Mama's Big Ol' Blog

My old blog. Like nostalgia for the old mama over here.

Friday, February 23, 2007

Reprinted from Mama #6, January 2007

THE OTHER MOTHER

Like hundreds of other bloggers and opinion writers, I’m about to address something that really, I’m sure you don’t care about. At least superficially.

Recently madonna got tons of grief for skipping the legal adoption process in Malawi, Africa, and choosing a 13-month old baby from an orphanage in exchange for millions of dollars in orphanage building funds. Whatever, I really don’t care about madonna. I didn’t in 1986 and I still don’t, 20 years later. I’m too hip-deep in sleep deprivation with my very own babe to wonder how she’s gonna raise this next one. However, what interests me about this adoption is that she is doing something other moms get praise for - adopting young children and babies from terribly impoverished countries. You know, legally taking a baby out of its home, country, and culture of origin because we all agree that a wealthy white woman has waaaay more right to raise that child than the child’s family of origin.

There, that wasn’t so bad, was it? That’s the worst of what I have to say, I think. Hang in there, it may just become hella fun!

Wealthy women have been adopting strangers’ babies for decades in the Western “civilized” world, but it has become popular and fun only recently. I remember when it was still new to see older white parents with babies from China or Guatemala. Now I see them from many, many countries: India, Kazakhstan, Russia, etc. And always the response is that the parents are doing their good deed, taking babies from horrible situations and giving them loving, caring homes. And a new family. Babies don’t have a culture, they argue; if you get them young enough, they only remember your own culture, and only bond to you.

Right.

What about all that in utero bonding? What about the orphanages themselves - the other children, the care givers, the doctors, the visiting relatives, and maybe the parent not too far away but unable to afford to or otherwise unable to provide care for their child(ren)? Does anyone remember how Native children were taken from their homes on the reservations with accusations of unfit homes and given to well-off white families in this country? How many children will be removed from their families and cultures because their parents are unable to afford to care for them? What about all those parents or family members who take their child to the orphanage believing they will eventually have more money to care for their child only to have some wealthy white woman from the US or the UK adopt them because she is the better mother, right?

Consumerism. Babies as objects to be placed.

Adopting is not a humanitarian act; it is fundamentally an act of selfishness. Adoptive parents who are honest with themselves about their intentions will see this as true, as difficult as it is to hear. You want a baby? You can get one if you have the bucks, the time, and the ability to travel. And it’s way faster than adopting a baby here in the US.

Is anyone considering the rights of the adoptees? What it might be like to lose your birth culture, your birth family, your language, your name?

Domestically or internationally, wanting someone else’s baby is strange. I don’t care if you have the intentions of a saint, it is not natural to want the baby of a stranger. That’s right! I think adoption is a terrible symptom of our consumer society - babies are “wanted” or “unwanted”, given to adults in homes that are fundamentally better than others because those parents are better able to provide for those babies’ material needs. And the infant bond? The lifelong effects of separating a baby from its natural mother? Minimally important.

Criticizing the effects of adoption on adoptees is so taboo I bet that you have already remembered how outraged you are supposed to feel by now:
but don’t all children need loving homes?
but what about the connection you feel with that baby before you bring them home and adopt them?
Are you saying we should just give some stranger our money and not remove the child from an unsafe environment?
And my favorite: What if your mother had aborted you? Aren’t you glad she carried you to term and gave you to someone else who could take care of you??? You ungrateful wretch!

That’s right. I have violated the silent adoptee creed: do not question adoption or that means you are ungrateful, the cardinal sin of all adoptees. Don’t question, just accept that adoption is a beautiful way to create a family, and any dissent is strictly verboten. Because -check this out - if adoption isn’t all it’s supposed ot be, that means that the only solution western society has to eliminating or reducing abortions in this country isn’t that rosy after all, and maybe not as good as the anti-abortion crowd would like to believe. And that means that the real solution may be way more complicated than the placement into stranger’s homes. It may actually involve more emphasis on the maternal bond, or in society stepping up and really supporting moms in need no matter what. That is, if people think abortion is a form of birth control [yes, I’ve heard this] and evil, why do we then separate that new baby from its home - from breastfeeding, from attachment, from its parents.

