Blogpost #11

With all of the negative aspects of the foster care system that we have seen through the readings of Dorothy Roberts in Shattered Bonds and some of the stories portrayed in the documentary "Ask Us Who We Are: Foster Care in Vermont", I was expecting more negative views of the foster care system from our guest speakers who had experienced it first hand. This was not the case, however, when both of these individuals’ stories portrayed the foster care systems as their saving grace, and the reason for where they are today. Our female guest speaker gives the foster care system credit for saving her from an unhealthy environment, in which her mother neglected her. She stated that living in a foster care setting gave her the chance at stability in her life, something she was not receiving from her young mother. Also, our male guest talked about how his experience in the foster care system gave him a sense of home and belonging. He mentions that he felt like a part of his foster family, which was an emotion he failed to feel with his adoptive family. In Dorothy Roberts’ book, she talks about the disparity that exists within the foster care and child welfare system. They are aimed at providing safety for children, but try to maintain family relations as much as possible. Richard Gelles states, “the basic flaw of the child protection system is that it has two inherently contradictory goals: protecting children and preserving families” (107). In these two cases we have seen in class with our guest speakers, it is clear that the primary goal had been to protect the children from their unfavorable situations in the home and did not focus on the preservation of these broken relationships. What happens when the best interest of the child is not taken into consideration? Is this right/fair to condemn parents for their mistakes when everyone makes mistakes?

Blog Post #11

                At first, I expected this reading to be similar to the other sections which emphasized the racial aspects of the foster care system.  I was surprised Roberts took a slightly different angle by proposing the metaphor of the system being a pendulum either toward the parental rights or the child’s rights.  This allowed her to present a different angle on the problems within foster care.  What I found most interesting was the conflicting goals of the child welfare system.  Roberts cites Richard Gelles in support of this argument.  He proclaims, “the basic flaw of the child protection system is that it has two inherently contradictory goals: protecting children and preserving families” (107).  I partially agree with this claim in situation where the child should not be returned home.  However if a child were better at home, this would both protect the home and preserve families.  His statement seems to imply that in order to protect children they must be separated from their families. 

Also, I found it interesting the high incentives the government rewards agencies who have a certain number of children adopted.  This is reminiscent of the Nelson article in which she emphasized children in adoption as a commodity.  There are serious ethical issues because the child’s well-being may be compromised for the agency’s profit.  In addition, this gives the agency motivation to not reunite the family even if it is the better option.  I can see this shift toward having children being adopted cause an even greater overload in the foster care system.  There are only so many people who are willing to adopt in the U.S. and even less that are willing to adopt from foster care.  These children may just become lost in the system rather than being returned to homes in which they are greatly wanted.

Lastly, I was surprised that simply being in the foster care system for a certain amount of time was reason enough to terminate parental rights.  The list of ridiculous tasks seems to show agencies placing irrational standards on parents.  I wonder what Minnesota’s time frame is for termination of parental rights.  A good discussion question based on this issue is:

Is it ethical for parental rights to be terminated based solely on the time their child is in the foster care system?

Reanna N.

Blogpost 10 Option 1

In the book Shattered Bonds, the author Dorothy Roberts argues that the foster care system is primarily aimed at providing services to black families that many times looks to an outsider, unfamiliar with the system, as a service that regulates and punishes poor Black families. These claims are well documented throughout the first pages of her book, where she proceeds with eye opening statistics of the child welfare system and foster care systems. Roberts claims that Blacks in the United States make up about 17 percent of the population, but nearly half of all children in foster care nationally are Black, making up 42 percent of the foster care population (8). This statistic proves that the foster care system is overwhelmingly being filled with poor Black children, who are being taken from their families and placed into the hands of the state. These statistics are alarming in cities that have large Black populations like in New York City, where Roberts states that one out of every 22 Black children living in New York City is in foster care (9). This statistic is sad and very disconcerting. This number of Black children being placed in foster care makes it clear that there is a problem with the child welfare system and that there are clearly biases that are taking place in the choices to place these children in the hands of the state, and perhaps some stereotyping of the Black population. These problems, however, do not have an easy solution. All must look past these tendencies to stereotype the impoverished Black families as “unfit parents” and “incapable to provide stable homes for their children” and understand that sometimes the best place for a child is in the care of their family and loved ones. Roberts has clearly opened my eyes to the problem that is occurring today in the foster care system in regards to Black children. 

Roberts, Dorothy E. Shattered Bonds: The Color of Child Welfare. New York: Basic, 2002. Print.

Blog post 10 Option #2

According to Roberts, the key factor which is contributing to the racial disparity in the United States foster care system is racism. She cites multiple domains in which this is present.  One fact she presents highlights the implicit bias throughout society and institutionalized racism.  It says, “Once removed from their homes, Black children remain in foster care longer, are moved more often, receive fewer services, and are less likely to be either returned home or adopted than other children” (vi).  An additional theory she presents called the “visible hypothesis” provides an explanation for why cities with smaller black populations actually have more black children in the foster care system.  “Researchers hypothesize that visibility increases the chances of minority placement because agencies are more likely to investigate underrepresented groups or because these groups lack social supports that could ward off investigation” (10).  This suggests there may be some racism contributing to the disparity.  Later she suggests some alternatives to this explanation such as that black parents are, “more likely to abuse and neglect” or that, “higher rates of poverty or unwed motherhood . . . make Black families more vulnerable to state intervention rather than from racial bias on the part of caseworkers and judges” (26).  Roberts uses many statistics in the beginning of the section to highlight racism as the main contributing factor to the racial disparity.  Therefore, she probably thinks this is underlying cause for the large black population in foster care. 

In my opinion, I think that a combination of racism, poverty, and implicit biases are contributing to the racial disparity.  The story of the mother Jornell made me reflect on how black women are portrayed in society.  I found myself recognizing how it may be easier to view black women as unfit mothers simply because of the way they are portrayed in the media.  Poverty is clearly part of the problem as well.  When families are stuck in the cycle of welfare it makes it hard to generate enough income to provide for a family.  As a secondary factor, having less money would make it harder to fight the foster care system.  There are many examples of wealthy people getting around regulations placed on others.  Lastly implicit biases rather than overt racism seem prevalent throughout Robert’s data.  She highlights this when she states, “minority children, and in particular African American children , are more likely to be in foster care placement than receive in-home services, even when they have the same problems and characteristics as white children” (17).

Reanna N.

Blog 10, Option 1

In her book, Shattered Bonds, Dorothy Roberts claims “if you came [to dependency courts] with no preconceptions about the purpose of the child welfare system, you would have to conclude that it is an institution designed to monitor, regulate, and punish poor black families” (6). Roberts uses this basis to build supporting arguments throughout her book. One of her best arguments is supported with the statistical facts including nearly half of white children placed in foster care are returned to their household within 3 months, while very few Black children every do. Also foster care is usually a long time situation for Black children when compared to Caucasians where it is usually short termed (19). This was shocking because Robert describes how the system tends to do everything in their power to have the Caucasian children to receive help in their homes, while removing a Black child from their home is usually the first option. Roberts stated “caseworkers put the least effort in keeping Black foster children in contact with their parents and return them home” (21). I was very surprised on how the statics show the how the Black children were never the priority and often got overlooked for the white foster children.  

