 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Adoption / November 2007I annoy an international adopter
Well, your's truly has managed to piss of an international adopter who read the Mother Jones article in which I'm quoted. Since only registered users can comment, I guess that leaves me out. http://www.rubber-ducky.org/carolynsboards/read.php?10,1232895,1232966#msg-1232966 Marley > Well, your's truly has managed to piss of an international adopter who > read the Mother Jones article in which I'm quoted. Since only registered [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Marley You wrote, "It's about entitlement and ownership," says Marley Greiner, the executive chair of the activist adoptee group Bastard Nation. "When you read the adoption boards online, it seems like parents go overseas because they don't want some pesky birth mother or relative showing up." I can see why she'd be angry. It's kind of a demeaning and glib comment. My wife and I adopted from Kazakhstan. Was it about entitlement and ownership for us? Ugly Americans flaunting their wealth and converting their lucre into human property because they could? That's certainly a story that's told in the critique of international adoption. But it's kind of an uninspired and uninformative one, impoverishing the reality it seeks to encapsulate even more than the usual political cliche. We have the contact information for our daughter's birthparents. She knows she's adopted (she's just turned 5), though I can't say for sure she knows what that means. She also knows that she's from Kazakhstan and that we didn't know her until she was two. We have told her that we are going to go back there with her someday. Right now, though, she's most concerned about going to San Francisco. We've told her about a doctor there who may be able to do something for her left ear and have shown her pictures on the internet. Her "broken ear," she calls it. The middle and outer ear on that side didn't develop and had something to do with why she spent her first two years in an orphanage. She is very anxious to go to San Francisco so the doctor can fix her "broken ear." She's not old enough yet to link the "broken ear" and the orphanage. But she's a very clever little girl, and she will soon. I dread that day. I see how deeply rejection and teasing from her peers have affected her in kindergarten, how she tries to hide the ear around people she doesn't know, and will avoid children in the neighborhood. I know the secret is her birthparents. This is a two parent family with two sons already when she was born and two incomes. I know they had some reason--my guess is that it was an economic one. Whatever it was, I am certain that they feel the loss of this little girl and would have something to say to her that will help her. We'll see. >> Well, your's truly has managed to piss of an international adopter who >> read the Mother Jones article in which I'm quoted. Since only registered [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > ownership for us? Ugly Americans flaunting their wealth and converting > their lucre into human property because they could? In Marley's defense, I had a co-worker who adopted a little girl from Russia PRECISELY for that reason. He didn't want there to be any chance in hell that the birthmother would be able to find the child. He was afraid that could happen if he and his wife adopted a baby in the US. His attitude was "The birthmother "abandoned" this little girl, she's OURS now and the birthmother have NO right to have anything to do with her".  SignatureRobyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 > >> Well, your's truly has managed to piss of an international adopter who > >> read the Mother Jones article in which I'm quoted. Since only registered [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > "The birthmother "abandoned" this little girl, she's OURS now and the > birthmother have NO right to have anything to do with her". I don't think it's such an uncommon attitude among people who adopt, especially when the kids are little. I think all parents, bio or adoptive, have illusions of ownership, and I rather suspect that it's part of what makes parents protective of their kids. It's a survival trait. If we didn't have that mother-bear possessiveness, something would have eaten our kids. As the kids grow, that illusion tends to come up against the reality of children being their own people, not mini-mes or even mini-wish-I- weres. And I think for many parents, this brings a sense of perspective about these things. I think for political and social action, especially in the US, it is important to take strong and provocative positions. (I can see the point of calling the organization Bastard Nation, for instance.) But I don't think any single position reflects the totality of any individual situation, much less all of them. >> >> Well, your's truly has managed to piss of an international adopter who >> >> read the Mother Jones article in which I'm quoted. Since only [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > trait. If we didn't have that mother-bear possessiveness, something > would have eaten our kids. You're probably right. That's why parenting is greedy and stupid. > As the kids grow, that illusion tends to come up against the reality > of children being their own people, not mini-mes or even mini-wish-I- > weres. And I think for many parents, this brings a sense of > perspective about these things. Not all of them. Most parents I knowo are over-bearing idiots. > I think for political and social action, especially in the US, it is > important to take strong and provocative positions. (I can see the > point of calling the organization Bastard Nation, for instance.) > > But I don't think any single position reflects the totality of any > individual situation, much less all of them. Of coure, not! Marley On Oct 31, 3:22 am, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Not all of them. Most parents I knowo are over-bearing idiots. Hmm. Are you picking the over-bearing (did you mean that pun?) idiots as company? > On Oct 31, 3:22 am, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Hmm. Are you picking the over-bearing (did you mean that pun?) idiots > as company? I hadn't thought of it that way! I don't associate with parents unless absolutely necessary. If they insist on parenthood they must be the parents of adults. Marley On Nov 2, 11:52 am, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Marley Short of adult adoption, there's no short-cut there. I assume you have some friendships on a 20-year hiatus, then? > On Nov 2, 11:52 am, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Short of adult adoption, there's no short-cut there. > I assume you have some friendships on a 20-year hiatus, then? I don't know about that. Most of my friends who are parents already have adult children. I don't really approve of people who are married either, but that's a little more difficult to avoid since it's the great social trap. Marriage/parenthood = slavery. Marley >> >> Well, your's truly has managed to piss of an international adopter who >> >> read the Mother Jones article in which I'm quoted. Since only [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > weres. And I think for many parents, this brings a sense of > perspective about these things. It took my mother a long time to get it through her head that I wasn't her clone - and to love me anyway. Sadly, that took the passing of 46 years and Alzheimer's disease, but I'll take what I can get. It's sort of nice to finally look good in her eyes - or at least to hear her tell me that. > I think for political and social action, especially in the US, it is > important to take strong and provocative positions. (I can see the > point of calling the organization Bastard Nation, for instance.) > > But I don't think any single position reflects the totality of any > individual situation, much less all of them. Of course not. I was just showing that I'd heard about the other side ;) SignatureRobyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 >>> Well, your's truly has managed to piss of an international adopter who >>> read the Mother Jones article in which I'm quoted. Since only [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > attitude was "The birthmother "abandoned" this little girl, she's OURS now > and the birthmother have NO right to have anything to do with her". I'm not saying that everybody--includig John-- who adopts internationally is entitled and greedy, but a lot are. The FRUA lists are full of this crap. They went into the vapors when the sh.t hit about Masha. They wanted her shut up because it might harm their adoption. For her "own good" of course. And the dead Russians. Oh, boy! My favorite crook was the woman who discussed the possibility of she and her husband going to the FSU to "adopt" a baby. She wanted her husband to claim that he was the bio father; therefore, they wouldn't have t go through that nasty adoption procedure. How she thought they could pull that one off is a mystery. International adoption is nothing but neo-colonialism. Ask adults adopted how they feel about it. I'm sure Rupa will say they are in a minority, but I don't think so. I run into lots of pissed off internationals all the time. Koreans are the most articulate on the issue, but I think as other nationals come of age we'll see much more of this. IMO, USians have no business going overseas to adopt. If they want to faux breed so much, they can get a brat from children's services for cheap. But then, USians are used to strip mining the world to fulfill their leisure-time needs. Why not spend the money on something fun; not sell yourself into slavery and an early grave with somebody else's problem? BTW, even in places like Uganda, 80% of the kids in orphanges aren't legal orphans. That's one of the few useful things I learned at the adoption ethics conference. One of the other things I learned was just how unashamed the crooks are. Jeanene Smith, the bitch who ran the agency that placed Masha, and then lied about it to the FBI and the US Senate, had the gall to show up. What does it take to go to jail in this country? Marley On Oct 31, 5:20?am, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > >>> Well, your's truly has managed to piss of an international adopter who > >>> read the Mother Jones article in which I'm quoted. Since only [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > therefore, they wouldn't have t go through that nasty adoption procedure. > How she thought they could pull that one off is a mystery. The lesson to be learned from this exchange is simple enough: one cannot generalize when it comes to adoption, international or domestic. Certainly we've seen those here who championed international adoption because they believed it insulated them from the risk of a parent deciding not to relinquish once the process had begun, or because they assumed the process would protect them from later "interference" by the biological parent(s). But there are also those of us who chose international adoption for other reasons and who have been able to open adoptions at some point. Consider Julia, whom I consider a model for international adopters. > International adoption is nothing but neo-colonialism. Ask adults adopted > how they feel about it. I'm sure Rupa will say they are in a minority, but [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > spend the money on something fun; not sell yourself into slavery and an > early grave with somebody else's problem? You can make the case for neo-colonialism as a political phenomenon, and I'd agree that its a symptom of the tremendous disparity in resources between nations. It's not only USians that are adopting internationally, BTW. The world is awash in prospective adopters from any number of developed nations. You can call individual action within this context neo-colonialism if you wish, but principles that govern large scale behavior seldom translate well to the personal level. Like it or not, agree with it