Lifestyle

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92

 ... 940

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

Bitch_PhD

Bitch_PhD

I'm lost
February 2007

NOV 18, 2007 04:04 PM


I've just finished reading a book called The Girls Who Went Away, which is about "the hidden history of women who surrendered children for adoption in the decades before Roe v. Wade."

Adoption's an issue I'm interested in for a lot of reasons. I know people who were themselves adopted, and women who placed children for adoption. And I'm well aware of the argument that anti-abortion people often make that women with unwanted pregnancies should "just" place their children for adoption--an argument that, after watching a couple of people go through that process, I'm inclined to think is one of those offhand remarks that people make without actually thinking about what they're saying.

For instance, listen to what "Nancy," whose story is one of those told in the book, has to say:

It's hard to convince others about the depth of it. You know, a few years after I was married I became pregnant and had an abortion. It was not a wonderful experience, but every time I hear stories or articles or essays about the recurring trauma of abortion, I want to say, "You don't have a clue" I've experienced both and I'd have an abortion any day of the week before I would ever have another adoption--or lose a kid in the woods, which is basically what it is. You know your child is out there somewhere, you just don't know where. It's bad enough as a mother to know he might need you, but to complicate that they make a law that says even if he does need you we're not going to tell him where you are. (My emphasis.)



Or "Karen":

The only way to heal from this is to be accepted by your child and for the public to know the truth of what's really happened. And understand it's the truth. Instead of always pushing adoption as this loving, wonderful, rescuing thing. Yes, that may be the case for people who adopt. It is not the case for us. You never are whole. Never. It's a hugely damaging thing. It's an enormously injuring, painful, fracturing amputation of families. . . .

We were not criminals. We're mothers. The difference was I was not an authenticated mother. I was an illegal mother. I was a denied mother. And I had to come home and live my life after being robbed of my child. It's as if I was an unwilling accomplice to the kidnapping of my own child. So you have to live with the trauma of losing your child and then you have to live with the trauma of knowing you didn't stop it. How do you do that? (Emphasis in original.)



Moreover, the years between 1950 and 1980, which were the high point of formal adoptions of white babies in the U.S., were atypical in ways that discussion around adoption (and abortion) usually fails to acknowledge. In 1950, 66 percent of Americans were married; in 1960 it was 68 percent. But

in 1980 the percentage of the population that was married was the same as in 1900: 54 percent. In the U.S. Census for 2000, the percentage was also 54 percent.


Also,

the median age at first marriage in the 1980s was the same as in 1890, roughly age 22 for women and 26 for men. However . . . (in) 1950, almost 60 percent of women between 18 and 24 years of age were married.


The point here is that

Even though marriage and child-rearing norms of the time (are) seen as characteristic of traditional American family life, in fact they were abnormal in comparison with marriage and childbearing patterns throughout the twentieth century.


And part of that abnormality was a serious punishment of (middle-class, particularly white) young women who got pregnant out of wedlock. Homes for unwed mothers, which had previously focused on helping young women find stable jobs and social support to keep and raise their children, started becoming baby factories where young women were pressured into giving their children up to married couples who "needed" a child to fulfill the new nuclear family "norm", and told that they were unfit mothers because, being unmarried, they *didn't* fit this model. There was a very, very strong--and abnormal--image of the "proper" family, one that caused a lot of grief to women who didn't conform.

This kind of thing is implicit in any argument about what constitutes a "good" mother, whether or not people "should" have children if they're "too" poor/young/single, and in the flip side "pro-family" pressure that everyone "should" have children and "should" behave in particular, narrowly-defined ways once they do.

And there's a lot in this book to demonstrate the results of this kind of thinking--panicked parents who beat or ostracized their daughters for becoming pregnant, parents who colluded with adoption agencies to coerce women into signing blank papers, girls who were talked into placing children for adoption so they could "get on with their lives" only to find that the emotional trauma of the adoption made doing so impossible, women who lost jobs when their adoptions were found out, women who went to their graves never telling their siblings, parents, husbands, or children about having once placed a baby for adoption.

Crazy, crazy shit. An absolute must-read if you're adopted, if you're thinking of adopting, or if you know someone who is having to think about the options for an unwanted pregnancy. And highly recommended, really, for everyone.