            A really good point Robinson made was how “neglect is usually better classified as child maltreatment defined by poverty rather than maltreatment caused by poverty” (33). She states many departments’ focuses on the poor families and many times the middle class and rich are overlooked. If there is already a “flag” on these families then the government/social workers were more likely to dig deeper and react quicker and harsher to the situations.  Through the small portion of Robert’s book I have a better understanding of the discrepancies between the different races of children in the system.

Sarah B. 

Blog Post 10, Option 1

      While I knew there were a large number of black children in foster care, I was shocked at the disparities between the races as described in Dorothy Roberts’ book, Shattered Bonds. Roberts believes that the foster care system is discriminating against African American families, and writes that, “If you came [to dependency courts] with no preconceptions about the purpose of the child welfare system, you would have to conclude that it is an institution designed to monitor, regulate, and punish poor black families” (6). While that may seem like a harsh statement, she offers a lot of evidence to support her point.

         The numbers themselves are shocking: 42% of all children in foster care are black children, despite the fact that only 17% of children nationwide are black. That is a huge percentage increase. Not only are there more black children in foster care, but they also have less of a chance of being reunited with their parents (or being adopted) as compared to white children in foster care. Overall, black children remain in foster care for nearly twice as long as white children (19). Roberts notes that even when black children are reunited with their families, they have a much higher reentry rate into foster care than white children do. She also explains that the differences actually begin before the children are in foster care; when abuse or neglect is first discovered, white children often stay in the home and receive services there, whereas black children are more likely to be immediately uprooted and sent to foster care (17).  

        Roberts discusses the idea that social workers are much less likely to see African American parents as fit to take care of their children. Oftentimes, psychological evaluations are done, and they seem to look for any sign that the parent is imperfect. In some evaluations, they even interpreted the fact that parents with low income raising children shows “profound irresponsibility or delusion that was damaging to children” (40). In one case study discussed by Roberts, a mother named Jornell lost her child to foster care and did all she could to get him back. When she had supervised visits with her son, though, they noticed she had an “elevated mood and accelerated speech,” which they thought could be signs of a subtle mental disorder (rather than just a mother happy to see her son?). Additionally, they thought that she answered a parenting test too rigidly, and also noted that she had a small support network (5).  They seemed to be grasping for anything to keep Jornell from getting her son back. Roberts seems to be making the point that this would not happen with a white mother, which seems like a fairly valid conclusion given the evidence she provides in this chapter.

        Overall, this book shows a very negative side of foster care. I am interested to see how the numbers have changed (if at all) in the 10 years since this book was published!

-Rachel

Roberts, Dorothy. Shattered bonds: The color of child welfare. New York: Basic Civitas Books, 2002.

Blog post #8

1) I am extremely interested in the reunions of adoptees with their birth families and the relationships that exist after these reunions between the adoptive family, adoptee, and the birth family. Being an adoptee, I have always wondered whether it was ethical for me to want to contact my birth family for fear of hurting the wonderful relationship I have with my adoptive family. After this reunion, how would my birth family fit in with my family and what would constitute a healthy balanced relationship between the two? I feel that these are pressing questions for many adoptees and I want to seek out a generic answer for those of us adoptees that have looked into this possibility of reunion.

2) I think the ethical issues that are present in this topic all concern the rights of the individuals involved. Do adoptees have the right to search for their birth families? Do birth families have the right to privacy? Do adoptive parents have the right to decline a relationship with their child’s birth family? These are all very difficult questions to answer, but they all have to do with the personal rights that each individual is guaranteed. Who’s rights then are more powerful if all these parties’ right are in contradiction? Does the prevailing right go to the adoptee? The birth family? Or the adoptive family?

3) I am not sure where to go about finding sources for this topic. I could contact my own social worker and see if she has governmental documents concerning open adoptions and the implications that must be taken in order for a reunion to take place. Also, I would be open to reading more memoirs of reunions or blogs describing the processes that adoptees go through in their reunions.

4) I am very interested in the topic of reunion; however, I am not sure how likely I am to find enough information to write a research paper on the topic. Also, I am not sure there are enough ethical issues present here for me to make an ethical argument. On a scale of 1-10 I am sitting at a 6 on the likelihood I will use this topic as my final research topic.

5) Can anyone think of a topic close to this that could produce more results or be easier to research?

Blog Post 8

1)       I was thinking about writing on the current Korean adoption law controversy.  This law provides mothers with 7 days to decide whether to keep or relinquish their babies after birth.  I find this issue interesting because it shows how the Confucian, Korean society continues to perpetuate the societal structure.  The disagreement consists mainly between the interests of the mother and child versus that of society.  It seems as though this law would restrict the woman’s right to autonomy by forcing her to make a faster, pressured decision.  In addition it completely ignores the rights of the father.

2)      As I mentioned, I think the woman’s right to autonomy and informed consent are the key issues with this law.  It would be interesting to look at what information these mothers are provided in that 7 day span to see if they are able to make a well-educated decision.

3)      I will probably use some online blogs, and websites which discuss the issues with this law.  It is fairly contemporary so I am not sure whether I will be able to find books or movies on this topic. 

4)      I am probably at an 8 on this topic.  I am really interested by the issue, but if I find another more intriguing topic related to birthmothers I may switch.

5)      For help, I think all I need is a suggestion of possible sources.  I thought of blogs and websites, but it would be nice to have more academic writings. 

Reanna N.

Blog Post 8

For my final paper, I want to write something about the international adoption of American children. Right now, the small percentage of American children that are adopted outside of the country are mostly black or mixed race. It is believed, therefore, that racism plays a factor here – that Caucasian American families don’t want to adopt and raise black children, so those children are “sent” to other countries. Others wonder why American children are leaving the country at all, given that there are so many families here that want to adopt. Furthermore, some people believe that Americans adopt internationally due to things like famine and war, and don’t understand why Americans are “exporting” (not my term!) children when life is good in America. I’m still looking into the topic, so I’m not positive on the exact question I’d be researching, but my guess is it would be something along the lines of, “Should American children be adopted internationally?” and then I would also look at the ethics regarding the children who are being adopted (black, mixed race, handicapped; rarely healthy Caucasian). I’m not sure which rights I’d specifically be talking about, but I can definitely see some silent racism (or maybe not so silent, we’ll see!), and possibly some elements of the faces of oppression –marginalization, powerlessness, and cultural imperialism.

