Blogpost 1, Option #2

The reading from Beggars and Choosers addresses an odd dynamic between the Concerned United Birthparents and mainstream feminists.  It seems ironic that feminists aiming to empower women would be against an organization such as CUB.  However, upon further examination it becomes clear why this barrier existed.  The feminists during the 1960s and 1970s era were, “deeply concerned with articulating resistance to the idea . . . that motherhood was the life defining activity” (116).  Because the CUB emphasized a woman’s “claim to motherhood”, it directly violated a main tenet of feminism at the time.  Additionally, the feminists did not see adoption as a feminist issue, “because women benefited most from getting adopted babies” (117).  While this is partially true, it is obvious the group overlooked the flagrant violation of these mother’s rights.  Perhaps the feminist group feared association with this highly stigmatized group would hinder their own progress. 

One group addressed frequently in the reading is the National Organization for Women (NOW).  This organization was established in the 1966 and aimed to make women’s rights equivalent to those of men.  Deemphasizing the role of a woman as a mother was probably a way for the group to avoid a common stereotype.  It was in the early years, so a radical perspective was necessary to establish their platform.  Today, I think feminists would be much more receptive to the birthmother’s concerns.  Feminism, as I understand it, is more about general female empowerment and equality with men.  Conflicts with groups such as CUB would be seen as detrimental to the overall cause.

Adam Pertman brings up a valid argument in Adoption Nation when he addresses the issues which arise when groups attempt to make progress.  He writes, “They’ve done that in a time-honored fashion among true believers in causes of virtually any kind: by diluting their strength with internal squabbles over how to use their resources” (150).  Pertman is referring to groups attempting to reform adoption practice, but he acknowledges these conflicts are present in any group.  In the early years, feminism was strongly against groups like CUB because they did not recognize their concerns as part of their agenda.  Although it is probable that they would be more empathetic today, they could still ignore their concerns if they did not want to devote precious resources toward that particular cause. 

Reanna Nelson

Solinger, R. (2001). "Clamining rights in te era of choice: Part II: Concerned united birthparents," fromBeggars and choosers: How the politics of choice shapes adoption, abortion, and welfare in the United States. NY: Hill and Wang, p.103-138.