has of adoptees is really odd. my whole life I was expected to be "grateful" to may parents for putting a roof over my head and feeding me, Isn’t that like the absolute basics of parenting? also being told to think of the sacrifice my parents made. as if i was a burden, a charity case, like they were saints for taking in defective broken kids. (and I've spoken to lots of other adoptees who have had this experience)
so i think kids who absolutely need to not be with their first parents should grow up in loving foster homes with a kind of guardianship arrangement, they should keep their names, they should know who their first parents are and in appropriate cases have contact if they want it, they should have contact with their siblings. We should totally get rid of the pretence and the disconnects inherent in adoption.
I do not perceive adoption and abortion as either/or What usually happens is that a woman decides weather to have an abortion or not and then weather to keep the child or not they don’t decide weather to have an abortion OR give the child up for adoption.
women are often talked about how they have "chosen" to give their children up for adoption but often that isn’t actually a choice it is often coercion or desperation
Adoption is very much about giving a (almost exclusively middle class and educated and able bodied) set of parents a child. it is not about the children and it is not about supporting disadvantaged families, or about supporting and building communities.
I also think taking children from mothers for reasons such as those I’ve mentioned above is really bad and damaging for the children for all sorts of reasons.
as to racism in adoption, obviously there's a whole bunch of issues around racism and white privilege in transnational adoptions but I think there is too in domestic adoptions in that white children are more desirable and seen as less of a problem than children of colour
But also further to that adoption is a lie and is unconsensual, children don’t get a choice in it. they are expected to slot into a family and behave as if that is a bio family when they already have a family, even if that family are abusive or dead they still existed and that should be understood and acknowledged.
children who grow up without genetic mirroring (i.e people who look like them, move like them, think in the same patterns as them) feel unanchored
The thing is that most adopted children aren’t orphans, domestic adoptions are caused by living in a fucked up system and not having enough support for families and internationally most adoptions are caused by the mess colonialism has made of countries infrastructures. I really feel that people who care about children should be dealing with these issues rather than adopting.I don't think any one should be adopting I think its immoral.
With actual orphans I would suggest that their extended families are given the opportunity and support to take them in.
But also all kids had mothers even if those mothers died and adoption tells the lie that the only “mother” who is important in the adoptees life is the adoptive one, so that actually leave no space for the adoptee to grieve the death of their mother (as adoption in general give adoptees no space to grieve the loss of their history, relatives, culture, being among people who are related to them)
Long term guardianship and adoption are not the same thing and are not interchangeable. Adoption is saying “I’m going to take this child who I am not related to, wipe out their history, pretend they are related to me, expect them to behave as if they are related to me while at the same time getting kudos from society for being a saint but getting really angry if the adoptee and adoptees in general are not grateful for my sacrifice”
whereas long term guardianship is saying “I’m going to look after this child who after all other options have been explored has nowhere else to go, I’m not going to expect them to be like me, I’m not going to pretend they are related to me, I’m not going to pretend their bio family and history and culture and name are not important to them”
I don’t even think adoption is right for kids in children’s homes (and not all kids in children’s homes want to be adopted) I think long term guardianship with access to other family members is the way to go, Adoption is a lie and it wipes out a child’s history and genetic connections, Also with adoption there are massive fucked up societal assumptions about it that really damages children.
It really, really bothers me that adoption is hardly talked about in feminist spaces, and when it is talked about it is uncritically with the classism, misogyny and racism totally unexamined and it is all too often about middle class feminists right to a child, not about the fact the system is so broken that children need to be adopted, or that there could be better, much more healthy alternatives to adoption.
taking a child away from a woman because she is young, poor, un(der) educated, disabled, has mental health issues or is otherwise disadvantaged is the antithesis of feminism to me. The feminist response and the anti consumerist response would be to support her in bringing the child up. (and no this is not what “open” adoptions are or do) children are not commodities and disadvantaged women are not baby providing machines
for some of us adoption isn’t a wonderful thing to be celebrated or encouraged, lots of adoptees do not see adoption as a good thing, as something to be happy about. It's painful, confusing, identity annihilating. we were not something to provide adults with a sense of purpose. We were not something to be “saved” (and then more often than not be forced to be “grateful” about being “saved) And we do talk about this. There are lots of us blogging about our lives, our experiences, but we don't get listened to, we get dismissed by prospective adoptive parents, by adoptive parents, by agencies and by people who have nothing to do with adoption because the societies we live in are so invested in the lie that adoption is a win/win/win situation for everybody involved when usually two of the three parts of that triangle loose something irreplaceable.
And I’m not just talking about adoptees who had abusive or bad adoptive parents, while we do exist and our voices are important, there are many adoptees whose adoptive parents were good people. but that doesn’t negate the adoptees sense of grief and loss
The adoptees still loose their culture and their name and have to pretend they are related to people that they aren’t.
