52 Responses to “My Response to a Comment Left by a Potential Transracial/Transnational Adoptive Mother”

1. Margie on April 4th, 2007 1:09 am

   Thank you for speaking out about a kind of a-parent attitude that I find both offensive and disheartening. I am myself an adoptive parent, and recognize that pretty much anything I say on this subject can be perceived as hypocritical. But I can also say that having never felt that my kids (both of whom are Korean) necessarily have better lives here in the US, it disturbs me when I read or hear that other a-parents continue to follow that line of reasoning. We infertile people are not entitled to ANYONE’S children ANYWHERE. And once we adopt we bear an enormous responsbility to maintain our children’s heritage, to respect their country of birth, and to advocate for their first parents.

2. atlasien on April 4th, 2007 1:31 am

   I’m a prospective adoptive parent. My usual friendly advice-giving, only moderately argumentative nature is hard to summon because I’m so annoyed by Cheryl’s comment about domestic adoption. My husband and I are adopting from the foster care system here in the US. The process has not been anywhere near a “nightmare”. There are lots of classes to take and government requirements but also lots of support and education, and it’s also (gasp) completely free.

   I’m not condemning international adoption. I just think that the process is much more opaque, and the potential for corruption and unethical behavior is much greater. I’ve heard the Guatemalan system has a few ethical safeguards that domestic private adoptions don’t, like DNA test matching. I’ve also heard they have a lot of ethical problems.

   Adoptive parents have to think about their own needs… it’s unrealistic to expect them to be 100% altruistic. But Cheryl, it’s in your own long-term interest to make sure your adoption is ethical and research all you can on the subject. The horrible things you say about your potential child’s first mother — calling her a baby breeder — will come back on you. I don’t even want to go into how because, frankly, I’m so horrified by your attitude, but I’m sure other commenters can fill in the blanks.

   Being infertile doesn’t give you a special “victim license” to be unethical. And there are plenty of fertile or older parents that adopt. Having $25,000 doesn’t make you better. Being college-educated doesn’t make you better. If you “don’t believe in Darwin” (and by the way I have NO idea what any of this has to do with Darwin) but you do believe in the Bible, then think about what Jesus has to say about the poor, and contrast that with your “screw the poor and steal their babies” attitude.

   

   If you’re still reading Cheryl, try checking out this site about ethical international adoptions, which also works to explain why they are in your best interest.

   http://www.informedadoptions.com/index.php

3. Ann on April 4th, 2007 1:46 am

   “What do you prefer? These Guatemalan girls (and boys) spend their time on the streets, sniffing glue and becoming prostitutes?? Dying at age 35? I don�t believe in Darwin, etc� so don�t even go there with me.”

   If people like Cheryl are so concerned about these children living lives of destitution:

   “spend their time on the streets, sniffing glue and becoming prostitues?? Dying at age 35…”

   …then why does she not realize that the country she lives in benefits from the poor, destitute Third World conditions of poverty and absymal short life spans, lack of clean drinking water, no plumbing in the sense that we know of it, sub-standard lean-to housing, poor unsanitary living conditions that are not fit for an animal? That the parents of these children have to migrate to this land of milk and honey to try and find work (often always, menial jobs, with hazardous working conditions, low pay, and no protection from employer abuse) to send money back home to take care of these very children that she feels she has a right to take from their home, their culture, their traditions—–many traditions of which she may be in no position to teach/pass on to these children? Many cultural traditions she will not even try to pass on, as judging from her comment all she wants is a child, by any means necessary?

   Does Cheryl not realize that these Third World women live in countries with such economically depressed systems that they barely live hand-to-mouth, and that they truly love their children and work as best they can to take care of their children?

   Just because these parents and extended relatives do not have the high living standard of people of Cheryl’s economic class does not make them less than human.

   And going down to buy/adopt/liberate a child from a lifetime of wretched abject poverty by the saviour Westerner parent who has loads of material welath to spare is no guarantee that the Cheryls of the world out there will raise a well-rounded child.

   An empty materialistic lifestyle never did any child any good.