Bitch_PhD isn't anti-adoption. But she can't imagine losing her child, and thinks that calling adoption a "gift" implies that children are the equivalent of, like, a hand-made pair of socks or something.




NinjaTech

NinjaTech

Minneapolis, MN
November 2003

NOV 18, 2007 04:16 PM

You're absolutely disgusting.

gdarklighter

gdarklighter

San Diego, CA
August 2005

NOV 18, 2007 04:19 PM

NinjaTech said:
You're absolutely disgusting.



She is? I found this to be an incredibly interesting read.

Renshai

Renshai

Minneapolis, MN
February 2006

NOV 18, 2007 04:22 PM

NinjaTech said:
You're absolutely disgusting.



Could you be more specific?

Crissis

Crissis

Ecuador
January 2007

NOV 18, 2007 04:28 PM

"proper families" are so hypocrite!

Coyotemike

Coyotemike

USA
May 2006

NOV 18, 2007 04:31 PM

This is one of those topics that hits home for me. My grandmother (paternal) was adopted from the Orphan Train around 1920 or so (possibly before, I can't remember). Then, when she was a teenager, she was shipped off to another state to "take care of a sick aunt" which was the universal euphamism for "going off to have a baby out of wedlock." She was the daughter of the town doctor (who was a Republican Convention bigwig for Nebraska), and couldn't be seen to be sullied by an illicite daliance (no, I can't spell, get over it).

More recently, the girl who started stalking me partially went crazy from giving her second baby up for adoption (she kept the first).

I have several cousins who are adopted, including one who's birth-mother was a crack-head. She will remain a 6 year old in her head forever. She's now 22 years old.

Adoption cannot be put into any category. In some cases, it is the best thing for all parties involved. In other cases, it rips the mothers, the children, and everyone else apart. There is no easy answer here.

Good article.

almalthia

almalthia

I'm lost
August 2005

NOV 18, 2007 04:31 PM

At least those poor women were not coerced into sterlization after being presured to give up their children, like many Naitve American women were during those times.

Coerced Sterlization


Great article, I'll have to check ou the book.

Flux

Flux

SUICIDEGIRL

Georgia, USA

NOV 18, 2007 04:35 PM

I just finished reading the website referenced in the header image and, wow.

Lockeblade

Lockeblade

Australia
May 2007

NOV 18, 2007 04:49 PM

I was so ready to get on my high-horse when I clicked on this article thinking it was going to be about birth mothers reclaiming their adopted children from the families that adopted them. Instead, I actually find myself agreeing with you for once.

Personally, I think adopting a kid out would more emotionally detrimental to the parents than getting an abortion. I could live with myself after a child of mine had been aborted, I couldn't handle knowing that my child is likely being bounced around orphanages and foster homes with a strong likelihood that they're being abused in some way. You tell me which is the crueller of the two options...

Morgan

Morgan

SUICIDEGIRL

Illinois, USA

NOV 18, 2007 05:11 PM

NinjaTech said:
You're absolutely disgusting.



What the fuck are you talking about?

code_red

code_red

Portland, OR
July 2005

NOV 18, 2007 05:19 PM

Again, +1 on an excellent article. I'll have to check out that book sometime.

Oh yea, in other news...

NinjaTech said:
You're absolutely disgusting.



Care to elaborate?

MegaSurge

MegaSurge

Portland, OR
March 2003

NOV 18, 2007 05:20 PM

That looks like a good book. I may have to pick it up. Good article...as if you ever write bad ones. wink

xazapdmytinu

xazapdmytinu

Fort Collins, CO
July 2007

NOV 18, 2007 05:23 PM

Morgan said:

NinjaTech said:
You're absolutely disgusting.



What the fuck are you talking about?



I concur, it's one thing to make a criticism with nothing to back it up, but it's even dumber to criticize someone without providing any real concrete...criticism!

What's so disgusting...were you looking at Bitch's profile and decided she doesn't shower enough? Are you adopted and somehow think that she's making a personal slight towards you or adoption in general? Are you pissed off that she's, quite typical to her idealogy, providing information about the hypocrisy of "traditional family values? What, NinjaTech, what is so damned disgusting other than your blatant lazy potshot?

