this is fromhere
Does the woman who decides to resolve her infertility by adopting really manage to kid herself that the donor of an adoptable child has a ‘choice’?. Would any woman with a choice put herself through nine months of pregnancy and go into labor having made the decision to surrender her child, if in fact there was another way? With the rare exception of surrogacy, carried out for money, no woman would knowingly, willingly do this. Does the infertile woman have the moral right to complete her family with another woman’s child? I think not.
Whatever happened to sisterhood, that brave frontier of gender equality where women banded together to fight the monster, that oppressor enabled by a structural inequality that collectively used woman’s fertility to keep her oppressed, uneducated, downtrodden, poor. I put it to every woman, that any woman who expects to exercise a ‘choice’ to fulfill her maternal needs with another woman’s child, has herself become that oppressor.
Adoption is the last resort for fertile women too young, too poor, too oppressed to have fertility choices; women lacking in self-esteem, in societal support, and in a belief of themselves. They come from all ethnicities, all cultures, all countries. The woman without choices – surrendering her child for adoption in 2003 – is actually the woman every woman could have been, had the feminist revolution not happened.
Until every woman, everywhere, has the right to raise the child she carried and birthed, the patriarchy is alive and well, still using ‘good’ women to punish ‘bad’ women – through the role of adoptive applicant. The personal remains political; adoption is a feminist issue.
(This article is very US Centric and like a lot of US anti adoption positions comes uncomfortably close to blaming women for their infertility but the piece I quote here is spot on)
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
“Whatever happened to sisterhood, that brave frontier of gender equality where women banded together to fight the monster,”
Unfortunatly, sisterhood was destroyed by another monster. The green eyed one. Infertiles hate fertile women, because they are so jealous, bitter and feel so put upon because they can’t conceive, that they throw all their morals out the window. The retreat into the state of mind of an enraged 10 year old child, who wants to do bad things because they can’t have what they want. Those bad things of course are being fine with Amended BC’s that are nothing but lies, but appeases their victimization complex, buying another human being and forcing that person to dance so Infertiles can be parents after all, denying Adoptees their God given and natural right to all knowledge of their bloodline by fighting to keep Adoption Records closed and not caring that most Adoptees were stolen, coeorsed or manipulated away from their Mothers who wanted them.
Good article and points onewoman.
*The retreat into the state of mind
*They
Hey Improper Adopptee
I think your comment is really, really mysogynistic, calling women bitter, jelous and childlike and immoral is not okay, and certainly not okay on this blog. I also think refering to women as “infertiles” is realy dehumanising.
Not all couples who are infertile are infertile because of the women and not all people who are infertile want to adopt. Also being infirtile can be really really painfull and I actualy think we should be compassionate about that.
I dont think hating on individual women is either helpfull or feminist, I hate the society we live in for telling women that they wont be fullfilled with out children and for hiding the realities of the adoptee experience, but not individual women who make the choice to adopt.
I think people who adopt do by and large think they are doing a good thing for society, it isnt their fault that they live in a society that tells them this, and there are ways of making clear this is not true without woman blaming.
I find it odd that you agree with a post about how a feminist lens is important when looking at adopion by making a virulently mysognistic comment
Onewoman, to call me mysognistic, is ridiculous. I don not hate all women, just because I do not like how infertile women act pertaining to other women’s babies. You came onto my blog, saying all AP’s lie, so what would be the word for that?
I doubt very much whether there is one single way infertile women act pertaining to other women’s babies. That comment is pretty misogynistic, actually, because it supposes that, once a woman’s reproductive organs are in a certain state, she’s going to automatically act like she’s jealous and bitter and childish.
Not all couples who are infertile are infertile because of the women and not all people who are infertile want to adopt. Also being infirtile can be really really painfull and I actualy think we should be compassionate about that.
Totally, someone I know is married to an infertile man, and because she’s not white, her mother-in-law thinks it’s her that’s the problem – it’s never a simple issue. And it’s never talked about in feminist circles, or hardly ever.