or not, John's daughter likely will live a better life with him than in the orphanage from which she came. Her presence there in the first place is not likely to have been caused by the possibility of international adoption, for that matter. > BTW, even in places like Uganda, 80% of the kids in orphanges aren't legal > orphans. I wouldn't be surprised, if by that you mean that they do not qualify as orphans under US immigration laws. >That's one of the few useful things I learned at the adoption > ethics conference. One of the other things I learned was just how unashamed > the crooks are. Jeanene Smith, the bitch who ran the agency that placed > Masha, and then lied about it to the FBI and the US Senate, had the gall to > show up. What does it take to go to jail in this country? That depends greatly on who you are, doesn't it? J. International adopter, Class of '92-93. > Marley- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > On Oct 31, 5:20?am, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > begun, or because they assumed the process would protect them from > later "interference" by the biological parent(s). > But there are also > those of us who chose international adoption for other reasons and who > have been able to open adoptions at some point. Consider Julia, whom > I consider a model for international adopters. Why did you choose international adoption, J? I've never heard your reasons before. Why not from this country? Kathy > > International adoption is nothing but neo-colonialism. Ask adults adopted > > how they feel about it. I'm sure Rupa will say they are in a minority, but [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > On Oct 31, 5:20?am, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > have been able to open adoptions at some point. Consider Julia, whom > I consider a model for international adopters. Oh I know that, J. There are many many good adoptive parents out there. Unfortunately, they don't appear on the lists or an "ethics" conferences. I should be blogging on that experience once I get caught up with a bunch of other things. >> International adoption is nothing but neo-colonialism. Ask adults >> adopted [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > internationally, BTW. The world is awash in prospective adopters from > any number of developed nations. You are correct, but you know how I feel about the US. At the ASAIK conference at Pitt, a Norwegian scholar gifted us with stories of Norwegian adopters dressing up their Korean and Ethiopian adoptees up in traditional Norwegian garb for Christmas. That was meant with a universal look at each other of WTF??? Some of the most articulate angry adoptees come out of Sweden. > You can call individual action within this context neo-colonialism if > you wish, but principles that govern large scale behavior seldom [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > place is not likely to have been caused by the possibility of > international adoption, for that matter. I don't disagree at all, J. >> BTW, even in places like Uganda, 80% of the kids in orphanges aren't >> legal >> orphans. > > I wouldn't be surprised, if by that you mean that they do not qualify > as orphans under US immigration laws. Right. There have been no terminaton of parental rights. Their families visit them and in some cases help support them. For any number of reasons they just don't live at home. >>That's one of the few useful things I learned at the adoption >> ethics conference. One of the other things I learned was just how [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > That depends greatly on who you are, doesn't it? It sure does, and this hag will never see the Graybar Hotel the way things are going. Marley > J. > International adopter, Class of '92-93. > >> Marley- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - >>>> Well, your's truly has managed to piss of an international adopter who >>>> read the Mother Jones article in which I'm quoted. Since only [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > Marley I tried to look for something to respond to, here, but I really couldn't find anything. There were bits that seemed intentionally provocative--for example, "faux breeding"--but what would the point have been? There was the loose use of "neo-colonialism"--someday, someone really ought to do a micro-economic analysis of the transactions between adopters and the public and private forces that they must deal with in the "neo-colonies" (I think such a study might have a lot to say about the macro-economics of the shift of certain social costs by the "neo-colonies" to the "neo-imperialist running dogs")--but that seemed a bit ambitious and pedantic. In the end, I decided that the post simply offered mute testimony, as all of these things do, as to where its author has gotten in her thinking about adoption, and should be appreciated on that basis. That raucous, sign-waving lot over there? That's where you'll find her--beneath the sign that says, "No More Strip Mining!!!!" Yell back at her if you want to, but I think you'd be wasting your breath, and it's not really the point, anyhow. I've been on a different path, and so have gotten to a different place. I wish I had a story to tell you that would express where that place is, but we're in a period of transition in this household--M. is trying to find her way in her new school, and we're trying alternately to help her with that and to deal with the backwash without taking it too personally. Easier said than done. Watching TV on the bed last night (after dinner, we often do that), I was feeling remorseful about my loss of patience with her from time to time in the last few weeks. "I try to be a good Daddy," I told her, "but I know I don't always succeed." "Are you being a good Daddy?" she asked. There's a certain joking good humor about M. that is at the core of who she is. "I have a lot of laughs inside," she said once. "Yes," I said. She thought about this. "I will cover you," she announced. There was clean laundry on the bed that hadn't been folded yet, and she began to use pieces of that to blanket me. She's a great improvisor as I guess all children are. Soon I was covered, neck to toe, in T-shirts, socks, jeans, and other bits of clothing. "Are you comfortable, Daddy?" she wanted to know. "Yes," I said. In the coming years, I know that there will be forces that will work on us and seek to separate us--internal as well as external ones--but I hope we are always able to cycle back to moments like that--impromptu stagings of forgiveness and acceptance. SNIP > I tried to look for something to respond to, here, but I really couldn't > find anything. There were bits that seemed intentionally provocative--for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of certain social costs by the "neo-colonies" to the "neo-imperialist > running dogs")--but that seemed a bit ambitious and pedantic. First of all, I think Marley's use of "neo-colonialism" is okay, but I've grown to see all forms of colonialism as not necessarily evil, but to my way of thinking, inevitable. Both imperialism and colonialism have their well-meaning sides, and as an anthropologist, I can't think of a time or place where these forces did not exist and where babies and children weren't caught in the midst of it. Individual humans are more interesting to me, that's for sure. Unfortunately, among the adopters, international and otherwise, are a lot of people who are way less committed to being parents than they are to having children, emphasis on the word "having." > In the end, I decided that the post simply offered mute testimony, as all of > these things do, as to where its author has gotten in her thinking about > adoption, and should be appreciated on that basis. That raucous, > sign-waving lot over there? That's where you'll find her--beneath the sign > that says, "No More Strip Mining!!!!" Yell back at her if you want to, but > I think you'd be wasting your breath, and it's not really the point, anyhow. What do you think the point is? > I've been on a different path, and so have gotten to a different place. I > wish I had a story to tell you that would express where that place is, but [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > "Yes," I said. See. That's parenting. That's the kind of Dad (adopted) I had. No imperialist or neo-colonialist, he. Just a very good dad, thank the gods, thank the universe, thank who-ever - I guess I was just lucky, like M. My mom, pretty good too. But I have so many friends who are adopted, have been involved in adoption studies and services and activism for, let's see, about 40 years, as are several of my best friends, some of whom are from FSU orphanages, some from Indian reservations (both Canada and U.S.), some from the U.S., some Mexican, some Guatemalan, some from the Philippines, some from Korea. All of us adults now, all engaged in talking about all this, and many sounding a lot like Marley. So for me, they're not just standing over there under a sign, they're a part of who I am, too. I don't know why adoptees are attracted to each other as friends, as adults. I just met another, in the last week. I guess there are a lot of us, but I was at a party and only spoke to one person there, who turned out to be adopted too. Naturally, we spoke of it and if we meet again, for we did hit it off, we will speak of it again, and again. Almost every month some friend or relative contacts me to speak to yet another adopted kid younger than 12 who is questioning all this, and so I do get to talk to adoptees of all ages, a lot. Most of them aren't talking about neo-colonialism, but the ones who have been ripped from their homelands, denied their heritages, told they look just like their parents, raised without regard to how the broader culture sees them or their own propensities as humans with their own psycho-biology...end up sounding just like Marley. For a reason. I mean, who in hell adopts a foreign kid and then dances around as if the child isn't from some other place and doesn't at least allow the possibility that the child, as an adoptee, has several things to mourn? > In the coming years, I know that there will be forces that will work on us > and seek to separate us--internal as well as external ones--but I hope we > are always able to cycle back to moments like that--impromptu stagings of > forgiveness and acceptance. My own experience says that's exactly what will happen. You do remind me of my own Dad, if only he could write, he doesn't, though he reads a lot. I think my relationship with my parents and my bio-mom are all above average and I'm very lucky. I've never met my bio-dad, though, and am not sure I intend to, there's something about him that disturbs me and we've avoided each other. I've met the rest of his family, though, and that's been great and very helpful to me in growing up. I was in my twenties when I met my bio-family, but my best friend, whose situation with her adopted parents isn't quite as dandy as my own, was in her teens, and all things considered, she's worked it out by now - at age 57. Since there are always forces that seek to separate children from parents, normal growing up being the main one, an adoptee and her parent have extra components at work, often more worrisome to the parent, as usual, than to the child. When M. gets to be a pre-teen and then a teen, you'll need all your composure and your remembrance of today's bonding to get through it, as you will certainly question all this again. I have a bio-child who just ceased being a teen a few months ago (whew), and the friend I mention has two bio-children, slightly older than mine, and, well, it was during their teen years that we came to understand that even if you have clear memories of giving birth to the little rascals, there are times when you really wonder.... is this person really related to me??? The answers are complex, and sometimes alarming, as those bio-factors do rear their heads in adolescence. Pili ------------------- > SNIP >> [quoted text clipped - 187 lines] > Pili > ------------------- Thank you, Pili. That gave me a lot to think about. > "Pili" <huika_i_ol...