I think that on a scale of 1-10, I am at about a 7. I think the topic would be really interesting, but I’m afraid I won’t find much on it since it deals with such a small percentage of adoptions. But if I can find information, I would definitely like to pursue this question.  Pertman mentions this type of adoption almost in passing, and I don’t think we’ve read anything else on the topic in class, so I will definitely need to do a lot of outside research. I’m planning to look for articles in the library databases and I’ll also look and see if there has been anything on the topic in the media. I would definitely welcome any help in finding sources for this topic!

I would like to get some feedback on the scope of my topic – is it too narrow that it will be difficult to write about? Should I begin with international adoption in general and then focus specifically on the adoption of American children to other countries instead of jumping into that from the start? Also, does it seem like a strong enough ethical dilemma to write my paper on? Any ideas or suggestions would be more than welcome :)

-Rachel

Blog 8

Separation of Siblings in the Foster System

I am looking to write about the ethical issue of separating siblings in the foster system and/or separating them by being adopted (or not being adopted) by different families. I think this topic is important because there is a special bond between siblings and there might be many effects that would result in separation, especially if the children just got separated from their parents. I think there are some ethical disagreements because it would take a lot of work to keep siblings together and many times it is difficult to find foster families or adoptive parents who can support all of the siblings. I hope to examine if the foster care/adoption system should use their resources to try and keep the siblings together more often.


I intend to explore the issues on the best interest standard. What is the best interest of the child in these situations? Is it to be adopted by a loving family or be kept together with their other family? I feel this is a very difficult question to answer. Also is there a compromise to be made?


I think the sources that will be most beneficial are memoirs, personal stories, an foster system blog if they faced this situation, interview with someone who was separated from their siblings, essays, and journal articles. I believe this topic will be in many of stories of people who were in the foster system, but it probably not the main focus of the piece.  I think it will be harder to find some academic sources on this topic and would open any help in finding these sources.


On a scale of 1-10, my level is around a 8 to write a paper on this topic. I think the only drawback would be not finding enough information on the topic which would lead me to switch.


I would take any suggestions on the topic especially if your book review book had a detailed part of the effect of being separated from their siblings. Also I would take suggestions if you feel there is some part of the issue I could narrow down on or maybe broaden my search.


Sarah B.  

Book Review: "Beneath a Tall Tree"

Strauss, Jean A. S. Beneath a Tall Tree: A Story about Us. Claremont, CA: Areté, 2001. Print. 268 pages

Jean Strauss is an author and filmmaker. As a graduate of the University of California at Berkley, Strauss studied history. Her background in history plays a large roll in her memoir, as well as her experiences as an adoptee and a member of the adoption triad.  Her memoir “Beneath a Tall Tree” was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize.

This is an extremely well written memoir of an adopted woman searching for her roots. “Beneath a Tall Tree” tells the story of an adoptee from her earliest memory to her present. It is serious, sad, joyous, and funny all in one. Strauss does a wonderful job depicting her life in a way in which makes readers feel as though they are living it. The memoir mainly addresses the author’s search for her birthmother, but highlights the importance and necessity of family, as well as the struggles that adoptees encounter everyday.

I would rate this book as a 1. I read it cover to cover in two days, hardly putting it down. It is not only a book about adoption, but a book about family. The author stresses the importance of family, whether it is through blood adoption or simply experience. This is something each and everyone can relate to and in turn learn from. This book is highly recommended to all.

This book is available at Clemens or Alcuin Library through Inter-Library loan

The memoir “Beneath a Tall Tree” by Jean Strauss is less of a story about adoption and more of a story about family and finding a place in life.  It addresses many themes about adoption, highlighting the need for adoptees to have a connection to their roots and a sense of belonging, the difficulty in searching for birth families in closed adoptions, and the emotional process of forming new relationships while continuing to sustain old ones. These main themes are discussed directly by Strauss, as she shares with her audience, what its like to grow up in a home as an adoptee, her feelings of uncertainty, and search for the roots of her existence.

 As a young child, Strauss is often faced with adversity as both an adoptee and a member of an unordinary family. As a blonde haired, blue-eyed girl, she finds it difficult to assimilate aesthetically into her Italian family, constantly afraid she will be given back to her birth family for not fitting in or acting in the wrong way. Her brother, Frankie, reiterates the possibility of relinquishment daily. “A year and a half older than me, they got Frankie first. He reminds me of this often, ‘They will take you back before me,’ he says, knowing this will scare me. He likes to scare me” (17). This forces Strauss to live a cautious childhood, full of anxieties concerning her future. She loves her family immensely, but cannot help feeling that she doesn’t quite belong, adding to her fears of being “taken back.”

In a closed adoption, Strauss had always known she was adopted, but never received any information about her birth family. In this regard, it was hard for her as a child to put into context where she came from. When asked to make a family tree in third grade, Strauss begins to see herself as an isolated dot on a blank white page. Her teacher claims that, “Your ancestors are the family you were born into. From them you inherit everything that you are.” This raises concern for Jean. “I feel an emptiness inside like a black hole. Who are my ancestors? Where did I come from? I look around me and feel slightly dizzy, as if the room is not quite level” (24). Although this feeling of void is a hidden emotion within Strauss for many years, she can never suppress her need to connect her dot to another. This family tree and the meaning of ancestry haunts Strauss well into her life.  

Strauss starts to question her own identity and where she came from more deeply as a teenager and struggles with her place in life, not sure where she belongs or what her calling is. Her mother gives her some peace of mind, sharing with her daughter the little information she has about her birthparents. “ I stare at that one page for a long time. It tells me a lot and it tells me nothing. There is no face on the page, no name, no family tree”(70). “I now know everything my mom knows. That, in reality, is all I want. For now”(71). These small answers initially lead to a sense of being for Strauss, but eventually return with more questions. This is when she decides to search for her birth mother.

Along with describing the adversity and confusion a child faces as an adoptee growing up in a house with closed adoption, “Beneath a Tall Tree” also exemplifies the long and emotional journey of finding one’s birth family. Not only is it exhausting physically for Strauss, trying to seek out any information possible after rejection after rejection, but it is a rollercoaster of emotions. When her mom dies unexpectedly from cancer, Strauss is filled with grief and decides she has hit a dead end in her search. She is faced with sorrow, having never told her mom of her searches, in fear of hurting her.

It takes Jean a year to recover from this tragedy of loosing her mother, but she then decides to resume her search to find her birthmother and it pays off. When she finally contacts her birthmother, through the priest of her church, Strauss finds out that Lenore has been looking for her too. Ecstatic, she meets both her birthmother and her birth siblings (all seven of them) and starts to build a relationship with them. It becomes hard, however, for Strauss to begin a relationship with her birthmother, Lenore, because she does not want to replace her mom, Betty. “Since the third grade, I have believed if I could just meet my birth family, everything would become clear. But on this first day with my original family, I am more confused than ever”(131). “How dare she call herself my mother”(136). The awkwardness of their relationship depicts the pain and raw emotion that is involved in reunions of birth families. It is difficult for both of these parties, trying to find their place in the other’s heart. Each begins to accept the other for who they are. Jean: the daughter of Betty and Lenore, Lenore: the mother of Jean and seven others. “What is family? Unlike the blank sheet on manilla paper I felt so uncomfortable facing in the third grade, today I confidently face a large blank canvas and paint the names on it, one by one; my family, my birthfamily, and all the friends that helped me here along the way”(260).