Roethke

Roethke

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

NOV 18, 2007 05:30 PM

gdarklighter said:

NinjaTech said:
You're absolutely disgusting.



She is? I found this to be an incredibly interesting read.



Clearly, he handmakes socks, and finds Bitch's comparison of socks to adoptions as nothing short of disgusting.

wink84

wink84

Fulton, MO
October 2007

NOV 18, 2007 05:37 PM

I guess I'm a little naive. I always assumed that adopted children go to loving families with big backyards and in-ground pools. This article put things in percepctive for me. It's not always, "Got pregnant? Just give it away" Thanks for thie article.

RedAss

RedAss

Boston, MA
December 2004

NOV 18, 2007 05:48 PM

I am adopted, so is my brother, and I will be buying this book. Thank you for the article.

I've wrestled with the idea of contacting my birth mother everyday since I turned 18- this book might give me a new perspective. Being adopted is something I'm always aware of. Always.

Bitch_PhD

Bitch_PhD

I'm lost
February 2007

NOV 18, 2007 05:49 PM

wink84 said:
I guess I'm a little naive. I always assumed that adopted children go to loving families with big backyards and in-ground pools. This article put things in percepctive for me. It's not always, "Got pregnant? Just give it away" Thanks for thie article.



Seriously, check out the book: there's a full chapter on precisely how that idea--that adoptive kids go to loving well-off suburban families--got perpetuated, and why.

(Of course, sometimes they do; but the point is that isn't necessarily 'better" for the kids, and it sure as hell isn't neutral for the moms.)

NightskyDarkstar

NightskyDarkstar

Spokane, WA
May 2007

NOV 18, 2007 05:54 PM

I actually found this article to be a very interesting read. Most of my family comes from adoption. My grandmother *maternal* was one of 7 adopted kids. To put a point on some of the upsides of adoption I grew up in a very multi-racial family because of all the adoptions, mostly mixed with alot of cultures from the south pacific.

But the truth is, and this goes with the article above, Ive often wondered how my biological great grandmother felt about the adoption. I know that she was in the military back then and was shipped off to a house for unwed mothers like everyone else, and to stay in the military she was forced to give my grandma up for adoption. The same thing applies for my step mother, who was placed for adoption in the exact same manner.

The quotes from the book above about the feeling of losing a child is exactly what I had been wondering, that they felt that way. Without a doubt I know that is how I would feel about leaving a child in the adoption network.

There are days when I seriously wish I could have permission to go digging for the records to find my blood related relatives. If anything just to let them know their children did very well for themselves and to show them the family lines that flowed forth from them.

dearambellina

dearambellina

Philadelphia, PA
October 2006

NOV 18, 2007 05:54 PM

Great article. I never understood how people can assume giving a kid up for adoption would be easier than abortion. I've never done either, but it seems like carrying a child for 9 months and then birthing it, then shipping it off would be far more traumatizing than termination within the first few months.

I do think adoption can be a "gift," however. I guess it depends on how you look at it. Some children do get placed into loving homes of decent parents who desperately want a little one but cannot conceive. I've seen a few cases of this, and yes, it is a "gift," a miracle, good fortune...whatever. That's the thing about adoption... it's the luck of the draw, which is what's so hard on the birth moms - the uncertainty.

BigWobbles

BigWobbles

Philadelphia, PA
June 2004

NOV 18, 2007 06:21 PM

NinjaTech said:
You're absolutely disgusting.



I cant stand her atricles but i even think that uncalled for. I was actually informed this time ..

401kboy

401kboy

Woodbridge, NJ
May 2007

NOV 18, 2007 06:25 PM

I'm an adoptive parent (I'm sterile). My daughter is now 7, and as she grows up her questions about the circumstances of her birth and her birth mother are changing and growing more insightful.

We know that there are times she will have difficulties with it. All we can do is be honest and open, which we've been since day one (she was 5 months old when we adopted her). From all that we know about her birth mother she was not coerced; she had already raised a family and got pregnant from a casual encounter. Culturally abortion wasn't an option for her, she worked with an agency, got medical care throughout her pregnancy, and her daughter went right into foster care.

