(I swear this post was news when I composed it, but in this case, late is better.)
News flash! A study commissioned by Oxygen Network to coincide with their new reality show about adoption reveals people have bold new attitudes about adoption! By “people,” naturally, I mean people who are not first mothers or adoptees. And by “bold new,” naturally, I mean same-ol’ same-ol’.
Here are some of the amazing, enlightened new attitudes they found:
People think–OK, this is crazy and nobody believed it last Tuesday, so brace yourself–people think adoption is a fine way to build a family. WOW! I mean, I grew up hearing that adoption was a fine way to construct a backyard barbecue, learn French, perform a laparatomy, anything but build a family. Shoo, that’s some freaky shit right there.
And the surprises just keep on coming: Why do women relinquish? Because they got knocked up too young, of course! “Of those surveyed, 90 percent identify teen pregnancy as the dominant reason that someone might place a child for adoption.”
It’s the next non-surprise that kills me, though: “Regardless of circumstance, the consensus is that it [adoption] gives the child a chance for a better life.”
………?!
“Regardless of circumstance.”
“Regardless of circumstance.”
You cannot move a child from one family to another “regardless of circumstance”! *
Regardless of adoptive parents who starve their children, the consensus is that adoption gives the child a chance for a better life.
Regardless of being put on a plane back to Russia, the consensus is that adoption gives the child a chance for a better life.
Regardless of the kids who are outright killed by their new parents, the consensus is that adoption gives the child a chance for a better life.
Regardless of the adoption’s being disrupted and the kid’s going into the foster care system, perhaps to age out with no means of support or career and end up in jail, the consensus is that adoption gives the child a chance for a better life.
Yup, anything is preferable to being raised by your teen slut of a mother. (And that’s not a dollop of misogyny from 1956 either; it’s a New Attitude! Feh.) No surprise, then, that “two-thirds feel the child benefits most (66 percent) [from adoption].”
Adoptees will always be insufficiently grateful to these people. These people who have little or nothing to do with adoption, yet are so enlightened about young women and the babies who must be taken from them at all costs. I’m learning a lot, aren’t you?
But what if the vessel should decide to parent the baby herself? Ninety per cent of those surveyed said it’s OK for the mother to change her mind before papers are signed–unless she’s already chosen a couple to parent her baby. In that case, only twenty-nine per cent thought it was OK, because they paid her medical bills and that bitch owes them.
You know, I’m not being fair. The study did not report that a single person said a mother couldn’t change her mind because of the money. Times really have changed! These days, nobody believes first mothers are evil selfish cows who–aaaw, shit: “More than half felt that moms place their children for adoption due to selfish reasons and are ultimately doing what’s best for themselves (53 percent males vs. 41 percent females).”
At least they admitted it. At least they admitted, in some form, that this “the best interests of the child” bullshit is bullshit.
Never forget this, women: You can’t win. If you have a kid, then you’re mothering it wrong. If you have an abortion, you’re a selfish whore. And if you relinquish the child, you’re making a wonderful, beautiful, loving sacrifice and you’re a selfish whore.
This study falls all over itself to say people are more aware about adoption than ever, that adoption is better and more accepted and more awesome than it’s ever been…while parroting the same old crap. I’ve seen dozens of such studies come and go and they all seem to do this. They all say how wonderful and different everything is now that nobody actually says “Bad blood!” to adoptees’ faces anymore. I’m surprised they didn’t ask whether or not the APs should “tell” the child s/he’s adopted, because a **shocking number of people seem to still think it’s OK not to.
*This would probably annoy Morrison, but he’s dead.
**By “shocking number,” of course, I mean any number larger than zero, because there is no excuse for that shit.
Adopto-Snark 
Great to have you back, Snark!
That link went to a Fox News report but I found this one instead:
http://features.oxygen.com/outloud/blog/entertainment/oxygen-media-study-reveals-women-say-yes-to-adoption
“But what if the vessel should decide to parent the baby herself? Ninety per cent of those surveyed said it’s OK for the mother to change her mind before papers are signed–unless she’s already chosen a couple to parent her baby. In that case, only twenty-nine per cent thought it was OK, because they paid her medical bills and that bitch owes them.”
Actually, the report says this:
“That said, 69 percent of the men and women surveyed also feel that the birth parents should go through with the adoption if they’ve already chosen the adoptive parents who expect to receive the baby.”
So, its 69% not 29%!
TY, cb! It’s nice to be back, and it’s very nice to get a comment so soon after posting. (-:
Wait…one hundred per cent minus sixty-nine per cent is thirty-one per cent. So 31% think it’s OK and 69% think the bitch owes them. Right? (Math was never my strong suit.)
ROFLMAO!
“Regardless of circumstance, the consensus is that it [adoption] gives the child a CHANCE for a better life.”