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message < snip > > > is this person really related to me??? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Thank you, Pili. > That gave me a lot to think about. Ditto. What he said. Dad > SNIP >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > did not exist and where babies and children weren't caught in the > midst of it. Oh, I think a goodo part of colonialism and imperialism is rooted ostensibly rooted in do-goodism. Christianizing the heathen, bringing flashy consumer goods to the non-consumer to make their lives "easier"; freeing Iraq fro Saddam. And then there ws the opium trade. (no, forget that one!) Unfortunately nobody ever asks the recipients how they feel about these grandoise gestures of generosity from their betters. > Individual humans are more interesting to me, that's for sure. > Unfortunately, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > emphasis > on the word "having" (Cut) > See. That's parenting. That's the kind of Dad (adopted) I had. No > imperialist or [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > all this, > and many sounding a lot like Marley. I've been very influenced by the work of Tobias Hubbenette and the Transracial Abductees. They almost make being adopted fun. There are so few intellectual takes on adoption. I attended the ASAIK conference at Pitt a couple weeks ago where these things are taken very seroiusly. Although I didn't agree with all the presenters, identity, kinsip, power relationships, racism, sexism, gender, povertym neo-colonialism were all on the menu. This is the stuff that nobody dares discuss at other adoption confernces except in passing if at all. > So for me, they're not just standing over there under a sign, they're > a part of [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > humans with > their own psycho-biology...end up sounding just like Marley. Are you familar with the work on the adopted body as fetish? Marley > ------------------- >>>>> Well, your's truly has managed to piss of an international adopter who >>>>> read the Mother Jones article in which I'm quoted. Since only >>>>> registered users can comment, I guess that leaves me out. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.rubber-ducky.org/carolynsboards/read.php?10,1232895,1232966#msg-1232966 I cut the first part here. > I tried to look for something to respond to, here, but I really couldn't > find anything. There were bits that seemed intentionally provocative--for > example, "faux breeding"--but what would the point have been? You haven't been here much, John. I consider breeding by biology or statute anathema. They rot the brain and body. > loose use of "neo-colonialism"--someday, someone really ought to do a > micro-economic analysis of the transactions between adopters and the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "neo-imperialist running dogs")--but that seemed a bit ambitious and > pedantic. It has nothing to do with economics, though. It's attitude. Obviously not all adopters have that attitude, but enough do. The Bush-Chaney attitude that the world's resources are ours for the asking or taking. Anything goes for "the children" is a mantra that hides all sorts of abuses. Remember Waco? > In the end, I decided that the post simply offered mute testimony, as all > of these things do, as to where its author has gotten in her thinking [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to, but I think you'd be wasting your breath, and it's not really the > point, anyhow. What is then? The adoptee voice is seldom heard in the discourse. alt.adoption is not the rule. Try going to an "ethics" conference, even as a presenter as I was, and see how loud they want you heard--unless you're also a therapist or an adoption social worker (what kind of pathology is that?) and that's another story. > I've been on a different path, and so have gotten to a different place. I > wish I had a story to tell you that would express where that place is, but [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > are always able to cycle back to moments like that--impromptu stagings of > forgiveness and acceptance. Well you sound like a good an great daddy to me! Marley > >>>>> Well, your's truly has managed to piss of an international adopter who > >>>>> read the Mother Jones article in which I'm quoted. Since only > >>>>> registered users can comment, I guess that leaves me out. http://www.rubber-ducky.org/carolynsboards/read.php?10,1232895,1232966#msg-1 232966 > I cut the first part here. > > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > What is then? The adoptee voice is seldom heard in the discourse. > alt.adoption is not the rule. Even here on alt. a such discussions invariably invite the traditional response which includes the 'reminder' of how much better the adoptee's life is here than in their native country - as if that didn't go without saying. As a parent I have used a variation of the same response with my own offspring (although I am attempting to limit that knee-jerk response ;) but I find it particularly annoying in this context because whether it was meant that way or not - the implication is imo that the adoptee should be grateful and it demeans and trivializes their concerns and stifles the debate. Kathy 1 >> >>>>> Well, your's truly has managed to piss of an international adopter > who [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > is here than in their native country - as if that didn't go without > saying. I didn't say that. And, in fact, that's the question, isn't it? Do you think that I don't wonder whether M. might ultimately be better off if we'd left her there? Her birthparents didn't forbid international adoption, as they might have. (I think they were trying to give her the best shot that they could at being adopted by someone. They might even have hoped for 'rich' Americans who could make corrective surgery available to her.) But you don't think that it troubles me that we've created a cultural barrier, now, between M. and her birthmother that will be extremely difficult to overcome? I'm not seeking to legitimize what we've done. Because, in fact, I don't know whether it's right or wrong. So "invariably" is a bit of an overstatement. If you want to criticize me, fine, go ahead. But, respectfully, don't address me as though I'm a Saturday morning cartoon on the Fox news network. At least consider the possibility that I'm a thinking human being, not summed up by the handiest cliche. "the adoptee should be grateful"--where in the world did I say that? Answer: I didn't. Never mind. Why talk to myself like this. I'd be better off gardening. Which in fact I think I will do. > As a parent I have used a variation of the same response with my own > offspring (although I am attempting to limit that knee-jerk response ;) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Kathy 1 > >> >>>>> Well, your's truly has managed to piss of an international adopter > > who > >> >>>>> read the Mother Jones article in which I'm quoted. Since only > >> >>>>> registered users can comment, I guess that leaves me out. http://www.rubber-ducky.org/carolynsboards/read.php?10,1232895,1232966#msg-1 > > 232966 > >> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > I didn't say that. Um did I mention you specifically by name? Did I say "even here on alt. adoption such discussions invariably invite the traditional response *by John*? Yes the post I'm replying to includes a discussion between you & Marley but posters often use a post as a 'jumping off point' to broaden the discussion. And, in fact, that's the question, isn't it? Do you > think that I don't wonder whether M. might ultimately be better off if we'd > left her there? Her birthparents didn't forbid international adoption, as [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > know whether it's right or wrong. So "invariably" is a bit of an > overstatement. No it is not. I've been on this ng since 1996 and 'invariably' such a response does occur *from someone* > If you want to criticize me, fine, go ahead. But, respectfully, don't > address me as though I'm a Saturday morning cartoon on the Fox news network. A little defensive? Or is it arrogance or self obsession? I actually wasn't addressing *you* at all! > At least consider the possibility that I'm a thinking human being, not > summed up by the handiest cliche. "the adoptee should be grateful"--where > in the world did I say that? Answer: I didn't. > Never mind. Why talk to myself like this. Yes indeed because you have created a conversation that doesn't really involve me at all. Kathy 1 >> >> >>>>> Well, your's truly has managed to piss of an international > adopter [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] > A little defensive? Or is it arrogance or self obsession? I actually > wasn't addressing *you* at all! Then why go out of your way to insult me? >> At least consider the possibility that I'm a thinking human being, not >> summed up by the handiest cliche. "the adoptee should be [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Kathy 1 > >> >> >>>>> Well, your's truly has managed to piss of an international > > adopter [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] > > Then why go out of your way to insult me? (Hurrying in with the alt.a armor.) John, welcome to alt.a We used to be the scariest ng on the internet; in our kinder and gentler version, we are marginally less so. I am the current dispenser of virtual armor against flames, slings and arrows. Here's yours. -Rupa- (not the Evil Twin) > > >> >> >>>> "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message > > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 115 lines] > -Rupa- > (not the Evil Twin) Just in time Rupa, I think he's going to need it ;) Kathy 1 > >> > "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message > >> > news:mKxWi.43779$kj1.2058@bgtnsc04- > >> >> What is then? The adoptee voice is seldom heard in the discourse. > >> >> alt.adoption is not the rule. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Then why go out of your way to insult me? Oh brother. Where in my first post did I insult you? In the second post I was responding to *your* bitchy tone. Listen a.shole (there's a real insult ;) you better learn to tell the difference or you are going to have trouble navigating the waters here. Kathy 1 > >> At least consider the possibility that I'm a thinking human being, not > >> summed up by the handiest cliche. "the adoptee should be [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > > Kathy 1 >> >> > "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message >> >> > news:mKxWi.43779$kj1.2058@bgtnsc04- [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > Kathy 1 Your language says more about you than it does about me, Kathy. So does your warning. It's you who has made the decision to be uncivil, not me. In fact, you owe me an apology. And if you had real strength of character, you'd make it. >> >> At least consider the possibility that I'm a thinking human being, not >> >> summed up by the handiest cliche. "the adoptee should be [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> > >> > Kathy 1 > >> >> > "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message > >> >> > news:mKxWi.43779$kj1.2058@bgtnsc04- [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > Your language says more about you than it does about me, Kathy. Yep it says I don't tolerate clueless people very well. > So does your warning. It's you who has made the decision to be uncivil, not > me. > In fact, you owe me an apology. And if you had real strength of character, > you'd make it. Bwaaaaaaa LOL like I care what you think. Don't hold your breath. I only apologize to people I care about and when I have done something wrong. You are zero for two on both counts. That kind of sh.t might work on your daughter who has to 'toe your line' but it won't fly here. Kathy 1 > > >> >> > "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message > > >> >> >news:mKxWi.43779$kj1.2058@bgtnsc04- [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > are zero for two on both counts. That kind of sh.t might work on your > daughter who has to 'toe your line' but it won't fly here. Gee, Kathy. And I thought Mr. Hypersensitive was going to cultivate his garden. > > > >> >> > "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message > > > >> >> >news:mKxWi.43779$kj1.2058@bgtnsc04- [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > Gee, Kathy. And I thought Mr. Hypersensitive was going to cultivate > his garden. I guess it wasn't stimulating enough for him ;) Kathy 1 >> > > >> >> > "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in > message [quoted text clipped - 121 lines] > > Kathy 1 He's baaaaaaaccccckkkkk.... :) >> > >> >> > "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in >> > >> >> > message [quoted text clipped - 111 lines] > Gee, Kathy. And I thought Mr. Hypersensitive was going to cultivate > his garden. I did. "Hypersensitive"--I'm not exactly sure what you mean to suggest. I know that my comments got a conversation started (not including all the ad hominem stuff) and probably stimulated a few thoughts. If that goes with the territory, I'll take it. John: Cutting in here - which agency did you use to adopt your daughter? Elizabeth > John: > > Cutting in here - which agency did you use to adopt your daughter? > > Elizabeth Hawaii International Child. I was furious with them for a long time during and after the adoption. Anyone who thinks that Westerners have the upperhand in the micro-settings of international adoption has never been through the process. I blamed HIC for leaving us to fend for ourselves and not really giving a damn. But I've gotten philosophical about it over time. Still, I think there's a little understood process of negotiation in international adoption that ought to be documented. The current formulations of the sociopolitical dimension of international adoption are too wooden, abstract and remote to be useful. You have to get close to where the action happens to have a chance of understanding it. I think, anyhow. John: You would be correct in your assumptions. I too am an international adopter - this is our and others stories: http://www.bewareofbbas.org Over years, I've reached different conclusions from yourself, but my main focus has always been to bring bad adoption agency practices to light. After you've lived through what we did (and Cyril did not) you have the moral obligation to tell what you have experienced. You would not be unique in your antipathy towards your international placing agency. Especially when it comes to Eastern Europe. The only reason Kazakhstan is considered EE is because it was a former Soviet Socialist Republic - and they speak some Russian (ha ha ha). I thought you were a World Partners, Little Miracles of one of the Frank Foundation agencies client. I didn't even know Hawaii International had a Kazakhstani program. Thank you for your response. Elizabeth >> >> >> > "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message >> >> >> > news:mKxWi.43779$kj1.2058@bgtnsc04- [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > are zero for two on both counts. That kind of sh.t might work on your > daughter who has to 'toe your line' but it won't fly here. Even for usenet, you are being remarkably vicious. It's bad for you, you know. Virtual reality has a way of poisoning the real thing when it's injected with as much hostility as this. > > Bwaaaaaaa LOL like I care what you think. Don't hold your breath. I only > > apologize to people I care about and when I have done something wrong. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > - Show quoted text - OMG. You can't be serious. The above was a gentle pat on the fanny. If you think that was "remarkably vicious" even for usenet, I suggest you google our archive. Key words: a.s vomit, cum-sucking gutter slut, f.ck fest, puppy f.cker, and Steve is really a janitor who slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night. That last one is particularly heinous. Be a little grateful you haven't unleashed the demon by your whimpers yet, why dontcha? > > > Bwaaaaaaa LOL like I care what you think. Don't hold your breath. I only > > > apologize to people I care about and when I have done something wrong. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > OMG. You can't be serious. The above was a gentle pat on the fanny. No kidding :) Glad to see you back. How's school going? Kathy 1 > > OMG. You can't be serious. The above was a gentle pat on the fanny. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Doing really well, thanks. This daylight savings time shift has really messed up my sleep-cycle, though. Grrrr. How are all of you? M > > > OMG. You can't be serious. The above was a gentle pat on the fanny. > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Doing really well, thanks. This daylight savings time shift has > really messed up my sleep-cycle, though. Grrrr. I hear you. Between that and the insomnia. . . . I'm just thankful that I don't have young ones who have to adust. > How are all of you? > > M We are in a good cycle at the moment. My oldest got here first teaching job (kindergarten) this year. I helped at her class Halloween party last week. It was fun but I kept thinking it felt like just yesterday when *she* was in kindergarten and I was helping at the parties :) My youngest is engaged and is getting married next September. She wants an outdoor wedding which is stressing me out. Limited selection of places here to do that and don't get me started on Michigan weather lol Soon we will have an empty nest but my oldest plans on starting a family next year so hopefully soon there will be grandbabies. Kathy 1 snip > Even for usenet, you are being remarkably vicious. > It's bad for you, you know. Virtual reality has a way of poisoning the > real thing when it's injected with as much hostility as this. LOL! Dude, you haven't seen ANYTHING yet. SignatureRobyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 > >> >> >> > "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message > >> >> >> > news:mKxWi.43779$kj1.2058@bgtnsc04- [quoted text clipped - 97 lines] > > Even for usenet, you are being remarkably vicious. LOL! You must not hang out much on usenet or if you do it must be in moderated forums. > It's bad for you, you know. Virtual reality has a way of poisoning the real > thing when it's injected with as much hostility as this. Oh yes wise one I'll keep that in mind :P Are you the same John that posted awhile back that said he was a lawyer? If so, how you manage to survive in that world with your delicate sensibilities is a mystery. Kathy 1 >> >> >> >> > "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in > message [quoted text clipped - 125 lines] > in > that world with your delicate sensibilities is a mystery. I survive because covering my sensibilities is a very thick skin--the same one that enables me not to take it personally when someone comments about my relationship with my daughter. Frankly, part of me wishes I didn't have that. I think I was probably a better person before I developed it. A more accessible one, anyhow. But it's part of who I've become, and, in a way, who I need to be. I do get angry sometimes. I wouldn't be much good at my job if I still wasn't able to get passionate about some things. It's just that it's something I've learned that I need to be careful about because if I'm not, it burns me out. Not to mention playing havoc with my relationships with my wife, and my daughter, and my mother-in-law, and our two cats, and the other people at work, and even folks like you on newsgroups. If I've offended you, I'm sorry about that. I didn't intend to. > > "John" <noone@home.net> wrote in message > > news:472fdb8c$0$ > >> >> >> Then why go out of your way to insult me? > >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > one that enables me not to take it personally when someone comments about my > relationship with my daughter. So far there has been scant evidence of that thick skin here. > Frankly, part of me wishes I didn't have that. I think I was probably a > better person before I developed it. A more accessible one, anyhow. But [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > wife, and my daughter, and my mother-in-law, and our two cats, and the other > people at work, and even folks like you "folks like me" - interesting. Based on a handful of posts how in the world would you even know what I'm like? (other than your assumption that I'm filled with hostility that is) Stereotype much? on newsgroups. > If I've offended you, I'm sorry about that. I didn't intend to. It takes a hell of a lot more than that to offend me ;) Kathy 1 >> > "John" <noone@home.net> wrote in message >> > news:472fdb8c$0$ [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > would you even know what I'm like? (other than your assumption that I'm > filled with hostility that is) Stereotype much? "folks like you on newsgroups" is a pretty broad category. It even includes me. > on newsgroups. >> If I've offended you, I'm sorry about that. I didn't intend to. > > It takes a hell of a lot more than that to offend me ;) > > Kathy 1 Good. I'm glad that I didn't offend you. > >> Then why go out of your way to insult me? > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > In fact, you owe me an apology. And if you had real strength of character, > you'd make it. Now that was really not a prudent thing to say in an unmoderated newsgroup. > > Then why go out of your way to insult me? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Kathy 1 Oooh. Do I smell a certain kind of fest coming on? LOL >> > Then why go out of your way to insult me? >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Oooh. Do I smell a certain kind of fest coming on? LOL Woohoo! Where you been, woman? ;) SignatureRobyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 > >> > Then why go out of your way to insult me? > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Woohoo! Where you been, woman? ;) Pardon me, but don't you mean, "Where the f.ck?" >> >> > Then why go out of your way to insult me? >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Pardon me, but don't you mean, "Where the f.ck?" Oh my f.cking goodness, excuse the f.ck out of me! And yes, you're f.cking right! ;) SignatureRobyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 > >> Woohoo! Where you been, woman? ;) > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Hehehe. I've been busier than a one-armed paper hanger these last few months. But I do check in to read once in awhile. How are you? >> >> Woohoo! Where you been, woman? ;) >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Hehehe. I've been busier than a one-armed paper hanger these last few > months. But I do check in to read once in awhile. How are you? Good, good, very busy. I've been dealing a lot with my amom as her Alzheimer's progresses. I'm taking her to a local assisted living facility next week so she can check it out. She's been a lot more cooperative lately (I've been allowed to take over her finances and finally have POA), so that's helped. We adopted a dog late September - Adorable hound/beagle mix named Ginger. She's a real pain in the a.s, but cute as a button - so that's added to the general chaos. One cat got bitten by a neighbor's cat, developed an abscess that required surgery. We now call her "Frankencat". Gets the stitches out next week. Coming up on the 2-year anniversary of the last time I heard from my bmom - going back and forth about if I should write her again. So, everything's pretty much status quo :) SignatureRobyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 > >> >>>>> Well, your's truly has managed to piss of an international adopter > > who [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Good grief, John. Not everything is about you. Kathy OMG - there's a REAL thread going on now? Geez guys - I thought