            This book is extremely descriptive, down to the very scent the author smelled during her experiences. This is very important to the reader and allows them to live through the experiences, just as Jean had. Her story is so intriguing, that it is hard to put the book down. Strauss’ memoir does an amazing job describing the details of adoption, its complications and triumphs as well as the emotions that many adoptees feel when searching for their birthparents. Each part of the book had a specific purpose and meaning in Jean’s life, which helped to bring her ideas together in an ending. Overall, this book was filled with strengths and feelings of warmth.

Book Review: I Wish for You a Beautiful Life

Dorow, Sarah.  I Wish for You a Beautiful Life.  MN: Yeong & Yeong Book Company, 1999: 134 pages

The editor, Sarah Dorow, is an Associate Professor of sociology at the University of Alberta.  She teaches courses related to adoption and has researched and published literature related to transnational adoption.

This work is an informal compilation of letters aimed toward a mature audience.  It provides a more comprehensive view of adoption by highlighting the perspective of unwed mothers in Korea.  The women are writing these letters to their babies which they have surrendered for adoption.  Therefore, they contain subject matters which may be hard for a young audience to understand. 

Rating: 2) I recommend this book for a mature audience that would like to learn more about the Korean birthmother experience.

I strongly recommend the purchase of this book by CSB/SJU libraries.

            In the realm of books on adoption, I Wish for You a Beautiful Life is unique because it isolates the rare voice of Korean birthmothers.  These voices are revealed through the letters these women write to their children upon choosing adoption, and they are laced with emotions of pain, guilt, and love.  The significance of this compilation is emphasized by the intentional organization which highlights aspects of the Korean birthmother experience.  It opens with an introduction by the director of the unwed mother home, Ae Ran Won, the source of the letters.  This helps the audience gain insight into the historical and cultural context of adoption and the role of unwed mothers in Korea.  She states that these letters are a therapeutic step allowing, “each birth mother to express her feelings in the form of a letter to her child” (2).  The thirty-seven letters are separated by 6 groups.  Each section presents an issue and a short explanation of how it relates to unwed mothers in Korea.  They cover a wide array of topics from “The stigma of single motherhood” to “Christian Faith.”  The letters themselves are fairly short averaging approximately two pages.  Although brief, the writings are quite dense expressing complex emotional battles and societal pressures.  By labeling the letters with numbers and containing no writer identification, the words seem more powerful and representative of the feelings of many Korean birthmothers.  Overall, the message of the I Wish for You a Beautiful Life is focused around the difficulty of being an unwed mother in Korea.  Unlike American society, Korea still has very strong ideas about gender and family.  The idea of the baby scoop era in 1960s America is still the bleak reality.  Society is constructed in such a way that, “the deep embarrassment that accompanies pregnancy and parenthood out of wedlock is not just about immoral conduct but about disrupting traditional Confucian family bonds and male-centered lineage” (15).  These letters provide a vehicle to expose these strict societal standards and allow the honest, raw voice of the Korean birthmother to be heard.

            A strength of this book is the variety of voices it presents.  With thirty-seven women coming from the same general background, I expected the letters to become repetitive and predictable.  Surprisingly, each provides unique nuances which add to my understanding of Korean birthmothers.  For example, Letter 6 details careless behavior leading to pregnancy and then a possible abortion, while Letter 8 describes a pregnancy stemming from a loving relationship and causing familial rejection.  There are obviously common themes such as regret and shame, but the varying details and subject matter allowed each letter to present a slightly different point of view.   Furthermore, the additional writings which frame the letters effectively place the text within a distinct cultural context.  Background by the director of Ae Ran Won, note from the editor, foreword, short section writings, and concluding remarks about Ae Ran Won develop a more comprehensive understanding of birth mothers in Korea and the difficult decisions and situations unique to their culture.  I especially enjoyed the description of Ae Ran Won today.  It was very specific and allowed the audience to visually place themselves in that setting.  However, a weakness is the organization of the letters.  The section headings were not always related to the letters contained within those parts.  This caused some distraction because it caused one to search for traces of the theme rather than appreciating the letters for what they were.

            As a whole, this book serves to confirm themes which we explored in our discussion of Korean birthmothers.  The article which resonates most with I Wish for You a Beautiful Life is the lecture notes from the 60^th Women’s Policy Forum held on February 24, 2010 at the International Conference Hall of the Korea Press Center.  In the talk titled “Reality of Unwed Mothers and Support for Self-Reliance”, there are many situations detailed in which unwed mothers were coerced, limiting their right to informed consent and autonomy.  Korean mothers who lacked financial support felt obliged to follow the social worker’s recommendations.  One mothers laments, “I had no choice but to do as the adoption agency suggested, as I had no one to look after me” (10).  Similar feeling are expressed in Letter 25 when a mother writes, “although I did not abandon you, I also had no choice but to place you for adoption” (25).  This further emphasizes the lack of options presented to birthmothers stripping them of their right to informed consent.  An interesting idea which arises from the comparison of our readings on Korean birthmothers and the information in I Wish for You a Beautiful Life is the concept that the staff at Ae Ran Won may have been coercing the mothers to surrender their babies for adoption.  Many examples shared in the talk expose the corrupt nature of unwed mother homes.  It makes me wonder whether the people at Ae Ran Won had the best interests of the mothers in mind.  The book is somewhat bias because it contains a short introduction by the Ae Ran Won director and a portion of the proceeds generated from the book are donated to the home.  While I was reading, I never questioned the home’s intentions or morality.  Throughout the letters, the majority of mothers believed they were making the decision for adoption on their own.  It is possible the misinformation provided to the mothers caused them to reach this conclusion unaware that they were being forcefully swayed by the staff and their own families.  In light of this, the letters serve as useful evidence of successful coercion.  The women are so manipulated by society that they believe they are choosing adoption, when in fact they were provided no other choice.  The closing remark of the talk claims that, “if unwed mothers are provided with sufficient counseling and time to consider their options, the adoption rate will drop dramatically” (25).  Based on the reading of I Wish for You a Beautiful Life, it is evident that unwed mother facilities like Ae Ran Won are not providing enough information to mothers.  Collectively, the letters express emotions of desperation, choicelessness, and shame.  None of the women seem to be aware of government assistance and programs which would allow them to keep their children.