   And from reading Cheryl’s comment, this little child will live in an empty world devoid of the rich cultural life she could have had in her country.

   Yes this little child would have lived in a life of poverty.

   Poverty is as old as the human race.

   But, tearing her away from her world to transplant her into an alien culture and lifestyle can never take the place of the culture that is unique to Guatemala, or any other non-American country.

   Money, fancy clothes, an upscale neighborhood do not impart values and character.

   Sadly, Cheryl’s comment shows that she is lacking in these values.

   Cheryl has no empathy for the mothers of these children.

   In her eyes, from her comments, these women serve only as broodmares for the Cheryls of the world.

   And to hell with how, why, and under whatever circumstances that were that caused these mothers to have to give up their children in the first place.

4. Ann on April 4th, 2007 2:26 am

   Oh, and Cheryl, about that comment on Darwin.

   Let’s see you leave your life of privilege by going down to Guatemala and trying to survive on the streets where there is all of this rampart drug-sniffing and prostitution that you are such an expert on. Let’s see you get by on your wits and survival skills alone. I’m sure all that “college educated, wealthy, hard working American” know-how will keep you alive in a country which you probably know practically nothing about. Let’s see you survive a night, a day, a week in a country where water is carried by hand 1/2 a mile to a mile away from your home, where public sanitation is below American standards, where AC does not exist for millions of people, where fresh food is not often had because much of the land is not arable, where health care is practically non-existent.

   I’m sure that you will do very well on the streets of Guatemala with the outlook that you have on the people and culture of this little child you want to ransack from her country.

   I’m sure “survival of the fittest” will be something you will have no problem with since you are of such superior stock.

   And while you are down there, watch out for all the drug-peddling glue sellers and pimps.

   Just remember to whip out your charge cards and slash ‘em to ribbons with your plastic, your materialistic wealth, and your white privilege.

   Those always strike deadly terror into the hearts of people whom you consider as fodder for your own selfish needs.

5. Temple3 on April 4th, 2007 4:10 am

   “Cheryl has no empathy for the mothers of these children.”

   Damn. That’s all you need to know. Mothers go through far too much to give birth and protect young lives – amid poverty, rape, murder, migration, secual exploitation at work-for work-for wages-for sustenance.

   After awhile, this shit gets really, really annoying. Your patience is remarkable.

   Nice work.

6. dawn on April 4th, 2007 12:25 pm

   This was a great post, Rachel. You said it all and more. I’m even going to insert an annoying smilie!

   There you go — thanks!

7. Sailorman on April 4th, 2007 12:49 pm

   What I find most troubling is that being privileged is set up as a reason why a person would be a good parent. Does being privileged really make one a good parent? What about values such as respect, honesty, compassion, and determination. It seems to me that those are values that make a good parent, not one�s saving account balance or the number of degrees on the wall.

   Is privilege (I assume you’re using it in financial terms here, and not “privilege” as you usually use w/r/t gender, race, etc–perhaps you should choose a different word?) not beneficial? Because if you’re saying it isn’t beneficial to have more money and/or to live in the U.S. instead of a third world county, you may want to revisit some of your past threads and comments on immigration. I mean, that’s why they call it “privilege”, right?

   Money makes things easy. It is no guarantee that one will end up being a good parent (what does that mean, anyway? see below…) but it certainly makes things easier in a general sense. Better put, if you ARE a good parent, and are TRYING to be a good parent, your job will be simpler with money. So yes, IMO as a general rule privilege is related to good parenting.

   That is because in the world that I live in, “good parenting” includes things that are difficult to achieve without money. It’s hard to teach your kids to read if you work 16 hour days. It is almost impossible if you and they work 16 hour days.

   This statement also insinuates that poor people cannot be good parents,

   Not at all. Just that they’re less likely to be able to do so. Look at the reading example above: Is it the poor parent’s FAULT that they work 16 hour days? Is it their FAULT if they can’t teach their kids to read, or that they can’t help their kids with algebra, or can’t help them learn music, or aren’t around enough to serve as a superduper role model, or (insert other examples as you wish) Is their poverty even a guarantee that they won’t do these things anyway? NO. It’s not a comment on their person. Many poor folks strive above their burdens are are outstanding parents; I’m the result of that myself.