Now before you accuse me of oversimplifying this large, complicated issue, I will admit that there are definitely times babies and children need another home, that there are times no family members can take care of a child in need, that children do indeed deserve loving, attached homes and parents. In fact, I am not against all adoption. I am, however, committed to remind you all that adoption means forever separating a child from its source - her language, her culture, her mother, her father, her extended family, her sense of belonging, and with babies, her only sense of security.

We can take what we want when we want. We can make the rules about who can take babies and why. We can separate children from their medical history, their culture, their likeness. Now we need to take some steps back from our own imperialist notions of entitlement and wonder, How do we make it right?

And making it right is always hella fun.

14 Comments:

  • At 6:39 PM, Blogger Allison said…

    You should thank God or your lucky stars if you prefer that you have been blessed with two beautiful children. I wonder what you'd have to say about adoption otherwise? Many, many adoptive parents take great care to provide their children with a sense of who they are and where they came from. They make every effort to expose them to their native culture and seek out other families with children of the same heritage. Don't know what you're experience is in this area but I don't think you really have a clue.

     
  • At 7:48 PM, Blogger Skim said…

    It's true, I am often an ungrateful wretch.

    Thanks for taking the time to share your opinion.

     
  • At 7:57 PM, Blogger Skim said…

    Forgot to add, they make "every effort to expose them to their native culture" except actually living in their native country.

    If I did not have children of my own, I think I would not try to take someone else's, personally, - whether legally, for free, or otherwise. Unless. of course, I was asked personally by someone I knew.

    Please consider my blog post a view you might need to seriously consider, as difficult as it might be, when your own children need to start processing their grief over their profound losses.

    Done with that now. Anyone else?

     
  • At 8:04 AM, Blogger Allison said…

    Thank you for sharing your opinons and allowing me to post mine.

    Again I think you sell adoptive parents short. Even before our children join our family we begin to prepare to help them deal with processing their "grief over their profound loss". There will be loss but more importantly there will be love, happiness and joy. We all have loss and grief in our lives but hopefully this doesn't define who we are. People don't get to pick their bio families either and that's not alway a picnic.

    We don't think that we have saved our children. We know that they have saved us and allowed us to be the parents we have desired to be for 15 long years. We will love them unconditionally and nurture their souls. We will honor their heritage. I don't think this is a terrible thing. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

     
  • At 7:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The blog ate my incredibly insightful comment.

    Jim

     
  • At 9:32 AM, Blogger Skim said…

    Wah!
    I'm interested in reading it, if you'd like to try again.

     
  • At 12:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Probably not as insightful as Jim's lost comment, here goes. I also feel that adoptive parents are being sold short here. You and I are extremely lucky to have our own beautiful biological kiddos, as messy and cranky as they can be at times. I've watched family members struggle with infertility, and recently struggle with coming to terms with my own infertility. Its extremely hard to want to "parent" someone, to experience the joy of raising strong daughters and gentle boys, and take on the responsibility of guiding someone's experience of the world, yet not having that choice by virtue of a medical condition or otherwise.

    I've recently learned that many folks go overseas because they would not so easily qualify for adopting children in the US (gay parents, older parents, parents with a chronic but manageable medical condition, etc.). While I do think that the trend of wealthy parents to go overseas is a bit strange, and we could never personally afford to do it even if we wanted to, I'm also quite loathe to have anyone but myself tell me what a "natural" (as opposed to biological) family looks like. After all, many years ago (and probably some today) would have said that my "union" is not natural. In addition, while Mr. Man's close bond with the grrl child is not "natural" it is certainly irreplaceable.

    To say that adoptive parents are "taking" children infers that they are being snatched from someone's arms, when in most cases they are unwanted and living in an orphanage. Sure they probably bond with orphanage workers, but those workers are just that - workers - who without pay would likely leave. Are you saying that you would prefer kids be left in orphanages rather than placed into homes with a parent or parents who want them? That may be as selfish a thought as you think adoptive parents have when adopting.

    We'll also probably have to agree to disagree. However, just as you've said yourself, "please consider my [comment] as a view you might need to consider, as difficult as it might be..."