            I Wish for You a Beautiful Life is a poignant read for any mature reader who would like to learn more about the experience of being a birthmother in Korea.  The positive aspects of presenting a variety of voices and cultural context far outweigh the minor problem with section headings.  It helps to support ideas explored earlier with unwed Korean mothers, and also raises several new questions in light of possible integrity issues.  Perhaps, as a Korean adoptee these letters carry greater weight.  There were emotional moments I imagined my own birthmother as the writer.  It is possible this powerful experience caused me to overestimate this book’s worth.  Nonetheless, this book does accomplish its goal of helping people outside of Korea, “better understand the difficult situation of birth mothers.”  The letters are raw because they remove extraneous commentary by scholars and other parties in the adoption triad.  It is refreshing to see a group with arguably the least amount of power in adoption given the loudest voice.  In doing so, I Wish for You a Beautiful Life provides an “important gift” to its audience by allowing them to become closer to understanding the grueling trials of being an unwed mother in Korea.  An excerpt from Letter 13 encompasses feelings reiterated throughout work stating, “Think of your life as precious, because you are a beautiful flower born out of pain.  I cannot give you any help, but I will always pray for you” (54).  I Wish for You a Beautiful Life is a moving work which is invaluable to those seeking out the Korean birthmother perspective. 

Reanna N.

Book Review: The Girls Who Went Away

Fessler, Ann H. The Girls Who Went Away: The Hidden History of Women Who Surrendered Children for Adoption in the Decades Before Roe v. Wade. NY: Penguin Press, 2006 354 pages.

Ann Fessler is a professor of photography at Rhode Island School of Design and in 2003-2004 she was awarded the Radcliffe Fellowship, a prestigious and highly competitive fellowship. During her fellowship she conducted research about women who surrendered their children for adoption for her audio and video project, but the extensive research morphed into a book. Fessler has a close connection to adoption because she is an adoptee herself, and at the age of 56 she met her birthmother for the first time.

This is a collection of personal stories of birth mothers during the Baby Scoop era alongside with Fessler’s research about the emotional toll this decision had on all the parties involved.  The general audience should be aware many of these are only a small fraction of the stories of the million and a half women who surrendered children for adoption.

Rating: 1) I would highly recommend this book for both an academic audience and general audience who are interested in the stories of an era where birth mothers were forced to surrender their children for adoption.

Clemens Library already owns this book.

            In today’s society it is becoming more common to have a baby out of wedlock and for the parents to raise the child together even if they are not married. However that has not always been the case in the history of the United States. After World War II the Baby Scoop era started and continued until the 1980’s. During this time, a million and a half women were coerced into surrendering their children for adoption due to enormous family and social pressure. It was socially unacceptable to be pregnant and not married during this era. Families sent their daughters away in disgrace to maternity homes in order to save the mother and child from a lifetime of shame. In Ann Fessler’s book The Girls Who Went Away: The Hidden History of Women Who Surrendered Children for Adoption in the Decades Before Roe v. Wade, she examines this time period in the perspective of the mothers and the journey they went on from the finding out about the pregnancy to meeting their surrendered children decades later.

            A recurring theme Fessler brings to the reader’s attention is the role of the Church in the pressuring of the women to give up their children for adoptive. Fessler never blamed the Church for the hardship these women endured but demonstrated it through the personal stories of these women. A great deal of the memories gave details on how priests and nuns of the Catholic Church coerced expecting mothers to surrender their child for adoption. Some priests tried to scare the young birth mothers, usually still teenagers, by threatening their child would never go to heaven and spend eternity in purgatory. The child could not be baptized if the parents were not married which the priests used to leverage the mothers to relinquish their babies. Also many times the nuns would be in charge of the maternity homes and hospital wards and they advised the importance of the child being raised in a two parent household. In one woman’s story a nun at the hospital said, “You’re gonna forget all about this, you’re gonna go home and you’re gonna meet a nice young man, and you’re gonna get married, and you’re gonna have other babies, and you’re never even gonna remember you had this one” (89). In stories it tells about nuns who repeatedly told the women they would easily forget about these children, but giving up their children at birth haunted the birth mothers for the rest of their lives. It was not only the Church who failed in guiding these young mothers but also the parents, the father of the child, social workers, hospital works, and judicial workers who had a part in making feel the mother feel inferior and coercing them in the surrender of the child.

            The Birth and Surrender chapter demonstrated how alone the birth mothers were at the time and without support throughout the pregnancy. Fessler repeatedly expressed these women were often separated from the married women at the hospital and casted into a room alone while they endured child labor in solitude. Many times the mothers were denied even seeing their child after the delivery even when they demanded to see their newborn. In Karen I’s story, she was a lucky one who was able to spend an hour with her daughter before her child was taken away. During that precious time as she rocked her newborn she explained “I didn’t have any choices. I had to do what they told me to do. I had nowhere to go. I had no one to help me” (160). Many of these women felt powerless and had no one around who understood what they were going through. At the time, the social workers, parents, and hospital workers thought they were helping these young women trying to discourage the bond that was formed between the mother and child, trying to make the surrender less difficult.   However, these workers did not account for the unbreakable bond that already occurred between the mother and child. The personal stories demonstrated how the mothers had overwhelming love for their child, and being denied led to many aftermath problems.

            Fessler was able to incorporate not only the stories of the birthmothers, but the public knowledge of adoption at the time. She would set the reader up on how life was during this era.

It was during an era where the mothers would be disowned for having a child out of wedlock and would not be able to find employment to support the child. With no knowledge of resources to help keep their children, the mothers felt trapped in giving their child up. This scenario showed how skewed the public image was of adoption and allowed the reader to realize how unaware society was of the hardships these young women went through. It gave a false sense of serenity and easiness for the birth mother to relinquish their son or daughter for adoption.  

            Ann Fessler’s book is an incredible resource when discussion the topic of birthmothers in the Baby Scoop era. She discusses every stage of the process from the background of the time period, initial stages in the pregnancy, life in the maternity homes, steps of the adoption process, and the aftermath of it all. It not only informative but brings up important ethical issues about adoption. The major ethical issue Fessler addresses in her book is how the women were coerced into giving up the child for adoption. Almost every single personal story expressed how they wished to keep the baby but too many influential people were against them. The women were sometimes denied standard medical care, information about services, and were sometimes forced to surrender their child. It was the redundancy of the stories which made the ethical issue stand strong because it was evident and irrefutable in the many different personal experiences of the birthmothers during the Baby Scoop era.

            Another ethical issue addressed was how society treated these unwed mothers. The father of the child was never to blame and it solely lied on the responsibility of the pregnant party. Society perceived the women as a lower class and denied them essential rights. Many landlords, excluding the maternity homes, would not allow an unwed pregnant woman to rent an apartment, and these women usually did not have family or friends who would support them either. Teenagers were expelled from high school immediately when the school administrations were informed about the pregnancy, but there were no repercussions for the fathers. They were denied jobs or fired on the grounds of their pregnancy.  Society often placed these women as second rate citizens which is a major infringement on their basic rights.