everbody had packed it in on alt.adoption. Glad to see some of the former spark remains - and the embers. E On Oct 31, 3:20 am, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > International adoption is nothing but neo-colonialism. Ask adults adopted > how they feel about it. I'm sure Rupa will say they are in a minority, but > I don't think so. I run into lots of pissed off internationals all the > time. Koreans are the most articulate on the issue, but I think as other > nationals come of age we'll see much more of this. I don't think it's neo-colonialism. If you want neo-colonialism, you should consider economic and political influences that are much more critical than the movement of a few hundred or even a few thousand infividuals annually. Or consider occupation of countries, backed by armed forces. Being colonized is about outsiders *coming into your country and taking it over* not about a few people leaving, whether by choice or by force. In terms of international adoptees being pissed off: some of them may be. They are comparing themselves to the non-international non- adoptee; or perhaps to the non-adopted well-off counterparts in the original country. If they really did know where they would have fit into their original societies, I wonder if they *would* be so pissed off. Most of the countries where these kids come from are places where they were not valued socially or provided for economically. I can see the point of not liking to feel obliged to be grateful; I can see being pissed of because the countries of origin didn't value them. I can see how easy it is to stop international adoption. There's a strong anti-international-adoption lobby in India. Some of them feel that the kids are evading the fate they were destined to have, and they should get on with their miserable lives. I don't think it helps anything at all. I'm good with better oversight. I am extremely good with removing some of the financial incentives. But stopping international adoption would make life worse for the handful of kids who find families that way each year. > On Oct 31, 3:20 am, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net> > wrote: > I don't think it helps anything at all. I'm good with better > oversight. I am extremely good with removing some of the financial > incentives. But stopping international adoption would make life worse > for the handful of kids who find families that way each year. I agree. Untold numbers of infant girls are abandoned in China annually for the crime of having the wrong plumbing. Only about 8,000 make it out a year. Others are simply tossed into the river, left to die, are sold as wives or into the trade. The substantial cash donation made to orphanages has proven itself to be used to improve foundling care both. Thousands of grateful parents (myself included) have contributed boucoup dollars to train foster parents, caregivers, buy washers, dryers, air conditioners, clothing, books, and toys. These meager contributions have done nothing to stem the tide of abandoned girls. It's also done nothing to increase the numbers who leave. In fact, China has tightened up the restrictions considerably, making it even more difficult. As for neo-colonialism. As arrogant as the Chinese are about themselves and their opinion of outsiders, the very idea of our forcing western values upon them (and I'm not talking about capitallism), will send them into gales of laughter. They don't call themselves zhong guo ren (center of the earth people) for nothing. As for being grateful, my daughter? Hah... Loves her anyway, though, I do. (the)duckster > As for neo-colonialism. As arrogant as the Chinese are about > themselves and their opinion of outsiders, the very idea of our > forcing western values upon them (and I'm not talking about > capitallism), will send them into gales of laughter. Oh yeah. One should remember the ceremony for the kowtow. If one were to line up us, the Belgians, the French, the Brits, the Germans and the Chinese by order of historical cultural arrogance, it would be a tie for first place. steve >> As for neo-colonialism. As arrogant as the Chinese are about >> themselves and their opinion of outsiders, the very idea of our [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > steve Steve, you're sounding like me now! Marley On Oct 31, 3:20 am, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > >>> Well, your's truly has managed to piss of an international adopter who > >>> read the Mother Jones article in which I'm quoted. Since only [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > therefore, they wouldn't have t go through that nasty adoption procedure. > How she thought they could pull that one off is a mystery. I know the same people! Actually, I'm sure it's a different couple. I also know someone, a lawyer, who did pull this off, but not with FSU, and I know several people, not lawyers, who pulled it off, but in the Philippines, where it is rather more customary to get around national laws by doing this. A good friend of mine has sort of taken in a boy whose parents appear to have done this, as well, but right here in the U.S. Boy, do his parents sound like the stupid ones you're talking about, at least to hear him tell it and to see them all in action together, which is a trip. > International adoption is nothing but neo-colonialism. Ask adults adopted > how they feel about it. I'm sure Rupa will say they are in a minority, but [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > spend the money on something fun; not sell yourself into slavery and an > early grave with somebody else's problem? I'm almost on the same page with you, except that I know one couple who is an exception and I think their boy, a Korean, doesn't seem to be having this more typical reaction. But I agree, as a foreign adoptee myself, and the friend of many foreign adoptees, that your view is pretty much spot on. People don't like to hear it. > BTW, even in places like Uganda, 80% of the kids in orphanges aren't legal > orphans. That's one of the few useful things I learned at the adoption > ethics conference. Absolutely true and that's been known for awhile and people choose to ignore it. "Orphan" is an English word, and when it's translated back into local languages, it doesn't mean what people here think it means - people are deluding themselves if they think it means the parents are dead. One of the other things I learned was just how unashamed > the crooks are. Jeanene Smith, the bitch who ran the agency that placed > Masha, and then lied about it to the FBI and the US Senate, had the gall to > show up. What does it take to go to jail in this country? Ah, but she's a do-gooder! And all those pro-lifers love these people! I think you're a very brave person, Marley. I don't have the stomach for all the details of these sad stories on most days. Pili > Marley- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > On Oct 31, 3:20 am, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net> > wrote: I cut a big part of this. I wrote: >> International adoption is nothing but neo-colonialism. Ask adults >> adopted [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > on. People > don't like to hear it. No they don't! Adoptees are still not allowed their voice. Our feelings are still mediated by adoptive parents and "professionals." >> BTW, even in places like Uganda, 80% of the kids in orphanges aren't >> legal [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > people > are deluding themselves if they think it means the parents are dead. The west has no real concept of "extended family" or whatever term de jour is now used. Or of community in the actual communal sense. > One of the other things I learned was just how unashamed >> the crooks are. Jeanene Smith, the bitch who ran the agency that placed [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Pili Thanks. I archive dirt. Marley >> Marley- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > On Oct 31, 3:20 am, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > on. People > don't like to hear it. Since I have limited experience with foreign adoptees and you appear to have much more - is the common theme that international adoption should be stopped completely? The reason I ask is that when this topic comes up from time to time you can count on two things being included in most of the responses - a 'reminder' how much better the adoptee's life is here in this country and that international adoption should not be stopped because it at least provides some children with homes that they would otherwise not have. My sense is that this not what the 'angry international adoptees' are calling for (a stop to international adoption) but rather an examination of the often times cavaliar way it is undertaken. What is your take? Kathy 1 >> On Oct 31, 3:20 am, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 107 lines] > much more - is the common theme that international adoption should be > stopped completely? Pili can speak better than I can do this, but I'll make a couple comments. I haven't seen a big call for its abolition from that side What I do see is distain, irony and linkage to issues of what might be generalized as US cultural hegemony and a lot of POMO intellectualizing on things like race gaze, fetish and representation. I'll also comment that lately there's been talk, though not publicly, by a few prominent adoption advocates (not NCFA or the Joint Council) that international adoption be seriously curbed. The Guatemalan situation, where 1 in every 100 babies born there now ends up in the US is a tangle of corruption, cronyism, greed, Guat-US history and relations, evangelicalism, anti-abortion policy, race, poverty, and repressive/fascist governments that goes way beyond the issue of adoption. Russia is a piece of cake in comparison. This won't be sorted out for a long time, especially with corrupt adoption lawyers/notaries down there pulling stunts and stirring up GuatPaps here. What I don't understand is why paps still go to Guatemala. When I got on alt.adoption in 1993 Guatemalan controversy was in the headlines. Nothing has changed If I were a pap it's the last place I'd look. As a sidenote, presented at an adoption conference in New England last spring where several hundred vendors were selling their wares--at least half of them agencies. I picked up literature from them all. At the space featuring PlayRoy's agency European Adoption Associates, I overheard a rep tell a pap who was leery about Guatemala to hurry up. If we get your application in by (xxx deadline) we can get you a baby. During a review of the status of adoptions in a laundry list of countries at the NCFA conference, the moderator said something like, "we can skip Guatemala since nobody is doing adoption there right now" and hands went up from a couple agencies, including EAA, yes we are! The thing has a life of its own, and not a pretty one. > The reason I ask is that when this topic comes up from time to time you > can [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Kathy 1 Better living through adoption. This has been the standard shut-up line for generations--and it's baybee dumping 1st cousin: do you want to see dead baybees? Marley Marley: Gentle correction. PlayRoy's agency was/is EUROPEAN ADOPTION CONSULTANTS. http://www.eaci.com Elizabeth > I'm not saying that everybody--includig John-- who adopts internationally is > entitled and greedy, but a lot are. The FRUA lists are full of this crap. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > therefore, they wouldn't have t go through that nasty adoption procedure. > How she thought they could pull that one off is a mystery. Mysteries sometimes make great novels :-) Look, kiddo, we all know that there are plenty of prospective aparents who get a little goofy and creepy, particularly when the biological alarm clock is going ringa-ding-ding. What you fail to account for in your comments is that, usually (yes, usually, not just sometimes) people learn. They get educated, they change their views, they get someone in their face to tell them off, etc. I've seen this countless times in this process: prospective aparents who start off with a huge case of entitlement who, by the end, have developed a substantial empathy for the bmother, the old country, etc. It happens. It happens frequently. It doesn't happen enough, but it happens. It's a nuance that I recommend you consider in your future comments, because it's a helpful one. Prospective aparents who are early in the process need to get educated. > International adoption is nothing but neo-colonialism. Ask adults > adopted how they feel about it. I'm sure Rupa will say they are in a > minority, but I don't think so. I run into lots of pissed off > internationals all the time. Koreans are the most articulate on the > issue, but I think as other nationals come of age we'll see much more > of this. Yes, we might. There are an increasing number of adopted children of Chinese ancestry in this country, and while we know of a number of parents who are working hard to handle that issue with their own children (e.g., Mama Duck, Linda, etc), these children may well have anger and issues when they're adults. I don't know how to handle that. I also don't know how to handle leaving children to rot in horrid state homes and orphanages, be those in the third world or in the U.S. If you've got a magic wand, now would be a good time to wave it. > IMO, USians have no business going overseas to adopt. If > they want to faux breed so much, they can get a brat from children's > services for cheap. But then, USians are used to strip mining the > world to fulfill their leisure-time needs. Why not spend the money > on something fun; not sell yourself into slavery and an early grave > with somebody else's problem? I'm waiting for the obligatory 'crotchfruit' reference :-) > BTW, even in places like Uganda, 80% of the kids in orphanges aren't > legal orphans. That's one of the few useful things I learned at the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the US Senate, had the gall to show up. What does it take to go to > jail in this country? Mow lawns for $8 an hour? steve >> I'm not saying that everybody--includig John-- who adopts internationally >> is [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > who get a little goofy and creepy, particularly when the biological > alarm clock is going ringa-ding-ding. Of course. The suffer under the illusion that it is their duty to keep the corrupt human race moving onward and upward. > What you fail to account for in your comments is that, usually (yes, > usually, not just sometimes) people learn. They get educated, they [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It happens. It happens frequently. It doesn't happen enough, but it > happens. Of course, it happens, but it also doesn't happen. Again hang out on the international pap lists and see the scum rise to the surface. > It's a nuance that I recommend you consider in your future comments, > because it's a helpful one. Prospective aparents who are early in the > process need to get educated. Early--sure. But ones on the lists are already intrenched in their ownership issues. Masha needs to shut up because it might stop "my child from coming home." Bulletin. This is not YOUR child and s/he already is at home. >> International adoption is nothing but neo-colonialism. Ask adults >> adopted how they feel about it. I'm sure Rupa will say they are in a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > children (e.g., Mama Duck, Linda, etc), these children may well have > anger and issues when they're adults. I don't know how to handle that. I don't either. I remember Linda talking abut her daughter, the little organizer, returning with a troop of young Chinese women to demand answer from the Chinese government. > I also don't know how to handle leaving children to rot in horrid state > homes and orphanages, be those in the third world or in the U.S. If > you've got a magic wand, now would be a good time to wave it. It might help; to stop them from being born. But that will never happen under the current regime. Every sperm is sacred. >> IMO, USians have no business going overseas to adopt. If >> they want to faux breed so much, they can get a brat from children's [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I'm waiting for the obligatory 'crotchfruit' reference :-) Sorry to disappoint you, Steve! >> BTW, even in places like Uganda, 80% of the kids in orphanges aren't >> legal orphans. That's one of the few useful things I learned at the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Mow lawns for $8 an hour? Too much! Marley > steve > >> Well, your's truly has managed to piss of an international adopter who > >> read the Mother Jones article in which I'm quoted. Since only registered [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > "The birthmother "abandoned" this little girl, she's OURS now and the > birthmother have NO right to have anything to do with her". I recently read something similar on a "Mommy blog", where a woman expressed her preference for international over domestic adoption because there's no need to "worry about the birthmother". And a couple of months ago I had an ummm 'animated' conversation with an acquaintance whose son and daughter-in-law are adopting from Ethiopia, and although that wasn't the primary reason (which was that they wanted a new-born) she cited it as a definate plus factor. I hope my words had some impact on her. I actually quite like this woman in many respects, so in a way I found it more difficult (to accept that she thought this way) than if she'd been someone I didn't care for. She also opposes open records. I think the recent "Zoe's Ark" scandal represents an attitude that's a frightening confusion of neo-colonial entitlement, missionary zeal and just plain old greed. The word 'looting' covers what I feel about it nicely. That said, I certainly don't believe every person who adopts from 'abroad' thinks this way, but I share Marley's opinion that too many hold that kind of viewpoint for comfort. On Oct 31, 12:57 pm, kippaherr...@hotmail.com wrote: > > "John" <jdam...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > they wanted a new-born) she cited it as a definate plus factor. I hope > my words had some impact on her. Is it surprising? Most of the stuff we read make it sound as though the relationship between birth-parents and adoptive parents is inevitably adversarial, even when there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that it does not have to be. Those a-pars on this news group who have open adoptions - or who have opened adoptions that were initially closed, sometimes with great effort - have generally not found it true. But when the general belief is that it *will* be adversarial is prevalent, it certainly makes it easier to think that it's better just not to go there. > I think the recent "Zoe's Ark" scandal represents an attitude that's a > frightening confusion of neo-colonial entitlement, missionary zeal and > just plain old greed. The word 'looting' covers what I feel about it > nicely. I haven't completely figured out what went on in that case. It sounded like they thought they were saving the kids, while the government of Chad considered them abducted citizens, who would be used for organ donation and as slaves. The Reuters factbox was not very enlightening. http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL30676583 The kids are now apparently in an orphanage. I hope they get back to their parents, or at least some relatives. All these stories seem to end unhappily for the kids in question. > That said, I certainly don't believe every person who adopts from > 'abroad' thinks this way, but I share Marley's opinion that too many > hold that kind of viewpoint for comfort. My question is, so what if they do? Lots of people who are parents, adoptive or bio, hold views I don't agree with. What is clear to me is that there are millions of kids who would be better off with homes than they are now. I am horrified by mechanisms that twist this into a situation where children are removed from parents who want them and homes and families that cherish them - which I agree does happen. But that speaks to the need for better mechanisms, not for banning adoption and then dismissing the orphans from mind. Which is pretty much what will happen if international adoption is banned. It would become a local problem, to be solved locally; which often means a pretty bleak non- solution. On Oct 31, 4:36 pm, "rkb...@pacific.net.sg" <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote: > On Oct 31, 12:57 pm, kippaherr...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > inevitably adversarial, even when there's plenty of anecdotal evidence > that it does not have to be. No it's not suprising, and I'm not suprised. But I suspect it has as much to do with the fact that many people just don't want to to be bothered - and don't even recognise the importance of o-familial connection to the child - as it does with negative publicity. I also believe that many adoptive parents do see the original mother/family as a threat to their parental status. > Those a-pars on this news group who have > open adoptions - or who have opened adoptions that were initially > closed, sometimes with great effort - have generally not found it > true. True. But I'm not sure how representative they are. I tend to think they're exceptional. > But when the general belief is that it *will* be adversarial is > prevalent, it certainly makes it easier to think that it's better just > not to go there. People hear what they want to hear. > > I think the recent "Zoe's Ark" scandal represents an attitude that's a > > frightening confusion of neo-colonial entitlement, missionary zeal and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Chad considered them abducted citizens, who would be used for organ > donation and as slaves. The Reuters factbox was not very enlightening.http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL30676583 Not very at all. At least we can agree that there is, and apparently was, confusion. I think great harm is often done by people who are unaware of their own motives. Whether they understood the whys and whats of their actions isn't yet clear. But it one thing is certain, and that's the French government told this group in August that they were acting in contravention of international law. And they ignored the warning. It looks like their misplaced 'altruism' didn't leave them short in the pocker either. One media report claimed that "Zoe's Ark" had collected more than 1 million euros with its internet campaign to sign up 1,000 host families. > The kids are now apparently in an orphanage. I hope they get back to > their parents, or at least some relatives. All these stories seem to > end unhappily for the kids in question. Indeed. It's a right mess. > > That said, I certainly don't believe every person who adopts from > > 'abroad' thinks this way, but I share Marley's opinion that too many > > hold that kind of viewpoint for comfort. > > My question is, so what if they do? Lots of people who are parents, > adoptive or bio, hold views I don't agree with. Like me, for instance ;-) Anyway, we aren't discussing attitudes towards parenting per se. With regard to adoption, how many more hold views you don't agree with than don't, d'you think? If your opinions about adoption are, give or take a bit, pretty much representative of the views of the majority, I would imagine that makes it easier to think "So what?" > What is clear to me is that there are millions of kids who would be better off with homes > than they are now. True. But simplistic. > I am horrified by mechanisms that twist this into a situation where > children are removed from parents who want them and homes and families [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > problem, to be solved locally; which often means a pretty bleak non- > solution. I'm not for banning adoption, international or otherwise, except where mechanisms aren't in place - or are seriously inadequate. In such situations I think it's right and proper to curtail the process. For however long necessary. On Oct 31, 3:45 pm, kippaherr...