Actually, adoption is something I might be interested in myself at one point. Not now, obviously, because I don’t have anything to give a child. But if I had the possibility of providing a happy life for a child who would otherwise be left without parents in a state home? I would, rather than have a child of my own actually. But for that to be a good option, it is essential to look at the conditions under which children aren’t currently with their mothers, and remedy those, because there’s no way any woman should be left too poor to bring up her own child. As you said,
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
I mean, it’s an extreme example, but look at the Stolen Generation in Australia. Although, main feminist debate I see about adoption is in the broadsheets, and it’s more in terms of, look at me, I gave the tyke a nice middle-class home and now she’s reading books and shit. What the hell are they implying? I detect the ghost of eugenics in there somewhere.
Jenn
I have to say your comment disturbed the shit out of me, The fact you say
because there’s no way any woman should be left too poor to bring up her own child. and then you talk about the stolen generations but go on to say you want to adopt yourself?
Children end up in care because we live in a society that doesn’t support families, and international adoption is a kind of colonialism. I don t think any ones should be adopting I think its immoral and I actually think its anti everything you stand for.
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 thing 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.
Well, not all kids even have mothers. What about orphans? I’m not saying I want there to be orphans just so I can have a kid of my own. I don’t even want a kid at all at the moment. But if I did have the opportunity to provide what a kid needed (long-term guardianship, or adoption, whichever was best), it would just seem to be the decent thing to do.
Obviously, I wouldn’t want to take a kid that had been taken away from her mother, or whose mother was still alive somewhere.
Well, not all kids even have mothers. What about orphans?
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 dealling with these issues rather than adopting
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 greive the loss of their history, relives, culture, being among people who are related to them)
But if I did have the opportunity to provide what a kid needed (long-term guardianship, or adoption, whichever was best), it would just seem to be the decent thing to do.
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 top pretend their bio family and history and culture and name are not important 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 top pretend their bio family and history and culture and name are not important to them”
In that case I meant ‘long term guardianship’. Thanks for clarifying the difference. Not a step I’m going to take in a hurry, anyway, I don’t think I’m responsible enough.
Although, I’m not sure that no mother would willingly surrender her child, firstly because there have to be a million different ethical dilemmas for each case, and secondly because I remember the case of one of my friends in high school. Her parents could look after her and her brother and sister, they just sent each child to be looked after by a different member of the family instead. They all lived in the same village, they just made no secrets about not wanting their kids – maybe they didn’t believe in contraception either or anything. My friend grew up with her great-aunt, and had to return to her parents in disgrace at the age of 15, after her great-aunt threw her out for having a boyfriend. They all lived in the same village, mind you, they could see each other, and everything, and she was still with a family member. But when she went to live with her parents her mother treated her like an inconvenient visitor, and spread nasty rumours about her all over the village – one thing she did was tell everyone her daughter was anorexic, and only ate slim-fast three meals a day, which was blatantly not true.
I think it’s never safe to make assumptions that the mother-child relationship is always going to be the same. That’s a bit like saying that the relationship of a potential mother who finds out she’s infertile and her unborn child is always going to be the same.
Actually there were quite a few stories like that in the village where I grew up.
[...] apart, once again the men become invisible) Recently the improper adoptee left a comment on one of My previous posts that said Unfortunatly, sisterhood was destroyed by another monster. The green eyed one. Infertiles [...]
TOW-
I need to elaborate on the comment I made above-first of all when I made it I had just been attacked by an obnoxious AP who told me I needed Attachement Therapy in a comment (blanket and all) because I beleive Adoption Records should be open-and when I say AP’s I am talking about the very rude ones I encounter online-this is why I mentioned the Amended BC-because THEY keep saying that this is all we should have, as in you NEVER have any right to know who your Real Parents are-this is one reason I have left Blogger now too, because I am tired of being discriminated against/verbally abused just because I think all Adoptions should be Open and no records for Adoptees should ever be Closed-and I am tired too of the horrible, horrible things that are written by some Adoptive Parents on the internet-all comments I have made on other blogs pertain to AP’s on the internet, who try to make all Adoptees look crazy or feel ashamed just because we want to search at 18-which is legal. We aren’t insane, and we aren’t “ungrateful bastards” either as I have been called as well.