And there is still a really strong culture of adopted having to be grateful to their adoptive parents even if they were really bad parents.I still don’t think the child is put first. Adoptive parents adopt to fulfill a need in themselves not to full fill a need in their children
so many people are like "having adopted children is just the same as having bio children" and that really irks me, of course its not the same! it cant possibly be the same, its such a massively different process biologically for a start, and you can be sure as hell that it isn't the same for the child, with the best will and all the support in the world adoptees will always have attachment and abandonment issues that non adopted kids don't have. Even with very young children there are many studies showing that removing a child from the woman that gave birth to it for any length of time leaves the child with serious emotional issues because its not something that is supposed to be done.
middle class parents are almost always seen as more suitable parents so basically working class women are providing children for middle class women. Also middle class families are seen as automatically less abusive, i know way too many adoptees who ended up with abusive but middle class parents, and there isn't a significant difference in the number of abusive adoptive parents than non adoptive parents, when really if the system worked there should be no abusive adoptive parents because really what is the point of taking a child out of one abusive situation and putting them in another?
Some people just can't look after children i know that but if we lived in a society that was more communal, less individualistic, worked less hours we would be better able to support those people to but i know that there are some people who are so damaged that they just cant do it (I think my first mother was probably one of those people) but i still don't think adoption is the way to go, children pretty much have no say in the matter, nobody asks them if they want a "new mummy and daddy" and they get taken from everything they know. their heritage, their blood, people who look like them. who think in the same patterns. And often they are not allowed to grieve their losses. And the expectations society has of adoptees is really odd. my whole life I was expected to be "grateful" to may parents for putting a roof over my head and feeding me, Isn’t that like the absolute basics of parenting? also being told to think of the sacrifice my parents made. as if i was a burden, a charity case, like they were saints for taking in defective broken kids. (and I've spoken to lots of other adoptees who have had this experience)
so i think kids who absolutely need to not be with their first parents should grow up in loving foster homes with a kind of guardianship arrangement, they should keep their names, they should know who their first parents are and in appropriate cases have contact if they want it, they should have contact with their siblings. We should totally get rid of the pretence and the disconnects inherent in adoption.
I do not perceive adoption and abortion as either/or What usually happens is that a woman decides weather to have an abortion or not and then weather to keep the child or not they don’t decide weather to have an abortion OR give the child up for adoption.
women are often talked about how they have "chosen" to give their children up for adoption but often that isn’t actually a choice it is often coercion or desperation
Adoption is very much about giving a (almost exclusively middle class and educated and able bodied) set of parents a child. it is not about the children and it is not about supporting disadvantaged families, or about supporting and building communities.
I also think taking children from mothers for reasons such as those I’ve mentioned above is really bad and damaging for the children for all sorts of reasons.
as to racism in adoption, obviously there's a whole bunch of issues around racism and white privilege in transnational adoptions but I think there is too in domestic adoptions in that white children are more desirable and seen as less of a problem than children of colour
But also further to that adoption is a lie and is unconsensual, children don’t get a choice in it. they are expected to slot into a family and behave as if that is a bio family when they already have a family, even if that family are abusive or dead they still existed and that should be understood and acknowledged.
children who grow up without genetic mirroring (i.e people who look like them, move like them, think in the same patterns as them) feel unanchored
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-06-02 09:48 pm (UTC)i think the problems come when children are taken away from parents capable of raising thier children, but night need a little more support, or when the adoptive parents deny their child is adopted.
i think it all comes down to each child, each case, each biological parent, each social worker, each adoptive parent.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-02 09:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 03:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-03 06:34 am (UTC)Anyway, enough of my personal history, I agree with you that the best thing is for the extended family to step in. That's what we did the first time, and I wish we had done it the second.
I'm not sure that being adopted can be this abusive in every single case, though. I definitely see your point in race/class/misogynistic issues. But I don't think every single family will be saying to their child 'you should feel grateful, you owe us', and if they do, that's wrong. Plenty of sacrifices are made for ALL children biological or adopted, the point is it's unconditional love. If parents are placing this guilt trip on their kid, it's wrong, but biological parents do it too.
I also wonder if all adoptees have the same attachment to blood and genetics as you do. It seems to be a quite a spiritual thing for you. Not everyone is as tied up to the land as you are, so I wonder if maybe not everyone is as tied up to their ancestors/genetic makeup as well. If I were adopted, I know it would be a huge thing for me, especially as a heathen, not having that contact with my biological family. And I'm sure it is for loads of adopted people too, but it can't be in every single case, surely?
no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 03:17 pm (UTC)While this happens in an insane amount of cases, you are right it doesnt happen in every case, what does happen though is that the wider society does that. Adoptees who do not have good relationships with their adoptive parents get a lot of shit from random people who tell them regardless of how good or bad their adoptive parents were they should still be grateful. (and we also get told all the time that we should be great full we weren't aborted)
I actually think all people have an attachment to blood, its not actually about the blood, its about not experiencing genetic mirroring, not knowing your medical history etc. also I don't think the land thing is relevant. The land I feel connected to has nothing to do with my blood family its where I grew up with my adoptive family
no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 04:02 pm (UTC)I guess you are right about the wider society telling you you must always be grateful, and that sucks. I hope never to put that trip on anyone.