@hotmail.com wrote: > "rkb...@pacific.net.sg" <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote: > > On Oct 31, 12:57 pm, kippaherr...@hotmail.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > publicity. I also believe that many adoptive parents do see the > original mother/family as a threat to their parental status. But how would they recognize the importance of the o-familial connection if there isn't a cultural recognition of it? The importance we accord blood ties is embedded in the culture. It's possible one reason the US is so adoption-friendly is because it's a culture where your status and identity are supposed to depend on who you make yourself, not who you were born as. In India, OTOH, the traditional form of introducing one's self was as X, son of Y from Z village, and birth defined everything. (Except that women were defined by their husbands after marriage.) So an orphan was not just cut off from economic support, he literally lacked an identity. And I think they would see o-parents as less of a threat if every story they heard from the media didn't present them as one. Most a- parents don't know very many o-parents when they start out. I knew none at all; my first encounter was through this ng. If there were more models of successful and happy open adoption, it would probably help matters. > > Those a-pars on this news group who have > > open adoptions - or who have opened adoptions that were initially [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > True. But I'm not sure how representative they are. > I tend to think they're exceptional. I dunno. Is it inherently adversarial? What's a social model for this? In-laws? Divorce cases? I would like to think it's not, but if you consider the experience of people on this ng exceptional, for all I know, it is. I have no way to tell personally, and this ng has actually been where I heard about most adoption issues. > > But when the general belief is that it *will* be adversarial is > > prevalent, it certainly makes it easier to think that it's better just > > not to go there. > > People hear what they want to hear. But do they want to hear it's adversarial? I think I for one would be more comfortable if I believed it wasn't. I think the fact that the most-publicised occasions of b-parent involvement come from situations where the b-parents fight for custody of the child after the adoption is completed are the ones that scare a-pars off. > > > That said, I certainly don't believe every person who adopts from > > > 'abroad' thinks this way, but I share Marley's opinion that too many [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Like me, for instance ;-) Sure. It would be a dull old world if we always agreed on everything...and this ng would not exist! > Anyway, we aren't discussing attitudes towards parenting per se. > With regard to adoption, how many more hold views you don't agree with > than don't, d'you think? > If your opinions about adoption are, give or take a bit, pretty much > representative of the views of the majority, I would imagine that > makes it easier to think "So what?" How would we know? I don't necessarily think my views represent any views but my own. And my arguments sometimes have less to do with my views than with my preference to consider other aspects of an issue. > > What is clear to me is that there are millions of kids who would be better off with homes > > than they are now. > > True. But simplistic. Sure. It's equally true that only a very tiny proportion of those millions will find adoptive families. If there was a mechanism to provide every willing family with a child, this would still be true. > I'm not for banning adoption, international or otherwise, except where > mechanisms aren't in place - or are seriously inadequate. > In such situations I think it's right and proper to curtail the > process. For however long necessary. I agree in principle. > On Oct 31, 3:45 pm, kippaherr...@hotmail.com wrote: >> "rkb...@pacific.net.sg" <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > your status and identity are supposed to depend on who you make > yourself, not who you were born as. I agree with you. Kinship means little in the US except as a political tool to beat people over the head with. In India, OTOH, the traditional > form of introducing one's self was as X, son of Y from Z village, and > birth defined everything. (Except that women were defined by their [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > parents don't know very many o-parents when they start out. I knew > none at all; my first encounter was through this ng. What media do you mean? All I see is a bunch of gloppy happy reunion stories. > If there were more models of successful and happy open adoption, it > would probably help matters. Again, they are all over the place. >> > Those a-pars on this news group who have >> > open adoptions - or who have opened adoptions that were initially [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > know, it is. I have no way to tell personally, and this ng has > actually been where I heard about most adoption issues. I don't think it needs to be adversarial at all, but the adoption industry makes creates a false adversarial situation with it's "triad" language and "special rights" claims. Agencies, social workers, therapists, and their ilk would be out of business if they didn't keep the pot stirred. >> > But when the general belief is that it *will* be adversarial is >> > prevalent, it certainly makes it easier to think that it's better just [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > where the b-parents fight for custody of the child after the adoption > is completed are the ones that scare a-pars off. And they are very rare and usually caused by the illegal actions of the industry to start with. Baby Jessica was never available for adoption, for instance, something people forget. Consent had been revoked. And then you'be got the movie of the perfect DeBoers family being torn apart and BJ being torn from their arms screaming. Well, who caused that. Not the Schmidts! Marley On Oct 31, 12:36?pm, "rkb...@pacific.net.sg" <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote: > On Oct 31, 12:57 pm, kippaherr...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > that there are millions of kids who would be better off with homes > than they are now. Here's the catch. These particular children and many like them were never without homes or placed voluntarily for adoption. Kathy > I am horrified by mechanisms that twist this into a situation where > children are removed from parents who want them and homes and families [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Oct 31, 11:57?am, kippaherr...@hotmail.com wrote: > > "John" <jdam...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > expressed her preference for international over domestic adoption > because there's no need to "worry about the birthmother". I truly believe this and the fact that the probability is high that they will become parents is the number one reason why p-adoptive parents go the international route. Why else would they go there when they could adopt one from this country who is already legally free? I don't think most are being honest with why they do not adopt from this country either. They want to be parents, and they want to be a parent the quickest route they can take in order to do that. They say they don't want to adopt a child from care because they fear attachment issues. Maybe so, but I think it has much more to do with their desire to adopt outside this country where they don't have to deal all that much with the child's first family. Jmho Kathy > And a couple of months ago I had an ummm 'animated' conversation with > an acquaintance whose son and daughter-in-law are adopting from [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > On Oct 31, 11:57?am, kippaherr...@hotmail.com wrote: < snip > > > I recently read something similar on a "Mommy blog", where a woman > > expressed her preference for international over domestic adoption [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > they will become parents is the number one reason why p-adoptive > parents go the international route. Oh, I dunno. We have some regulars on this newsgroup who have adopted outside the US. They have done far more to reconnect their children with their biological families than I ever have, despite having to cross oceans and continents to make it happen. I'm really proud of them as adoptive parents, I just don't know how rare they are among their peers. I am hoping there are many more just like them out there. I am hoping that they far outnumber the PlayRoys of the world. I am really hoping so. Frankly, wanting nothing to do with the birthmummy was a motivating factor in our decision to adopt older waiting foster children. I guess it's not the birthmother that we feared per se, just having our child removed from our home beyond our control. That's why we only considered children who were already legally free for adoption. That's why we refused foster-to-adopt programs. That's why we passed over children who might be returned to their biological family, even if it was by a family law court somewhere. That's also why we chose not to adopt an infant, like we wanted to play an active role in influencing a mother to give away her baby. Nuh uh No way - I would much rather remain childless, thank you very much. Now that our kids are older teenage pains-in-the-arses, the prospect of birthmommy showing up to reclaim what is rightfully hers has lost most of its punch, anyway. < chuckle > I just hope their natural mums are not as scarey as you. ;o) Dad P.S. Glad to hear you survived the fires OK. > > On Oct 31, 11:57?am, kippaherr...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > with their biological families than I ever have, despite having to > cross oceans and continents to make it happen. I find it sad that after posting here for almost ten years I would have to hand out hugs to the many fine adoptive parents who frequent this ng. That said, I am going to stand by my opinion above. Maybe down the road after some adoptive parents delve into the child centered issues, they decide to try and open, but I am going to bet that most go there because they don't have to deal with the bmommy changing her mind. > I'm really proud of them as adoptive parents, I just don't know how > rare they are among their peers. I am hoping there are many more just > like them out there. I am hoping that they far outnumber the PlayRoys > of the world. I am really hoping so. A number of years ago, I posted a study done which stated that most do go the international route because they don't want to deal with the heart ache of having the first mother changing her mind. They want to become parents, and they do not want to have to go through the long wait and have a failed placement. Plus, the laws depending on the state are not clear when it comes to father's rights. Maybe only a few will disrupt because of the father's right to reclaim his child, but he media makes it out like this is a bigger problem than it really is. Hence, paps don't want to deal with it. > Frankly, wanting nothing to do with the birthmummy was a motivating > factor in our decision to adopt older waiting foster children. I > guess it's not the birthmother that we feared per se, just having our > child removed from our home beyond our control. I can understand this. Adopting with risk isn't for the faint of heart. > That's why we only considered children who were already legally free > for adoption. That's why we refused foster-to-adopt programs. That's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Nuh uh No way - I would much rather remain childless, thank you very > much. Precisely, why so many do go the international route, imo; the first mother factor. > Now that our kids are older teenage pains-in-the-arses, the