    So this means that when our Maryland adoption papers are complete, we shouldn't email share the news, right? :)

    --Lynette

     
  • At 1:28 PM, Blogger Skim said…

    Well, infant adoption, especially infant foreign adoption - is mighty different than adopting a loved one. My essay refers primarily to infant adoption, especially foreign adoptions.

    I do believe that the priority for taking care of babies and young children should be maintaining biological family. Many orphanages exist and b-parents believe that the workers will take care of the baby until the parent or family has enough money to take back their child in the future. Many exist to take care of babies whose parents are dead from war or other acts of violence. Many save babies and young children from certain death. Duh.

    My question really is this: why is the focus in the adoption industry on removing babies when it could be keeping them in their country or region of origin? If a-parents really wanted to take care of strangers' children, they could simply give the gobs of money they spend on adoption services and establish care for the child in their own region or country. Why should the emphasis be on "rescue" and not return? The truly altrustic, humanitarian act would not, could not, be removal. It would be maintaining biolgical bonds, which are irreplaceable. Notice I didn't say "the only thing that matters".

    My arguments aren't either/or - and as I say in my essay, obviously there are situations where intervention is warranted. But just because I can't have children myself doesn't mean I have a right to raise one, one that perhaps is only "unwanted" - your word - due to its parents' poverty and desperation. At what point should/does economic privilege trump biological privilege and attachment?

     
  • At 8:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Somehow I doubt that $25K (which is what I understand the app. cost of international adoption is....) can solve any country's problem. In fact, $25K most likely could not solve a small villages socio-economic problems...I'm not even sure that $25K would support a child in a third world country through 18 years of life and education ... given the governmental hoops that one has to jump through to take a large amount of money into a country overseas, I doubt the money would make it much further than the local politicians. Additionally, I think that the "care" given by adoptive parents is much more than just financial. Even if you could arrange to have the child's basic food and housing needs taken care of, you can't guarantee that the child will be truly cared for emotionally.

    Re: who is making the rules about adopting kids....each country has its own rules regarding the qualification for adoption, regardless of what the US rules are about it. This is why some countries are considered easier than others. Aside from immigration issues, adoption in the US is regulated state by state, just like marriage and drivers licenses. Just FYI.

    Re: allowing the functioning of your uterus dictate whether or not you have the "right" to raise kids....do you really think that? I've never seen my uterus as being something that should regulate my "right" to *anything,* except perhaps my right to maintain said uterus embryo-free if I choose to. Maybe I'm reading that wrong...

    I'm never going to understand your "biological privilege" arguments. I tend to think that arguments based on biology just pave the way for things like racism and separatism. When/if we adopt another kiddo, it will be one that doesn't match either of our races, most likely. Yet arguments about biology are precisely what people rely upon to tell me that I shouldn't adopt a black child and Mr. Man shouldn't adopt a white child (and yes, in our research re: state-side adoption, we've read/heard folks who argue this). So perhaps my aversion to arguments based on biology have their roots in good ole american racism. These arguments to me don't seem that different than the ones you're making re: "biological privilege."

    My sister's adoption was finalized yesterday, by the way. After 13 years of attempting to have kids the bio way, we now have a fabulous new grrl-child in our family.

    I'm off to enjoy pics of my niece. So, as you said previously, "done with that, now anyone else?"

     
  • At 9:25 AM, Blogger Skim said…

    Well, congrats on your new family member.

    And, well, it is my blog so I'm going to respond. Again. LOL

    And Yes, I believe that biology matters, but is not the only thing that matters. Pregnancy and birth make a woman an adoptee's first mother.

    I certainly do not believe that heterosexual relationships are any better or worse than queer relationships, or that racism has any place at all in adoption, parenting, or family legal issues. I also believe that ensuring the rights of birth mothers and b-parents is just as important as ensuring the rights of infants separated from their first families.

    Unfortunately it's still easier for many to focus on the rights of the potential parent over criticisms of the industry of adoption - which is where the majority of my wrath is focused. I never really knew about birth mother issues until recently, and what I learned was shocking to me. The inherent inequities in the lives of birth mothers (here and in other countries) and adoptive mothers is often appalling, and worth consideration of ALL members of the triad.