My Mum has never said it, but I know in her position I would have had an abortion when she got pregnant with me. So weirdly I have my Mum's fundie pro-life beliefs to thank for being alive... which some people think MUST mean that I should be pro-life as well, heh.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-05 12:03 am (UTC)I mostly agree with the idea that children are seen as this commodity that everyone should have a right to, no matter how much it may harm the child/the couple/the people around them. for me, though, I see this happening in the fertility industry where people will exhaust their resources and destroy thier bodies and relationships all for the sake of having a little genetic clone. it's ridiculous.
I actually think even biological "normal" birth is ridiculous and is motivated by a lot of outdated or pathological ideas. I personally have wanted to be sterilized since age 18 and my partner and I are not having children (we actually had this conversation again today and reaffirmed that we both don't want to spawn and will probably both get sterilized).
there's a website called The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (http://vhemt.org/) which outlines my beliefs pretty well. IF I ever decided suddenly that I wanted children, I would provide a foster home or opt for long term guardianship of a child. but I don't think I will. I don't want to be a mother. I'd be a terrible mom. if I got pregnant this moment, I would give the child up for adoption.
I agree that in an ideal world (ie. a feminist socialist society) it would be better to have extended family take in a child or have the child raised in a community of women and children who all support each other. but this is not always possible.
I think there are many people who adopt for the wrong reasons but there are also many who really do have a heart for underprivileged children who would otherwise be lost. I don't think those people should be chastised for genuinely wanting to provide emotional and material stability to someone who would otherwise be shunted back and forth to foster homes till they're 18 and spit out into the world.
ideally no children would be put up for adoption anyway, but so many already are, there are so many kids who need a home right now and there's no way they can go back to their parents, so what's the alternative? I agree with you that "long term guardianship" is the best case scenario, but adoption (under the legal definition) doesn't have to be about destroying roots. sometimes it is, but not always.
also I am not buying the whole extended family thing. say I can't keep my baby for some reason whether it's poverty or mental instability, I dunno, whatever reason, what makes you think my sister or brother or parents will be in a position to take on the child? couldn't we assume they have similar circumstances? or the child's extended family either doesn't exist or can't/won't take them in? should we force them to? and say I go the "long term guardianship" route... how do I know the child's extended family WANTS to be a part of their life? maybe the kids' uncles, aunts, grandparents etc opted out. and I'd rather raise them in safety and love than expose them to people that really want nothing to do with them.
I also have a problem with the idea of obligating extended family to take in a child -- it's like saying I have to be financially and emotionally responsible for my sister's actions as well as mine no matter what, when meanwhile there are tons of people who are in a better emotional and financial position to take care of the child. if my sister got pregnant and was planning to give it up for adoption, I would NOT volunteer to take it in. I am not in the mental, emotional, or material position to do so, and I'd resent being told that it's my responsibility.
personally had my parents not been able to take care of me, I would rather not live with my aunts or uncle, who are all even more fucked up. also I think in some cases the extended family takes in a child and raises them as their own, never telling them who their real parents are... I think that raises the same issues of destroying roots and history and genetic lineage. if you're lying to a child it's the same effect, whether the child is related or not.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-22 11:55 pm (UTC)"if I got pregnant this moment, I would give the child up for adoption."
While I hope you never have to make this choice, if you did, don't give it up to adoption. It's better to have an abortion than to add yet another unwanted brat to the world.
" would otherwise be shunted back and forth to foster homes till they're 18 and spit out into the world"
But then it doesn't have to be like that. What's wrong with long-term fostering, and with the kid still being welcome as extended family almost even once they've turned 18? That way, there is no "shunting back and forth". The kid still gets the stable environment to grow up in, but doesn't get their history wiped out at the stroke of a pen.
"I'd rather raise them in safety and love than expose them to people that really want nothing to do with them."
But then there's a difference between forcing them on that extended family, and just not wiping that extended family out with the stroke of a pen. Lots of bio-families have major fallings outs, but that doesn't equate to the kids having to be adopted.
" I'd resent being told that it's my responsibility."
I think it's less of a "it's your (specific) responsibility", and more of a "it's our (generic) responsibility". I think that ultimately though, the only way this can be done is by drastically altering the way we view ourselves as a whole (and I'm talking countrywide here, rather than individuals). Fostering and guardiandshipping used to happen tons back in history - why can't we do that these days?
"if you're lying to a child it's the same effect, whether the child is related or not."
Yes. 101% agreed.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-06 05:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-08 12:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-08 12:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-08 12:51 pm (UTC)what was the ceremony like?
no subject
Date: 2009-06-08 02:44 pm (UTC)To be honest the main reason we got married was so my parents have no recourse if something bad happens to me or I end up in the loony bin again. We wanted it to be cast in iron that Paul and not my parents got to make the decisions for me.
I'm not really a big fan of marriage and wouldn't have done it other wise. I also wouldn't have done it if the civil partnership bill hadn't gone through. We actually looked into having a civil partnership but they are not available for heterosexual couples.