   But is it untrue that such a situation means that they will not, on average be able to provide their children with the level of parenting that they could provide if they had more money and free time? Um, no.

   I am, as occasionally happens here, a bit disappointed. I’d expect you to be able to acknowledge a true but unpleasant statement. Hey, life is harsh, and groups do provide different benefits to their members depending on what groups they are. Since when is acknowledging that fact offensive?

   and any non-privileged group is some how inferior because of their race, sexuality, income, education, nationality…It says �we� (middle and upper class white Americans and Europeans) will automatically be better parents.

   Well, no, it doesn’t actually say that. It DOES say that we’ll be more likely to be able to be better parents. Of course, that all depends on how you define “better parents…”:

   Our parenting values are better because we have have Gymboree classes, Mommy and Me Play Groups, karate, and piano lessons, all of which we can pay for with our credit cards.

   Now, this is an interesting topic. You seem to be claiming that what is generally regarded in the upper classes as “better parenting” is in fact not better parenting. That’s a strong argument to make, but I’m a bit confused.

   If you don’t want to claim that those things are beneficial to children, you then don’t have much of a leg to stand on if you want to claim that poor children should in fact have access to them. It’s either valuable (in which case it’s beneficial) or not (in which case there’s no functional discrimination or privilege that accrues from those things.) From your other writings on immigration, privilege, race, etc,, I’ve always felt that you think those things ARE important. certainly, you think denial of those things is important. Am i wrong? Or are you reversing course here?

   Never mind, that we often hire these same women from developing countries as our nannies (If we were such superior parents, why do we entrust our kids with these poor, mostly brown, women?).

   Um, you forgot an important explanation: the upper class concept of “better parenting” often revolves around the activity provided not the person who necessarily provides it. Which is why I get to feel good about having my kid, in theory, learn about native american culture (though I’m not NA), or learn French (which i can’t speak any more), or Spanish (which i never learned.) Which is why it’s “better” to send your kid to Andover than to home school them.

   Now, I personally have some issues with that position. But as a sociologist you should know that exists.

   Again: Here, you seem to be making an argument that only direct parenting is valid. An interesting argument to be sure (I’d love to see the comments on this at Alas w/r/t working parents) but is that really your position? I haven’t picked that up from other writings of yours on feminism.

   Never mind, that many people in these poor countries have strong extended family networks; they teach their children the value of hard work, respect, and honesty in the same way that many white Americans do.

   This, really, isn’t relevant. When you’re talking about differences between two groups, the fact that both groups share similarities doesn’t reduce, or even affect, the differences themselves. If Barbara Bush claims to be a “better parent” because of mommy and Me classes, the fact that both she and her subject of comparison bottle fed their babies has no bearing on the “better parent” question.

   I’m not actually defending Cheryl here–I don’t like her tone or her actions. I just think you’re making a lot of sweeping collateral attacks here taht appear (to my eyes) to disagree with other positinos of yours.

8. Carmen Van Kerckhove on April 4th, 2007 1:00 pm

   Excellent, excellent post, Rachel. I really hope Cheryl tries to understand the points you are conveying – though something tells me she won’t want to.

9. Sewere on April 4th, 2007 1:01 pm

   What you all said….

   Plus Cheryl here’s a warning: I work on and off in a couple of countries in Central America so if I am fortunate enough to meet you in real life, you can be sure that I will do everything to report you to the embassy.

10. brownfemipower on April 4th, 2007 2:19 pm

    as a latina mother with family in Mexico and friends all over Latin America, I must say that I am thankful and pleased that a white woman’s ability to raise a latina child is so significant that I am no longer necessary. It feels good to know how disposable I am.

    I must also say how impressed I am that white U.S. citizens have figured out how to keep their kids off of meth and crank and alcohol. I didn’t realize that public service announcements actually work!! Likewise the prostitution thing. I didn’t realize that all the multitudes of safe centers for teens throughout major cities in the U.S. were really set up for suburbian teens to go play foot ball. I thought they were there for teen sex workers to get clean needles, condoms, advice, sleep, etc.