prospect > of birthmommy showing up to reclaim what is rightfully hers has lost > most of its punch, anyway. < chuckle > I just hope their natural > mums are not as scarey as you. ;o) Well, everyone knows I am the scariest bmom on the net. hehehe > Dad > > P.S. Glad to hear you survived the fires OK. It was a bit cramped having both the boys, their wives, and the three grandbabies, (all under age 5), here, but we made the best of it, and consider this family blessed. :-) Kathy Even as an International Adoption Adopter, I agree with Kathy's comments - but would like to clarify: "I truly believe this and the fact that the probability is high that they will become parents is the number one reason why p-adoptiveparents go the international route." Sometimes yes, sometimes no. (mostly yes!) I.A. is NOT a guarantee that you will become a parent. I do know of two cases - one from Guatemala, one from Russia - where the American AParents lost the children. In the Guatemalan case, the child was given back to her biofamily (she was never legally available for adoption to begin with - imagine that!) In the Russian case, the American AParents were denied in court after traveling to Russia three times and appealing at the court in Moscow. The children were legally orphans and living in an institution. Lots of cloak and dagger shenanigans on the part of the facilitation team (Amrex) caused the adoptions to be denied. In the above case, however, the couple came back to the USA and - managed to adopt a HWI directly from foster care. Now if you ask them about I.A. they'll tell you ADOPT FROM THE USA. I can't make that up. "Why else would they go there when they could adopt one from this country who is already legally free?" Kathy is correct. "They say they don't want to adopt a child from care because they fear attachment issues." Boy, attachment issues are a HUMAN problem - not an international versus domestic problem. Many people don't seem to get that concept - and all adopters should be educated about them. "Maybe so, but I think it has much more to do with their desire to adopt outside this country where they don't have to deal all that much with the child's first family." Very true. I can't tell you how many posts I've read, how many AParents I've corresponded with over the years who have said "We don't want to have the risk of the biological mother 'changing her mind'." However, no matter how you slice it, you're still going to have biological parent issues. Every time I look at my son, he's not my genetic creation. Which doesn't mean much, but still - somebody who I don't know created him. It doesn't matter to him now - but one of you said, it may later. And that I agree with too. Elizabeth On Nov 2, 7:32?am, "Daniel and Elizabeth Case" <danc...@frontiernet.net> wrote: > Even as an International Adoption Adopter, I agree with Kathy's comments - > but would like to clarify: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Sometimes yes, sometimes no. (mostly yes! >I.A. is NOT a guarantee that you > will become a parent. There are no guarantees in life but the probability remains that those who choose intercountry adoption will most likely get what they want. There are more babies/toddlers coming to this country than babies being placed from this country voluntarily. Immigrant visas issued to orphans coming to this country continue to rise while newborn baby placements from this country continue to dwindle. >I do know of two cases - one from Guatemala, one from > Russia - where the American AParents lost the children. In the Guatemalan > case, the child was given back to her biofamily (she was never legally > available for adoption to begin with - imagine that!) Not sure about Russia, but I know many adopted from Guatemala were not legally free to begin with. Wasn't there recently a moratorium on adoptions from there? > In the Russian case, the American AParents were denied in court after > traveling to Russia three times and appealing at the court in Moscow. The > children were legally orphans and living in an institution. Lots of cloak > and dagger shenanigans on the part of the facilitation team (Amrex) caused > the adoptions to be denied. I wonder how many Amrex scammed out of their life savings? > In the above case, however, the couple came back to the USA and - managed to > adopt a HWI directly from foster care. Now if you ask them about I.A. > they'll tell you ADOPT FROM THE USA. Of course. > I can't make that up. > > "Why else would they go there when they could adopt one from this country > who is already legally free?" > > Kathy is correct. Thank you for agreeing. > "They say they don't want to adopt a child from care because they fear > attachment issues." > > Boy, attachment issues are a HUMAN problem - not an international versus > domestic problem. Many people don't seem to get that concept - and all > adopters should be educated about them. Hopefully, before they adopt and the child has to face a possible disruption by aparents who for whatever reason can't cope. > "Maybe so, but I think it has much more to do with their desire to adopt > outside this country where they don't have to deal all that much with the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I've corresponded with over the years who have said "We don't want to have > the risk of the biological mother 'changing her mind'." Yep. > However, no matter how you slice it, you're still going to have biological > parent issues. Every time I look at my son, he's not my genetic creation. > Which doesn't mean much, but still - somebody who I don't know created him. Well, at least you are not pretending they do not exist which is another reason some will adopt from countries where the biological connection is unknown. > It doesn't matter to him now - but one of you said, it may later. And that > I agree with too. > > Elizabeth Kathy Kathy asked: "Not sure about Russia, but I know many adopted from Guatemala were not legally free to begin with. Wasn't there recently a moratorium on adoptions from there?" It's getting close. They're the "Ortega Laws". I'm not as up on Guatemala as I should be, but PAPs are getting really nervous. I really SHOULD provide a link.... "I wonder how many Amrex scammed out of their life savings?" Geesh. I correspond with a few. I can think of three off the top of my head - and that's a drop in the bucket. It wasn't only the money, it was the broken promises, the lost referrals, the lies, etc. Many of the Amrex families compare their experiences to a rape. " Hopefully, before they adopt and the child has to face a possible disruption by aparents who for whatever reason can't cope." That's the rub in I.A. especially from Eastern Europe. I call it the second hand kids phenomenon (sp). So many AParents went into EE adoption blind and "hopeful". Next thing you see are posts about disruptive behavior - ARND, RAD, bi-polar - you all know the alphabet soup score. The "perfect child" they envisioned isn't perfect, but mentally ill. Some of these unprepared families end up disrupting. Before you adopt YOU NEED TO EDUCATE YOURSELF about post-institutionalization issues. God I hate reading about disrupted adoptions. Elizabeth On Nov 3, 12:32 am, "Daniel and Elizabeth Case" <danc...@frontiernet.net> wrote: > Very true. I can't tell you how many posts I've read, how many AParents > I've corresponded with over the years who have said "We don't want to have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > parent issues. Every time I look at my son, he's not my genetic creation. > Which doesn't mean much, but still - somebody who I don't know created him. I think those are two different things. The bio-mom changing her mind means that a child is being removed from your care. Furthermore, you know very little about what that child is going into, and can do nothing to control its world. The big problem for a-pars here is that the process of bonding with a child begins with a commitment to that child, and you can't help but feel bereaved and afraid when something like that happens. Looking at your kid, OTOH, and seeing evidence of the genetic imprint of others - that is a way of looking at the child. It presumably has very little to do with your commitment to the child. I have to say it would be difficult for me if every time I looked at my a-kid I saw that I hadn't created him. I kinda took it for granted. It would be like me looking at the kid and thinking, every time I look at my kid, his eyes are a different color than mine. I mean, it's true; but I'm not likely to notice it on a day-to-day basis. And now he's grown up, who he is has a lot to do with who he's decided to be. "Furthermore, you know very little about what that child is going into, and can do nothing to control its world." Very true. "The big problem for a-pars here is that the process of bonding with a child begins with a commitment to that child, and you can't help but feel bereaved and afraid when something like that happens." Yes it does. "Looking at your kid, OTOH, and seeing evidence of the genetic imprint of others - that is a way of looking at the child. It presumably has very little to do with your commitment to the child." Oh, none at all. We've been committed to him since we (I hate to write this), saw him advertised on our agency's website. The magic of a single photo and a lovely caption... "I have to say it would be difficult for me if every time I looked at my a-kid I saw that I hadn't created him." It honestly doesn't bother me - oddly, I sometimes see either MY expression or my husband's expressions cross his face - and that isn't genetics. "I'm not likely to notice it on a day-to-day basis. And now he's grown up, who he is has a lot to do with who he's decided to be." We can only give guidance (sp) and direction. We cannot live their lives for them. Elizabeth > >> Well, your's truly has managed to piss of an international adopter who > >> read the Mother Jones article in which I'm quoted. Since only registered [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Also in Marley's defense (and to respond to what John said, too), the thing is, what Marley said will come readily and easily to the minds of most adoptees, later in life. They'll wonder the same thing, and use their own human ways of figuring out what is true, for them. I disagree radically with rkbose (next post) who says that all parents have illusions of ownership. I disagree with that so much that I can't respond directly to RKBose or people who share that view. I do know people like this, however, and if you are a person who thinks of parenthood as entailing ownership and your view of ownership is similar to that of most Americans, then, it's very likely your adopted child will grow up and understand deeply and personally exactly what Marley said. Obviously, what Marley said applies in some cases, maybe many cases. I do not think being nurturant or protective implies a sense of ownership, which is very different from being protective. The two can co-exist together. If RkBose means ownership to be exactly the same word as protective, then I can agree with RkBose - most parents are protective. To me, I see some parents who clearly think of their kids as potential mini-mes, which is entirely different from mother bear possessiveness. Mini-me or mini-wish-I- were mentalities do smack of ownership or some similar word to me. It would be interesting to know what triggers particular parent-child selections when people go baby-shopping. In fact, people who take the baby-shopping mentality are already near the ownership category, to me. People who are looking to nurture a child but not to turn it into themselves will not be looking in particular for a kid that to their mind resembles them. I'm not talking about looks alone, obviously. Anyway, my main point is that most adoptees will ask these questions, themselves, at some point, just as Marley did and there's no point in shooting the messenger. We'll come to our own conclusions, too, just as Marley did. Pili |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.