            Ann Fessler’s book The Girls Who Went Away is a powerful collection of oral stories about the women who were forced to relinquish their children at birth. I would highly recommend this book for anyone but especially for birthmothers during the Baby Scoop era to know they were not alone. I would also highly recommend it for the children who were surrendered during this era. This would allow them to have a deeper understanding of the struggles the birthmothers went through and the hardships they faced. Fessler wanted to unite these women and give them a voice, so they can share all of their stories with the world.

~Sarah B.  

Link to the trailer of Ann Fessler's film "A Girl Like Her" which is based of her book

http://agirllikeher.com/view-trailer/ 

Book Review: Without a Map

Hall, Meredith. Without a Map. Boston: Beacon Press, 2007. 220 pages.

Meredith Hall is an English professor at the University of New Hampshire. She is a birthmother who placed her son for adoption in the 1960s when she was just sixteen years old.

This book is a memoir of Meredith’s life, focusing primarily on how her life changed because of the pregnancy and adoption. Like most birthmothers from the 1960s, Meredith was not looked well upon by society once she was pregnant, and she felt she had no choice but to give up her child. Her story tells of the hardships she faced throughout the years as a result, and discusses the reunion with her son.
Rating: 1) I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in adoption, especially those interested in birthmother stories.

Clemens Library already owns this book.
        “This is an ordinary story, the story of a search for a steady course. Love, its sustenance and its costs” (220). Though Meredith Hall chooses to end her story with these words, I have to disagree; there is nothing ordinary about her story. It is a gut-wrenching, painful story of loss and the search for love and belonging. Her story as a birthmother is powerful and reveals the harsh reality of the treatment of birthmothers in the 1960s, and offers an inside look at the pain from losing a child that never leaves. Brilliantly written, Meredith Hall has shared her personal story and given us a deeper understanding of truths behind adoption.

        One of the main ideas in the memoir is that birthmothers in the 1960s were ostracized and felt they had no choice in regard to adoption.  Meredith was sixteen when she became pregnant in 1965, and quickly learned she had no one to rely on. She was promptly expelled from school, and her friends stopped talking to her. Meredith was suddenly an outsider in the community. She writes, “Shunning is as precise as a scalpel, an absolute excision, leaving, miraculously, not a trace of a scar on the community body. The scarring is left for the girl, an intense, debilitating wound that weeps for the rest of her life” (xxv). 

        Meredith’s parents were anything but supportive.  Without asking Meredith what she wanted to do, they made the decision that the baby would be given up for adoption; Meredith had no choice in the matter. Her mother refused to let her stay in the home, and so she was forced to go hide away in her father’s house. Living in the shadows, Meredith was not allowed to so much as step a toe outside; no one was to know she was there, let alone pregnant. On her seventeenth birthday, Meredith excitedly headed to dinner at home with her mom, who she had not seen in weeks. However, any hopes of returning to normalcy were crushed when her mother forced her to squeeze her seven-months-pregnant self onto the floor of the car so that no one in town would see her. Meredith found herself relieved to go back into hiding at her father’s after that; her life at home was forever in the past (xx). 

        Even the doctors treated Meredith poorly. When Meredith went in for a check-up, the doctor told her, “Don’t try to tell me you know who the father of this baby is. I know you have no idea. Girls like you never do” (181). This is congruent with what we learned in class about the treatment of birthmothers in the 1960s; the birthmothers were given very low social status and were looked down upon. Just like Meredith, they were cut off from society, and often had little or no support from their family – the people who are supposed to love them unconditionally. Like many other birthmothers, Meredith was anesthetized during labor so that she would not see her baby; the decision was already made for her that she would be giving the child up for adoption. She writes, “no one spoke to me as they cleaned me up, a slutty girl who had just dropped an illegitimate baby” (173).  Consistent with what we learned in class, only the birthmother was stereotyped in this way; no one judged or even cared much about the birth father.

      Overall, this memoir does a good job of supporting the idea that birthmothers in the 1960s experienced choicelessness in regard to adoption and had little or no support as they were ostracized from society. The only weakness is that her story doesn’t contain any information about the adoption agency or the social workers in connection to the choicelessness she felt. In the 1960s, social workers often played an influential role in the decision to place a child for adoption, and that was missing from this story. Even so, the memoir is powerful in portraying how birthmothers were viewed in the 1960s.

            The second main idea found in Without a Map is that the pain of losing a child really never leaves. Though many people believed birthmothers could simply have the child and move on with their lives, birthmothers felt very differently. After the birth of her son, Meredith spent years wandering around, searching for her identity. Not a day went by that she didn’t think about the son she had given up. Though she would not meet him until he was 21, she felt a part of him in her heart every day.

           One day a few years after the birth, a young woman walked into the copy shop where Meredith worked. As they made eye contact, Meredith knew that she, too, was a birth mother. Meredith writes, “I feel an odd connection between us, a sense that we are each seeing our own sorrow written on someone else’s face” (57).  Suddenly, Meredith has someone to talk to, someone who understands exactly what she is going through. The two become friends, but it only lasts for a few weeks; they are unable to take the pain they see mirrored in each other’s eyes.

            Meredith begins to travel the world; she is all alone and has no reason to stay in one place. She doesn’t know what she is searching for, but only knows she must keep moving. She spent a large amount of time walking through the countries of the Middle East; the walking was like a drug to her. The whole trip, she was keenly aware of the growing hole inside of her. She writes, “I am becoming more and more isolated and recognize that I am walking my way into perfect disconnection. I think of my baby, a boy now, every single day . . .He is shaped liked this hole in me” (101).  Meredith realizes that walking away from her past has done nothing; she must go home. She writes, “I want to go home, home to my adult life, with its losses carved forever in my path, with its possibilities, like unformed clouds, calling me forward” (116).

            Meredith went on to marry (and later divorce) and have two more children. Yet, the spot in her heart for her firstborn never left. In 1987, when her son was 21 years old, Meredith was reunited with him. When she saw Paul for the first time, she felt something change deep inside. “I think I am breaking,” she writes, “breaking with joy, with love, with grief because here he is a grown young man, here I am middle-aged, all the years gone forever and we know it in this moment more than ever before” (163).  Slowly but surely, they became a part of one another’s lives, and the hole in Meredith’s heart began to fill. Paul told her, “No more sorrow, Meredith. We are done with sorrow” (170).