That’s the key word – CHANCE. Like if you’re in Vegas and play roulette or blackjack or craps — you have a CHANCE.
Yes! Damn, I hate the presumption that an adoptive family is always better. Adoption also, of course, gives a child a chance for a worse life.
Great post, We have to keep pointing out the holes in their arguments. Yes, it’s all about NOT DISAPPOINTING THE ADOPTERS, isn’t it? The insensitivity of adopters never continues to amaze me–but I think it’s because too many mothers stay in the closet and say: Hey, giving up my child screwed up my life!
Ahh the brilliant Oxygen Media… I’m more impressed with them by the moment. NOT.
This:
“Never forget this, women: You can’t win. If you have a kid, then you’re mothering it wrong. If you have an abortion, you’re a selfish whore. And if you relinquish the child, you’re making a wonderful, beautiful, loving sacrifice and you’re a selfish whore.”
We can’t win. Ever. Because we can reproduce and that makes us EVIL, selfish whores. lmao!!!!
They (meaning all those who have everything to gain from the separation of mother and her child) will remain the most hypocritical human beings to walk the planet.
Never mind that most adopters are no better to parent than those who’s children they covet, they just have more money at one time. That does not make a better parent. That means they can buy more crap. Who gives a flip.
Those who throw their two cents in when they have no connection to adoption, but are so sure it deems a child “so much better off”. Shut up. Just STFU. If you have never lived this nightmare then you have no business making assumptions that are based on pure societal biases. If adoption should ever be added to the equation that is your life, then I’d like to hear your opinion.
“Never forget this, women: You can’t win. If you have a kid, then you’re mothering it wrong. If you have an abortion, you’re a selfish whore. And if you relinquish the child, you’re making a wonderful, beautiful, loving sacrifice and you’re a selfish whore.”
I would add to this endless stream of Woman-Damning: If you want to have a baby but can’t, and turn to medical technology to try to get pregnant, you’re a selfish, spoiled narcissist who feels that only her biological child is good enough. The Judgment Bar gets set at different heights: “It’s reasonable to try IVF once or twice, but she’s tried it SIX times…that’s just messed up! Do you know how much money they’ve spent?? All in the pursuit of ‘their own’ baby, like only a baby with THEIR GENES is worth parenting, when there are so many babies and kids out there who need loving homes?” et cetera. And while women who insist on sticking to the bio route are selfish and egotistical, women who go the adoption route are…well this blog sheds light on that particular selfish, narcissistic, baby-coveter.
So, you want a baby and can’t have one? No matter what route you take, remember: YOU ARE WRONG. Just like the single woman who raises her own baby is wrong, just as the woman who relinquishes her baby is wrong.
Oh, and women who choose to remain childless? “How could she not want to be a Mommy? Hmmm, she must be a litte bit cold, unloving, and selfish, don’t you think?”
We.Just.Can’t.Win.
“…well this blog sheds light on that particular selfish, narcissistic, baby-coveter.”
Quite possibly because they project the pain of their ‘infertility’ onto a young vulnerable woman and the “baby coveter” is the only one who gains from the expense and suffering of someone who is having a temporary life crisis. Big difference between trying to have a baby and making off with someone else’s, causing even more grief and misery…
I agree with you, Stephanie, that this is true in many cases of adoption, but I don’t feel it’s true about all adoptions.
I’m very lucky in that I did not get much crap for never reproducing. Many women are surrounded with people who just plain demand that they have a baby right now, and that’s crazy.
But you’re right: We can’t win. We are incubators and vessels. Ugh.
(This is a reply to your earlier comment. I don’t know why WP is being such a jerk about putting it where I want it to be.)
““That said, 69 percent of the men and women surveyed also feel that the birth parents should go through with the adoption if they’ve already chosen the adoptive parents who expect to receive the baby.”
at the risk of sounding like a broken record:
that is proof of coercion.
people yammer about how adoption is a choice, but if this statistic is true, it’s often not a free choice. if she feels she owes them, it’s not a free choice.
the argument should be that if women feel this sort of societal pressure to surrender because they have chosen a set of adoptors, perhaps the cure is TO NOT HAVE HER CHOOSE, MEET, OR KNOW IN ANY WAY who those adoptors are before the baby is born. iow, everyone should just hold their horses until AFTER the baby is born.
Agreed: pre-birth matching is inherently coercive.
Also agree, completely. From the outset, PAP’s must understand: best outcome is for birthmother or birthfamily to raise the baby. We as a society need to strive for that outcome, first and foremost. PAP’s need to be educated to prepare and even embrace this best case scenario outcome. Crossing fingers that an ambivalent birthmother will decide to relinquish the baby because that’s what suits YOU is wrong, all wrong.
Well put. I totally agree.
Pingback: on transcultural adoption « beyond two worlds
Pingback: I regret having children – so do you, you just won’t admit it | Intentious