    Silly dumb breeder me.

    Maybe us dirty spics can follow the noble example offered to us.

11. Michael on April 4th, 2007 2:52 pm

    Talk about a post that hits close to home! Yikes. OK. There is more than enough to criticize here in terms of Cheryl’s attitude. But little of it was addressed by the commenters here. Few people can understand what goes through a woman’s mind when she wants a child and thinks she can’t conceive.

    Here is a speed readers background on my own experience. My wife had ovarian cancer and thought she could not have a baby . After several fertility treatments and much frustration we gave up. Shortly after she became pregnant and we were blessed with a healthy son. But we had already began to look at adoption. We studied everything there was to know about adoption both here at home as well as international. As a result of much intensive debate we decided to get a baby from
    China. We felt the processed was the most clean and ethical of the foreign adoption choices available. a few years back my wife started thinking about having another child. Again we started looking at adoption, and low and behold my wife became pregnant. We abandoned adoption for a bit and my wife lost the baby. Again we start the adoption process and my wife becomes pregnant yet again. We decided to go through with the adoption and added to our family this past November. Sadly my wife lost the baby while I was away.

    In addition to being very familiar with the issue on a personal level my niece gave testimony before congress on the issue of international adoption. So I feel I can discuss the issue on several levels.

    The attitude portrayed here by some of the commenters is vile for many reasons. Many of the comments made by Cheryl were either taken out of context or considered with a predisposition for a particular frame. I have enough respect for the intellect of these commenters to know they understand exactly why several of the arguments amount to nothing more than logical fallacies .

    Admin said :

    Personally, I know privilege doesn�t make one a good parent.� When I was born, my parents lived in a one room house, without indoor plumbing, �in rural Appalachia.� We lived in that house until I was 4 when we moved into our larger house also without indoor plumbing.

    The fact that many poor people are good parents has nothing to do with whether privilege
    makes one a good parent or not. NOTHING in what Cheryl said was an indictment on the parenting of poor people. You simply read into what she said things which were not there.
    One could easily play around with your words or other commenters in the same fashion.

    Admin also said :

    Let me start with the most comment that bothered me the most:

    We are college educated, wealthy, hard working Americans and can afford to raise our child (and likely others) so that she or he may attend college, grad school and have priveleged lives. Perhaps, even, change perceptions of Latinos in racist United States.

    What I find most troubling is that being privileged is set up as�a reason why a person would be a good parent.� Does being privileged really make one a good parent?� What about values such as respect, honesty, compassion, and determination.� It seems to me that those are values that make a good parent, not one�s saving account balance or the number of degrees on the wall.

    Cheryl did not even hint at what you are claiming here. Of course the values you mention are important. All she was doing was presenting her reasoning as to why she would be able to offer the child greater opportunity than if the child remained in Guatemala. In doing so she was showing that she could take care of all the responsibilities involved in raising a child. I would also argue that it is not in anyway disparaging of the poor to say that one considers it important to be able to fund the raising of a child.befrore having my kids I decided to make sure I could afford to give them the kinds of advantages I missing in my early life. That is no attack on my parents but rather a choice I consider important for me.

    admin also said :

    I also find it interesting that Cheryl suggests that her parenting techniques are somehow going to challenge racism; in fact, reading between the lines here I get the sense that�she is saying upper income white parents will sufficiently whiten their child, so she will be accepted by whites (I could be reading too much into her comment, but it really strikes me that way.).� Having�wealthy white parents will help�no doubt give her some advantages, but it isn�t going to whiten her.

    READING BETWEEN THE LINES? I could engage in exactly the same thing with every commenter here. But it would hardly be fair to attribute my feelings about what some folks might be thinking as opposed to what they actually SAY.

    I missed where Cheryl claimed that her parenting techniques would challenge racism

    . But I did note that you were concerned with the word SHOULD in this sentence by Cheryl.

