The Minnesota Women's Press recently featured an article on the difficult topic of international adoption. Written by Katie Leo, an adult Korean adoptee who had herself considered adopting internationally, the story looked at the issue from many perspectives, and concluded that it is hard to reconcile the tenets of feminism with adopting internationally. In the same issue, MWP editor Michele St. Martin shared her perspective as an adoptive parent of two girls from China.
The most recent issue of MWP includes a number of letters from adoptees, birthmothers, and adoptive mothers. Some are more thoughtful than others, but I didn't appreciate the depth contained in even the most shallow MWP letter until I read a more mainstream article on international adoption in the Pioneer Press last Saturday, December 13.
Titled "Our New Daughter" and written by Maren Longbella, a contributor to the PiPress's new MinnMoms community blog, the story, which is actually a series of blog posts, tells of Longbella's trip with "the Husband" to pick up their child. Their new daughter is 2 years old (old enough to realize she is being removed from everything she knows), and had been part a loving foster family for almost her entire life. The story is excruciating to read, especially through the lens of Katie Leo's story and the other commentaries in the MWP.
There are hints that Longbella questions what she's doing, but no real examination of it. I think she probably thought, Well, we're here, we have to go through with it. After all, we came all this way to get a baby.
Looking at Longbella's writings on MinnMoms, it appears she has an older adopted child as well as a 2-year-old biological child. Here's what she says about her reasons for adopting: "The Husband and I chose to adopt because neither of us had a burning desire to replicate ourselves, we had a house that was too big for just us, and we wanted to. And I thought a trip to China would be way better than being in labor." Although the last sentence is, I think, a cringe-inducing joke, the part that says "we wanted to" seems honest and straightforward, and clearly reveals her lack of awareness of her privileged position in the world.
After I finished the story, I thought back on how much more thought-provoking the MWP coverage of the topic was, and appreciated the paper's existence. Thanks to Katie Leo, Michele St. Martin, and all the others who shared their perspectives on this complicated topic.
(I liked Kirk Lyttle's illustration that accompanied Longbella's story, though. I think it communicates the powerlessness and anger of the child in the arms of the gigantic, somewhat faceless American woman.)
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
International Adoption -- to Think or Not to Think About It?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Thanks for a great post! I agree, MWP had a much more thoughtful and critical examination of international adoption and how it really is a feminist issue and a human rights issue.
Many feature articles gloss over the difficult parts—race, class, privilege—and focus on the adoptive parents' desire to have a child, any child, at any cost. Very often, the birth mother is purposely left out of the story, especially in overseas adoption.
After talking with birth mothers in sending countries, there is no doubt that giving up their children is a direct result of oppressive economic and social factors in their culture and country. Every one of them wished they could have kept their child.
p.s. Is that Coquette on the second feature article?
[I received an email from a reader named Emilia in response to this post, and asked her permission to include it here as a comment. The words that follow are from Emilia. --Daughter Number Three]
This is my take on adoption. My sister and her husband adopted a baby girl (now seven). This girl was born to a (White) woman who abused alcohol and drugs during the pregnancy (and before and afterwards as well) and whose (Black) partner, the biological father of my niece, was also an alcoholic and drug addict and had an anger management problem in addition.
I find that some critics of adoption have a sort of romanticized view of the conditions (some) adopted children would find themselves in if they stayed with their biological families. Yes, I know that there's been demonization of single mothers on the part of social conservatives and that in the past in the US and other developed countries many birth mothers were coerced into giving their children for adoption. And I know this happens today in some Third World countries (where in addition adoption is further stigmatized because of an emphasis on bloodlines).
However, the ideas put forward by some opponents of international adoption strike me as unrealistic at best. For example, they say that rather than adopt children would-be adopters (particularly celebrities) should use the money they'd spend to adopt children to instead financially assist biological parents to keep their children. Honestly, what would money do to for instance help a alcoholic and/or mentally birth mother in the former Soviet Union care for a child more effectively? Or end the stigmatization of single motherhood in South Korea? I am not saying that such aid is wrong, just that it might not help all or in some cases even a majority of birth families (with regard to my previous example, one study showed 33% of Russian birth mothers were alcoholics and another 16% were mentally ill).
Another puzzling worldview of anti-international adoption advocates is their portrayal of the practice as another form of colonialism. That's funny, because the three major sources of adoptable children (Russia, China and Korea) were never colonies of any Western power (well, small parts of China may have been - Hong Kong, Macau, etc. - but not the entire country). And some of the adopting countries haven't been major colonial powers themselves (Sweden, Norway, Ireland).
I suppose I may be considered heretical in some circles, but I think in some cases adoption may be the better choice for everyone concerned than having a child remain with his or her biological mother. To get personal again, I'd like someone to look me in the face and tell me my niece should have remained with her biological mother (who as far as I know is still using drugs) than with my sister and her husband. By the way, if my niece ever wants to search for her biological family, my sister is completely open to that.
I support the feminist movement, but sometimes I think its ideological inanity at times will make people question it.
Post a Comment