Comments on: Adoptionism

By: Sarah V.

Sarah V. — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:59:27 +0000

As usual, some fascinating thoughts to ponder. Thank you.

One thought that I did want to add is that every time an ‘ism’ exists, there are going to be situations where people falsely assume that that ‘ism’ is in play when, in fact, it isn’t. There are always going to be cases where people assume that the fact that a situation worked out badly for them is due to prejudice against some group they belong to, when in fact that isn’t the case at all. But that in no way negates the existence of genuine examples of prejudice against whatever group it is.

I think that the Parking Spot Wars are an example of an ‘ism’ that isn’t. I wrote quite a bit about my opinions of the argument on my own blog (whistling and strolling away in an attempt to look casual about my shamelessly egomaniacal blog pimping). But I have no doubt at all, from reading the blogs I’ve read and just from my own feel about society’s attitudes, that there is such a thing as adoptionism, for want of a better word. Not institutionalised, maybe - more subtle than that - but definitely there. I do see that coming up against those sorts of attitudes all the time could be so incredibly frustrating as to colour the way people see any adoption-related situations or disputes.

By: sarahmariah

sarahmariah — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 23:55:19 +0000

It always annoys me when adopters complain about homestudies or try to show themselves as victims. I have little sympathy for that. There is already so much insanity with adoption, it occurs far too easily. Adoption ought to be the last resort. People who want to adopt (not all but a lot of them) seem to have this attitude that the world owes them a child. If I was going to adopt a child I would be more than eager to prove that I wasn’t going to be harmful to that child out of respect to the family of the child and out of respect to the child.
Why on earth should adoption be made easy? It’s a huge gift to recieve and when you do adopt someone’s child then you can be sure there is a grieving mother on the other side of that.
I also get annoyed with women who try to compare longing for a child with losing a child to adoption. They want to say that they too have suffered loss but it’s more the loss of something they really want rather than something they have.
Adopters get all the support from society, tax benefits, and are pandered to by the agencies who want their money.
Adoptionism? I really don’t have any sympathy for that, sorry but I just don’t.

By: laurabz

laurabz — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 05:31:56 +0000

i’m a non-infertile adopter with bio kids but we did deal with male factor infertility IOT conceive the bio kids.

as for adoptionism - i have felt what it must be like to be among a bunch of crunchy-granola “AP” moms and not have any bio kids; it was not until they found out that my child who was adopted was not my only child , that i was included in various birthing, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, etc., discussions. had i not had bio babies as well, it would have felt very, very isolating. (OTOH, i did have AP moms offer to pump b-milk for my baby and have been asked about my nursing my adopted child, as if it were a matter of course)

on the flip side of adoptionism, i have had people become defensive almost and tell me how they “could never afford it but always wanted to” or could “never do the adoption thing” and how i was so “wonderful” for doing it. “lucky baby” and all that. and i’ve seen people get defensive around me about having a bio. baby instead of adopting when they already had bio. kids…trying to explain to me why they weren’t helping out with the ‘zero population growth’.

but do i think of these things as “Isms”? I’m not sure. There are surely a lot of people with opinions about these issues, that’s for sure.,.but I’ve yet to sense a trend.

By: shannon

shannon — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 05:14:43 +0000

shirky said:

“if there exists a hazard to children so dire that an adoptive parent should be required to remedy it before adopting, why not regulate the hazard, rather than the adopters? Take the pond for example. Why can’t the rule about fencing them apply to the PONDS, instead of the PARENTS?”

Oh yeah. I totally agree. I was thinking that same thing this morning after reading about the pond. Because there’s a rule that if you have a swimming pool, you have to have a fence around it–whether you have kids or not–to protect neighborhood kids who might wander in, right? Why not something similar with ponds or lead or whatever?

Agree, agree, agree. Then we don’t have to Go There about licensing bio-parents (egads no, let’s not go there–THAT would be facist!).

By: shirky

shirky — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 04:42:57 +0000

I know this post is about so much more, but I just want to respond to the bit about regulating families for safety reasons–Marnie being required to fence the pond, us possibly having to de-lead our neighbors’ back windows (at vast expense and questionable efficacy).
Obviously I don’t actually want the state going around telling people they have to do X or Y or Z before they canoodle their way pregnant. I don’t think a homestudy is facist. On the other hand, if there exists a hazard to children so dire that an adoptive parent should be required to remedy it before adopting, why not regulate the hazard, rather than the adopters? Take the pond for example. Why can’t the rule about fencing them apply to the PONDS, instead of the PARENTS? Why not require deleading of all back windows? Why not ask everyon to keep a fire extinguisher in the kitchen, and the water heater at a reasonable temperature? Making adopters the only channel of removing these hazards is not a terribly efficient method of raising the overall safety level, adoption being not that common.