    Peace.

     
  • At 3:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Okay, I'll try a different maybe not so insightful comment.
    I've always had some confusion and lately it has been pulled forward in my mind about society's attitude toward children. I've always noticed the very tense line between the belief that parent's may raise their children how they wish and other people's beliefs about how a child "should" be raised.
    I’ll probably offend everyone here by suggesting that having children is a selfish act. Further, we have built up a huge buttress of pleasantries around this fact so as to hide it. The very thought probably horrifies many parents. They are quite sure they are involved in a completely selfless act of charity. It is also believed by many that it is a right to have a child. (Though these same people probably see instances where they think someone shouldn’t have children.)
    This all creates a cognitive dissonance because we think of parenting as a selfless act while we often behave in a selfish manner. (I say we in a very generalized way, I have no children. Perhaps some will discount all I have to say on that basis.) Parents raise their children in the manner that the parents choose. Fill the children’s heads with the thoughts and beliefs of the parents’ choosing. Seldom does it occur that the child’s desires, or possible future desires are really considered. This seems perfectly natural, yes? Children have this social status as “special” but aren’t really considered entirely a person.
    So where am I going with this? All this makes any discussion of children and parents on anything but a superficial basis very difficult. There is a huge, very ingrained amount of societal (and personal) defense between the reality of the simple, selfish biological desire to procreate and what we want it to be. Address adoption under these circumstances and it becomes even more complex.
    No one wants there to be an ugly side to this seemingly wonderful act. But as little as I know about it (and knowing that pretty much everything has an ugly side) I can see problems with adoption. It is a big business and that’s always an invitation to trouble. I can see (though haven’t enough information to judge) how some see foreign adoption as “neo-colonialism.” I also see how others see it simply as a charitable act.
    Certainly any adoption can be a wonderful thing for parents and child. But that is not license to ignore larger or deeper (or uncomfortable) issues. If children are as important as our society posits them, shouldn’t we do everything possible, including realistically looking at what’s going on, to see to their interests?
    As you may have noticed, I haven’t really come down on any side other than real consideration of alternate viewpoints and seemingly dissonant voices.

    Jim

     
  • At 6:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Just for thought:
    The first stanza of the song "Silent House" off the Dixie Chicks latest album.

    These walls have eyes
    Rows of photographs
    And faces like mine
    Who do we become
    Without knowing where
    We started from

     
  • At 6:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Oh yeah, that was me again.

    Jim

     
  • At 11:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    OK. I think Jim hit on something. RE: the children's interests - "If children are as important as our society posits them, shouldn’t we do everything possible, including realistically looking at what’s going on, to see to their interests?"

    And the fact that the adoption industry is just that - an industry. This reminded me of a pending essay I have yet to finish. Its working title is, Children First! and the stuff below is unfinished and raw, but I think it carries the real point of what is really the issue at hand.


    "What if every decision, every law, every facet of our society was geared toward the welfare of all our children? What if we as a society acted on the premiss that anything that endangers our children, hinders their well being, stifles their development, happiness or health was simply not going to be part of the society? Even going so far as to extend that mode of thinking into their adult hood. What kind of world would we live in then?

    Our entire world would change. Not just our country, our culture, our society. But, the - entire - world. No one would conceive of sending their children to war so they could kill other peoples children. No one would develop technology that would harm, maim or mutate their offspring. Things would certainly move more slowly.

    We are Capitalist. Money comes first. Profit. That extra that goes to someone else. We must work. Work in order to have standing. To show we are good citizens and are doing our part to generate profit for someone else. We must sacrifice our children.

    What if we imagine that our society, and everyone in our society, views the world from the point of view of what’s best for it’s children. A whole world view. A view that transcends mere legislation conforming to the existing society. But, completely restructuring our society to conform to the world view of the children as primary concern for the society.

    Would we wage war? Would we even have a military? Would we have nuclear power plants? Would we spank? Hit? Would we alow our schools to be coopted by corporations? Would we alow corporations? Would money be a focuss? Would we alow single moms to go hungry? Would they feel so alone? So isolated by social stigma?

    I think not."

     

Post a Comment

<< Home