    Cheryl said:
    The process works smoothly in Guatemala and people who *should* have children, will get them from Guatemala

    Those who are familiar with international adoption would use those exact same words. Although I can’t be sure what Cheryl meant to convey here, I know that I would have used the exact same language had I been discussing why so many people adopt from Guatemala. In considering to adopt from China I had to consider the policies surrounding such an adoption. The new rules which will take effect are even more problematic? Some are down right reprehensible. No single people will be allowed to adopt. the reality is that the Chinese have determined that this was a way for which gay folks were adopting Chinese babies. Weight restrictions will eliminate obese people as well as very fit individuals like myself who weight train. You must make more than 80 k per year and have no history of mental illness in your family. That is just to name a few of the new restrictions. So perhaps Cheryl meant to convey that many prospective parents choose Guatemala because they would not be locked out. Also, these adoptions are more affordable.

    Then there is this incredibly ignorant comment by admin :

    Then there is this quote:
    Regardless of the practices there, the children will have better lives here. The process works smoothly in Guatemala and people who *should* have children, will get them from Guatemala.
    It sounds to me like Cheryl doesn’t really care if mother�s are coerced into giving up their children because no matter what rich folks in the US are entitled to these children.� It also reads like children are property that people are entitled to based on their income and wealth because�a child cannot possibly have a good life in a poor country like Guatemala. In fact, she even asserts that Guatemalan women are having children just to make money from rich Americans, Canadians, and Europeans.

    Admin . What Cheryl said is clear. What she did NOT say is equally clear. However Cheryl may very well have meant to say that these women are having babies with the intent to sell them for profit. Not only is it TRUE but it lies at the heart of why we need solid international rules regarding adoptions. When my niece spoke to congress this was one of the highlights of her speech. Next I will try to explain why we did not add a child from Guatemala to our family

12. Michael on April 4th, 2007 3:29 pm

    Cheryl said :

    My husband and I are also adopting from Guatemala – a baby girl. Regardless of the practices there, the children will have better lives here. The process works smoothly in Guatemala and people who *should* have children, will get them from Guatemala. We are college educated, wealthy, hard working Americans and can afford to raise our child (and likely others) so that she or he may attend college, grad school and have priveleged lives. Perhaps, even, change perceptions of Latinos in racist United States. At least, I hope.

    I agree that it is sad that children maybe, perhaps, are being trafficked, stolen and mothers, coerced. However, we do not know that for sure and there is little proof. Likely, these people are having children, simply for monetary gain. If that is the case, then, I am fine with that. Because Americans, Canadians and even Europeans will continue to adopt from Guatemala.

    Cheryl. Often times when a person desperately wants to adopt they tend to ignore or diminish the ramifications of their actions. When the stealing of babies and the coercion of mothers becomes so profitable it only results in more of the same. One of the worst realities in Guatemalan adoptions surrounds the practice of breeding babies for sale. While you might think that you are offering the baby you take a better life what you might not be aware of is the pain and suffering caused to may other newborns.

    The rise of baby breeding came about as a result of the premium on infants. Those engaged in this activity dangle the prospect of a healthy new born to prospective parents via adoption agencies. Many of the women who agree to these pregnancies do so for varying reasons. While you might placate yourself by thinking you are helping a woman to better be able to afford her own children such is more often not the case. In most situations the women are exploited and considered breeders. The lions share of the money goes into the pockets of the most reprehensible people. Also, many
    prostitutes find themselves engaged in this unsavory endeavor. Even in cases where a pimp is not forcing the woman to comply the conditions these women are subjected to are often appalling. But perhaps the saddest reality concerns why so many healthy newborns are being offered from that country. For every healthy baby which is placed into this system there are several who just are not considered worthy of sale. By helping that one child you may be contributing to the pain you seek to alleviate.

    I imagine Cheryl comes to the adoption process with the best of intentions. I doubt most of what is being projected toward her is valid. But the end result may be far from the original intent. As an interesting aside, we have become close to several people who have chosen less conventional adoptions. We know two fantastic couples which have adopted older kids with special needs. The fact that they happen to be gay would preclude them from going the route I took. Also, we have another close friend who adopted a child from an Ethiopia after two domestic adoptions. They are very happy with the choices they made.

