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 09:51 pm (UTC)