The stories of what happened here in the US,and elsewhere, to young woman who were forced into giving up their babies are sad, bordering on criminal. But that does not mean that adoption cannot be a great benefit to all concerned. It's not for everyone, but I thank God every day for my daughter.

PaperDress

PaperDress

Rock Island, IL
December 2005

NOV 18, 2007 06:41 PM

While I understand one woman's, (or many womens') opinion or feeling that abortion gives them more peace than adoption, I think it should be first and foremost about the child's best interest not the mothers feelings about which is easier, or less hard, maybe it should be put that way. but I guess that's the debate over abortion anyways..

However I competely disagree with and am saddened by the whole church taking your baby thing. If a woman (or girl, even) wants to keep thier baby, then neither abortion or adoption should be pushed on them. duh.

lefthandright

lefthandright

New Zealand
September 2006

NOV 18, 2007 07:22 PM

roe vs wade was in 1973...assuming by the title "...In the decades before roe vs wade" the stories of these women come from the 50's and 60's....their stories are tragic, and those who are unfamiliar with history and doomed to repeat it...however it is now late 2007...can you please add relevant information about todays times? is this article suggesting that this form of pressure still exists today? that women are persuaded not to have abortions if unwed and pregnant and give their child up to adoption by a 'better family.'
Out of all the writers on this site, I have a respect for you, in that you do not use belittling humour in your articles, you tend to present bare bone facts and realities and call a spade a spade...however I cannot clearly see whether this article is a lament for how things used to be or a reflection of what is currently happening in society?

Bitch_PhD

Bitch_PhD

I'm lost
February 2007

NOV 18, 2007 08:31 PM

lefthandright said:
roe vs wade was in 1973...assuming by the title "...In the decades before roe vs wade" the stories of these women come from the 50's and 60's....their stories are tragic, and those who are unfamiliar with history and doomed to repeat it...however it is now late 2007...can you please add relevant information about todays times? is this article suggesting that this form of pressure still exists today? that women are persuaded not to have abortions if unwed and pregnant and give their child up to adoption by a 'better family.'
Out of all the writers on this site, I have a respect for you, in that you do not use belittling humour in your articles, you tend to present bare bone facts and realities and call a spade a spade...however I cannot clearly see whether this article is a lament for how things used to be or a reflection of what is currently happening in society?



I think obviously the social pressure women were under back then is much lessened, but I don't think it's gone. And from what I've observed in people who've placed kids for adoption, even if they think they are doing the right thing and really don't have any other options, it's still just excruciating. I can't imagine that placing a child for adoption wouldn't be something that would be terribly traumatizing, even if it was the best possible option in the world.

And I'm not trying to crap on adoptive parents, god knows. I would expect most adoptive parents to have nothing but empathy, love, and appreciation for birth parents.

Clidna

Clidna

Canada
January 2005

NOV 18, 2007 09:45 PM

Bitch_PhD said:

lefthandright said:
roe vs wade was in 1973...assuming by the title "...In the decades before roe vs wade" the stories of these women come from the 50's and 60's....their stories are tragic, and those who are unfamiliar with history and doomed to repeat it...however it is now late 2007...can you please add relevant information about todays times? is this article suggesting that this form of pressure still exists today? that women are persuaded not to have abortions if unwed and pregnant and give their child up to adoption by a 'better family.'
Out of all the writers on this site, I have a respect for you, in that you do not use belittling humour in your articles, you tend to present bare bone facts and realities and call a spade a spade...however I cannot clearly see whether this article is a lament for how things used to be or a reflection of what is currently happening in society?



I think obviously the social pressure women were under back then is much lessened, but I don't think it's gone. And from what I've observed in people who've placed kids for adoption, even if they think they are doing the right thing and really don't have any other options, it's still just excruciating. I can't imagine that placing a child for adoption wouldn't be something that would be terribly traumatizing, even if it was the best possible option in the world.

And I'm not trying to crap on adoptive parents, god knows. I would expect most adoptive parents to have nothing but empathy, love, and appreciation for birth parents.


I absolutely agree with this - the pressure may not be quite as bad as it was in the past, but it is definitely still there. I got pregnant at a young age, and I can't count the number of people who assumed I would either give the baby up or abort - there was a lot of pressure to do one or the other. Thank God for my Mom, she was the best support system I ever could have asked for.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next