    I wish all the best for the joy you will bring your child and that which you will get in return .

13. this woman’s work » Blog Archive » I hate the “but I’m infertile” excuse on April 4th, 2007 3:33 pm

    [...] Go read what Rachel has to say to a potential adoptive mother who feels that her pain over not having a child trumps any need to be ethical. Rachel says: I can understand when a person is steeped in her/his own pain, it is hard to see the suffering of others. Adoption and infertility are emotionally and financially stressful processes, so is being adopted or being a birth mother. I just ask that adoptive parents work extra hard to put themselves in their child�s shoes. Think about the mother who is giving the tremendous gift of her child to you, and don�t assume that your privilege is going to fix everything and entitle you to do whatever you want. [...]

14. nunya on April 4th, 2007 4:45 pm

    I don’t really have anything to say about adoption, except that, despite having heard the process in America is ridiculously hard, I’ve still wondered why people adopt outside the US. I just feel really sorry for the children here who need homes, and the ones here who most aren’t getting homes are minorities.

    That said, frankly, I worry about the ones who are placed in transracial homes for some of the same points I raised in the biracial children discussion. The first quote you dissected by Cheryl bothered me, as well, and I think what you said about being Latino in America still being an issue is very interesting. As I was getting at with my point about parents in interracial relationships making a mistake when they have biracial kids in environments where everyone is one race–particularly when you have a kid who is going to viewed as only black in all-white environments–this is naivete on the parent(s)’ part that will be harmful to the child. I think Cheryl displays a similar naivete in how she’s thinking about raising a Guatemalan child, i.e. “we are saving this poor kid and doing something for him/her that her own people can’t do” and not really having any idea about the struggles people of this background face and that her child will face in America. It is things like these that make me feel that certain people should not adopt across racial lines–and I’m not saying, for example, that all whites should not adopt minorities. I’m saying naive ones should not.

    I do think that particular comment was elitist and the assumptions within are not always true. Both of my parents have masters degrees, and we had a middle class or upper middle class home my entire life, lived in upper class white neighborhoods, were taught good values by my parents, etc. My cousin’s home was much the same way, with the exception of the kind of neighborhood he lived in…but he got everything he could have ever wanted and was privileged, in my eyes, as much as a black male could be. And yet, my oldest sister is a mess, as is my cousin. My sister attended community college only because she was forced, and my cousin spent about as long in community college as I did in undergraduate school at an elite university, and he will be under house arrest for the entire three years I spend in law school. Both he and my sister have spent time in jail.

    Sometimes, for all the good work a parent does, all the “right” environments they try to have their kid in, it just doesn’t matter with at least one of their kids. I am the only one of my parents’ children who has followed in their footsteps to go onward and work on an advanced degree. (BTW, despite the fact that I come from a “good family,” will be a lawyer and presumably from a good class when I’m making a living, I don’t at all want kids, partially because I feel as if I could never really be a good parent.) And the thing about that is…it doesn’t really change anybody’s mind about who black people are. I’m an “exception” and often am not even that, i.e. affirmative action. And I get the sense that what Cheryl was attempting to say is that by having a Guatemalan child grow up to receive a good college education, a college degree and be able to communicate that he is from a “good family,” that this will make people think differently about Latinos. No, he will be seen as an aberration.

    Furthermore, I and several other people I know, when we meet adopted minority kids who communicate that they have been raised by white parents, we automatically assume this is someone who has issues and/or doesn’t really know who he/she is culturally, regardless of whether or not that’s true–again, much like what is assumed with biracial kids. It’s not always a positive image that goes out there about this kids, and the same will be true for the child she’s adopting.

15. Jenna on April 4th, 2007 4:52 pm

    Clicked on over from Dawn’s blog. That said, this question:

    Does being privileged really make one a good parent?