            I think that the message in this memoir that the child never truly leaves the mother is abundantly clear. Throughout the different stages of her life, the longing for her child doesn’t leave, but remains a permanent part of her. Meredith sums up well the connection between a mother and child: “Mother and child do not fully separate at birth. We do not lose each other at that moment of severance. Every day we spend preparing our young children to love apart from us, independently, we do not have to feel the sharp pain of separation. And incredibly, every day I spent longing for my lost child, he was roaming with me still, part of me, unknown but there. . . We are joined in an us, past, present and future” (177). I do not see any specific weaknesses in regard to this main idea. Meredith writes very clearly of the pain she felt over losing Paul, from the days following the birth to twenty years after; the bond between mother and child continued even with the physical separation. However, one weakness of the book as a whole is that it tells just one story; it cannot necessarily be generalized to other adoption stories. I think, however, that since it is labeled as a ‘memoir,’ that is to be expected.

         One final connection between this book and our class deals is that Meredith’s relationship with her mother reminded me a great deal of the relationship our first speaker, the birthmother from CUB, had with her mother. In both situations, their relationships suffered because the mothers did not support their daughters. The parallel extends further, as both our speaker and Meredith chose to spend years of their lives taking care of their ill mothers, despite the strained relationships and past issues. They felt an ethical pull to do what was right, and for them, that meant looking past the issues and caring for their mothers. Meredith writes, “She is suddenly vulnerable, and I want to protect her. . .I cannot fix our past, make it different, erase it. . . I spend the next eighteen years caring for my mother in a complicated dance of love and forbidden anger, of compassion and unspeakable resentment, of tender respect and the old, silenced betrayal” (153). Despite the way her mother treated her in regard to the pregnancy, Meredith felt compelled to take care of her, just as our speaker felt toward her own mother.

        Without a Map is a phenomenal story about a birthmother from the 1960s. It clearly demonstrates the prejudice and isolation felt by the birthmothers and the choicelessness they felt in regard to adoption. More importantly, in my opinion, it shows that the pain of losing a child doesn’t go away. Regardless of where they are, a mother and child have a certain bond that doesn’t break. Without a Map is a gripping memoir that I would highly recommend for anyone interested in adoption, especially those interested in the stories of birthmothers from the 1960s. The story is real and gives the reader an inside perspective on the life of a birthmother. From the struggles Meredith felt when she first announced her pregnancy, to the excitement of the reunion with her son, you are sure to feel Meredith’s emotions alongside her. Without a Map is a story worth reading!


-Rachel

Group Blog Post 7, Option 1

      We initially thought that Losing Isaiah was a very touching movie, and that it really showed the controversy of transracial adoption. We believed that it did a good job of portraying both sides of the transracial adoption issue; we found ourselves sympathizing with both Margaret and Khaila at different points in the film. Both women viewed themselves as Isaiah's mother and clearly love him. Margaret's family provides him with love and he seems to thrive in the environment, but we also see the issue that Isaiah was being raised without his own culture being incorporated into his life. He was around white people all the time, and didn't have much exposure to anything related to black culture. We thought something that highlighted this was when Isaiah was blowing bubbles with his white sister, Hannah, and she took his hand and asked him what was different about their hands. Immediately, he answered, "Mine's smaller!" He didn't see himself as different than Hannah based off of skin color. We also sympathized with Khaila because she clearly loves her son, and even got clean for him, despite the fact that she thought he was dead at the time. She worked incredibly hard to find a place for them to live, and to find a steady job so that she could raise Isaiah and provide him with opportunities. We thought that both sides were really well presented, and we really weren't sure which way the judge would end up ruling.
      While we thought the movie presented the transracial adoption issue very well, Duchess Harris thought that black actors in the movie have "done a disservice to their fellow sisters who strive daily to be seen as more than memorabilia" (Harris 49). She really took issue with the way that the black people in the movie were represented in comparison to the white people. For example, Maragaret was rich, Khaila was poor; Margaret was educated, Khaila could just barely read, and the list goes on. Additionally, she points out that three of the four black women in the movie are recovering drug addicts. In short, she views the characters as being very stereotypical, and disagrees with the writers' decision to portray them that way. She emphasizes how white people are given a superior role, and how the fact that Khaila asked Margaret for help at the end feeds into that idea. She writes that as Isaiah yells, "Mommy! Mommy!" at the end of the film, he "runs into the arms of the 'Great White Hope'" (Harris 48).
      Overall, we disagree with Harris' extreme stance on the movie and her harsh tone throughout the review. We don't agree that Halle Berry has done anyone a "disservice" through this film. We thought it was very extreme to say that the only way people could feel good about this movie is if they want to see black women represented in stereotypical ways; we thought it was a very touching film. We did agree, however, that this movie might not be a good representation of transracial adoption in the sense that a small number of white people seek out black children. Overall though, we did not agree with Harris' review and enjoyed the film immensely.



-Rachel, Sarah, Reanna, and Aly

Losing Isaiah. Dir. Stephen Gyllenhaal. Perf. Jessica Lange and Halle Berry. Paramount Pictures, 1995. DVD.

Harris, Duchess. "More Than Memorabila? Khaila as Jezebel, Mammy and Sapphire in Losing Isaiah." Rev. of Losing Isaiah. COLORS: An Arts and Cultural Criticism Section July 1995: 46-49. Print.

Blog post #6

After engaging in the readings of both Adam Pertman in “Adoption Nation” and Kim Park Nelson in “Baby Selling”, It became very evident that changes in transnational adoption are still being made and the progress toward ethical, legal, and successful adoptions internationally is still ongoing. As a naïve college student, I have always understood my world as very much modern, ethical, and improved from eras such as the “baby scoop” that occurred in the 1970’s and had many unethical issues attached with it. It was very compelling to me from both these readings that transnational adoptions are still being modified today to ensure the best interest for all parties involved, and avoid illicit activities. These changes only starting to take place in the 1990’s with the formation of the Hague convention, taking place in the Netherland in 1993 (Pertman, 85).  Even though this treaty was established in 1993, there are still illicit activities taking place today, with under the table adoptions and bribing. These statistics shocked me and helped raise my awareness about transnational adoption and its only recent improvements and steady progress toward betterment.

In Kim Park Nelson’s article, there was a great sense of negativity toward transnational adoption. An argument that Park Nelson makes about primarily white adoptive parents and their ability to adopt transnationally because of their hierarchical status, is that their push for transnational adoption is not for the benefit of a child in need of a loving family, but for their own pleasure and improvement in seeking an exotic commodity. She states that “parents as consumers are already conditioned to want the authentically exotic, and what better way to meet this desire than to adopt an authentically exotic child?” (Park Nelson, 94) Thus, by adopting from a foreign country, the adoptive family can enrich their knowledge and understanding of foreign cultures. This, I believe however, is untrue. There are many cases of individuals who do adopt for the reason, but the majority of adoptive families are infertile or are looking to help orphan children of other nations. The desire to create a family with a loving and accepting environment for a child far outweighs the desires for these individuals to enrich themselves culturally by adopting transnationally.