    Gets me every time. I think we all know that the answer is no. Money doesn’t make the parent. Sure, toys are great. But so are parents who are willing to sacrifice the big house so that they have more time to spend with their children.

    The whole “people who should have children” particularly made me throw up. It tosses me into the thought of, “Hmm, these “birth mothers” seem to have gotten pregnant for SOME reason. Maybe it’s because THEY should have children but someone is telling THEM otherwise. HMM.”

    Great post. Keep on keepin’ on.

16. OmegaMom on April 4th, 2007 6:40 pm

    Came over from Dawn’s blog as well.

    Michael–I am an adoptive parent of an internationally adopted child, and infertile to boot, and I can tell you, I never, ever, in my pursuit of parenthood, thought or said something like this: “Regardless of the practices there, the children will have better lives here. The process works smoothly in Guatemala and people who *should* have children, will get them from Guatemala.”

    I have no idea what Cheryl meant in the “people who *should* have children, will get them from Guatemala”, but I can surely tell you that that one sentence reeks of entitlement to me, and implies that the (birth)mothers of babies adopted from Guatemala *shouldn’t* have children.

    Who “should” have children? Does having faulty reproductive equipment give one an automatic pass to the front of the line? I don’t think so.

    Yes, we live here in the western first-world, and we have *things* that lots of people in third-world countries don’t have. But *things* don’t guarantee love. *Things* don’t trump the right of a parent to have and keep a biological child. Claiming that it’s okay to adopt from somewhere because otherwise the children are going to die from bad drinking water or turn into prostitutes raises the question of–why not try changing the circumstances there so that the drinking water isn’t bad, and women have more opportunities to support themselves, rather than taking their children away?

17. Kate L. on April 4th, 2007 6:58 pm

    “We are college educated, wealthy, hard working Americans and can afford to raise our child (and likely others) so that she or he may attend college, grad school and have priveleged lives. ”

    Exactly what is it about this statement that ISN’T saying, “we can be better parents because we have money, wealth, privilege.”?

    Because it’s pretty damn clear to me that’s what she is saying. And if you argue that money, wealth, privilege makes one a “better” parent, more deserving parent even, then you are concluding that lack of those things makes one a “lesser” parent.

    How much differently would I feel about Cheryl if she had said, “My husband and I are very loving and caring people. We both love children and have always wanted to be parents so that we can help our child become all that he or she can be. ” I would still be upset (there’s a whole host of other issues with her comment), but my reaction would not be that she assumes that $$=good parents. Isn’t it ODD to any of you that she never said anything even REMOTELY close to those things? When she discusses that she “deserves” a child (gag), it is primarily because of their privileged status, not because she would love and protect and teach good values etc.

    So Michael and Sailorman, when you take issue with Rachel for arguing that this woman is using privilege as a marker for what makes a good parent, please rethink that.

    And Sailorman, I absolutely agree that having access to privilege can make being a good parent easier, and it can buy you a good education and other opportunities which are necessary to increase the chances of a decent life in this country. HOWEVER, $$ does not make one a good parent nor does lack of $$ make one a bad parent. And in fact, there are times I would argue that too much wealth and privilege actually contribute to making people BAD parents (but I can’t competently argue that point, it’s just how I feel).

    I dunno, what kills me the most about this woman’s whole post is that she feels she deserves a child because she is wealthy. It makes me wonder what kind of mother she will really be. And it makes me feel sorry for her potential child.

18. A_different_Cheryl on April 4th, 2007 7:12 pm

    I didn’t like pretty much anything that other Cheryl had to say, but I’m going to comment on how awful it would be to find out that your parents had essentially purchased you on the black market. She says that if she can’t get a child legally, that is what she will do. Does she think this is not going to affect the child later, when s/he asks about birthparents? Yeah, you could keep it a secret, but big secrets are pretty difficult to keep forever. And if there is secrecy around the adoption, then I would imagine that the child would sense that, and feel like there was something shaming about it. Adoption needs to be open, honest, and legal for the sake of the children as well as the first parents.

    cherylc

19. (the other) Rachel on April 4th, 2007 8:03 pm

    Right on, Rachel. Cheryl’s comment was disturbing on so many levels.