Blogpost 6

In the “Shopping for Children” article by Kim Park Nelson I was intrigued by Park’s use of economic terms such as commodity and supply and demand to describe adoption practices.  Throughout the readings this semester, it has been fairly apparent that there are different groups of power and privilege, but she was the first to really emphasize the material aspect of adoption.  Her idea of the “adoption marketplace” (90) really puts a negative spin on the entire process by reducing children to a mere “spice” to add to a family rather than a precious child to love and care for.  One thing that I found rather implausible is Park’s idea that white families are driven to adopt because they believe “they are enriched through their consumption of the ‘exotic’” (93).  She then goes on to metaphorically describe the adoptees as “spices”, as mentioned earlier, which will help the family become more cultured.  Although families probably greatly value the cultural experience a transracially adopted child will provide, I think it is wrong to say this is a main motivating factor.  I think it is more plausible that these families choose international adoption to avoid the problems associated with domestic adoption.

                After reading the Park article, what struck me most about the Pertman reading was simply the emphasis on positivity.  The adoptive parents are not seen as exploiters in a marketplace but rather people exercising “compassion and altruism” (69).  I expected his article would be more upbeat, but I think he may lean towards the extreme in some of his interpretations.  For example, in the opening he discusses how Americans, “invariably succeed in weaving their facial structures, their skin tones, and their heritages into our cultural tapestry” (64).  He is addressing immigrants as the “they” and strongly implies that the United States has had a long tradition of integrating different cultures rather than trying to eliminate them.  Overall, I think that American culture is less accepting of immigration than Pertman illustrates.  There are many cultures that are represented in the society and the media, but they are not all welcomingly received.  The surprising results of the black doll study expose the harsh reality of the racism still prevalent in our society.

Reanna N.

Blog Post 6

               One of the most important things I read in the Pertman chapter was that, “incorporating an adopted child’s heritage and history into daily life is invariably invaluable” (67). We talked a bit about this in the last class, too. When families first started transnationally adopting, they often became “colorblind” and raised their children as if they were completely their own, ignoring the cultural and ethnic differences. What they didn’t realize was the negative consequences of that behavior. Pertman quotes a Korean adoptee who stated that she was brought up “110 percent American” and legitimately thought she was white; that really struck a chord with me! I am definitely for transnational adoption, but I think parents need to embrace their child’s heritage and give the child opportunities to learn about their culture.

                One question that I have from the Pertman chapter deals with the transnational adoption of American children. Why is it that this form of adoption is so unheard of? Furthermore, why is it that the children are typically either of mixed race or have some sort of special needs? Perhaps most importantly, why is that adopting a child from the U.S. costs as much as $50,000 to $100,000, when Americans adopting children from other nations pay significantly less? There is very little information about the adoption of American children in the reading, but in my opinion it definitely seems to reflect poorly on our country.

                What struck me most about the Nelson article was the section titled “foreign babies as a cultural commodity.” The idea of anyone thinking of a child as a commodity is disturbing to me. A child is a life, not a material good. Nelson quoted theorist bell hooks, who said “Ethnicity becomes spice, seasoning that can liven up the dull dish of mainstream white culture” (93). In my opinion, if someone is adopting a transracial child to “liven up” their culture, their social worker should probably take another look to see if they should really be parents. Nelson also writes that hooks and author Deborah Root would likely believe something along these lines: “parents as consumers are already conditioned to want the authentically exotic, and what better way to meet this desire than to adopt an authentically exotic child?” (94). She then brings in a good point; it is quite likely that the child will become somewhat assimilated to the “American” culture, and so the whole idea of “cultural enrichment” that motivates some families to adopt internationally doesn’t necessarily happen to the degree they think it will. While I am still pro-transnational adoption, I think parents should choose to adopt internationally for reasons other than to become culturally enriched.

                One thing I took issue with in the Nelson article was the way that white adoptive parents were negatively portrayed. She cites Nelson-Erichsen and Erichsen saying that adoptive parents should not give gifts to the birthmother, because the birthmother will just want more from them. She then interprets this as an example of how the white adoptive parents think they are superior to the birthmother and stigmatize them by “representing them as greedy or grasping” (101). While I of course have no experience with adopting a child, I hardly think that the reason that adoptive parents may choose not to give the birthmother a gift is because they see the birthmother as greedy. As it says further down, it may simply be that they don’t want it to see like they are “baby-buying,” as that would be unethical. I also saw the negative portrayal of adoptive parents when she discusses the BCIS forms. She writes that adoptive parents “place themselves at the top of a national hierarchy, with their children below them and immigrants or national of the “Third World” on the bottom” (99). I would need to see more support for this point, because in my opinion it seems inaccurate. I don’t think that all adoptive parents see themselves as higher on this “national hierarchy” than their children, and I think it would be a problem if they do. 

-Rachel

Pertman, A. (2011). Adoption nation. Boston: Harvard Common Press. 

Kim P. Nelson. “Shopping for Children: In the International Marketplace” in Jane Jeong Trenka, Julia Chinyere Oparah, and Sun Young Sin, eds. Outsiders within: Writing on Transracial Adoption. Cambridge: South End Press, 2006: 89-114. 

Blog 6

Transinternational Adoption

The readings today brought much insight to the ideas of transinternational adoption and how it has evolved throughout history. At the beginning of transinternational adoption, adoptive parents were advised to treat the child like their own and that there was no need to incorporate their children’s heritage into their parenting. However now those adoptees are grown up, and they are expressing how they wished their home country’s heritage was present when they were growing up. The adoptees’ should been taught about their birth country’s culture because it incorporates them finding their identity in the world.

In the Pertman reading the piece of information that struck me the most was the horror stories about wrongful adoption cases and how “in some countries, institutionalized children also have been sexually abused, beaten, shaken, and routinely handled so roughly that they sustain internal damage of every physical and psychological sort” (77). My reaction was disgust about these conditions and thinking how hard it would be for adoptive parents adopt a child with these deep psychological problems from being mistreated. Adoption, itself is a difficult process but to add in these problems makes it very hard for both parties.

An interesting point Nelson made up was some couples decide to adopt foreign babies as a cultural commodity. They “voce an interest in cultural enrichment they feel will result from adoption” and foreign adoption is perceived as a “bonus.” I never thought about this point and do not know if I believe it is valid. Usually when the child is adopted, he or she is too young to remember anything about their birth country of the culture of it. It would be the duty of the adoptive parents to bring the culture to their children’s lives. However if the parents do this then they bring the culture into their own lives as well.

During the Pertman reading I thought of a question regarding a decline in transinternation adoption. Do you think there is merit in calling adoption “culture genocide?” Why or why not?

Sarah B.

Pertman, Adam. Adoption Nation: How the Adoption Revolution Is Transforming Our Families- - and America. Boston, MA: Harvard Common, 2011. Print.

Kim P. Nelson. “Shopping for Children: In the International Marketplace” in Jane Jeong Trenka, Julia Chinyere Oparah, and Sun Young Sin, eds. Outsiders within: Writing on Transracial Adoption. Cambridge: South End Press, 2006: 89-114.