    As for the privilege issue, I’ve known lots of lousy parents with lots of money, and vice versa.

    Of course every child in the world deserves to be fed, clothed, housed, and educated, but adoption is never going to accomplish that goal. If we want to help kids, we can give money to charity or work to change the system rather than taking kids away from desperate women. Let’s be honest, this is not really about the desire to help, but about the desire to parent.

20. Margaret on April 4th, 2007 8:43 pm

    I’m an amom and I don’t think you were too hard on Cheryl. I think you said what had to be said. This is really a great post.

21. Sue on April 4th, 2007 9:32 pm

    Great post. Thanks HM for sending me over here! I want to thank you Rachel for pointing out that economic privilege should not be a determining factor in whether anyone has the right or ability to parent, whether they be parents by birth or parents by adoption.

    We have adopted internationally twice and couldn’t really afford the second adoption, had to beg for help that was slow to come. We were kept guessing until literally the last minute, whether or not there would be enough money and were often made to feel either unentitled or inordinately grateful for too little, almost too late.

    Taking children out of their families and deporting them from the country, for the sole reason that there is economic deprivation is unjustifiable, especially considering how much we are expected to pay in fees, and how little of that goes to the children and families who are left behind. The emotional price the children pay for international adoption is a major trade-off and I often wonder if we did a good thing.

    Many many adoptive parents use the rationale for international adoption that the first parents can never come and get their children back. A rationale like that is a frog’s hair away from saying corruption is OK with us, as long as we get what we want. Not with me dammit!

22. Michael on April 5th, 2007 12:36 am

    Kate L. said,

    April 4, 2007 @ 6:58 pm �We are college educated, wealthy, hard working Americans and can afford to raise our child (and likely others) so that she or he may attend college, grad school and have priveleged lives. �Exactly what is it about this statement that ISN�T saying, �we can be better parents because we have money, wealth, privilege.�?

    Fact. Cheryl did not say that having money made one a better parent nor did she say many of the statements commenters are claiming. What you are attempting is to read into her comments and claiming to know what is in her heart .

    Let’s pretend this is a reading comprehension test and you had been offered Cheryl’s post and were then required to answer the following questions either true or false .

    1.Cheryl said that poor people make bad parents .
    2. Cheryl said that rich people make better parents.

    If you answered true to either question you would be marked wrong. Consult any rhetorician and they will tell you exactly the same thing. People do this all the time. look up in the thread above this and you will see that Admin assumed Dave had said something which he didn’t actually say.

    The issue of whether wealth effects parenting is a separate one which is worthy of exploration. I specifically waited until I was financially well off and able to afford all aspects of raising my kids. This included the prospect of them being able to fully realize their potential. If my daughter wanted to become a doctor I felt that I should be able to send her to the best schools. this is my own definition of parenting. As for minimal criteria to be a good parent I feel one should be able to afford the necessities of raising a child and provide for the quality time needed to spend with them to nurture their growth. I also realize that today’s society is very different from decades past. Although I wish I had started a family earlier than I had I feel satisfied that I am in a position to provide the basics and a whole lot more. Within the next few years I plan to cut back on the amount of work I do and am in a position to retire if so wish. In this way I truly believe that I will be in a position to do MORE parenting than many of my contemporaries. How well I take advantage of this is entirely up to me.

    Contrast this to those poor who can’t afford even the basics. One can argue that they are displaying bad parenting. Also, it is certainly fair to say that abandoning or selling a child is not good parenting. One could still argue that this does not make those poor parents bad people. Perhaps in some cases they had little or no choice.

23. artsweet on April 5th, 2007 1:30 am

    I shouldn’t be, but I’m shocked to hear someone actually say:

    “I agree that it is sad that children maybe, perhaps, are being trafficked, stolen and mothers, coerced. However, we do not know that for sure and there is little proof. Likely, these people are having children, simply for monetary gain. If that is the case, then, I am fine with that.”

    Cheryl, I am horrified – as an adoptive parent to be – by your flippant dismissal of your daughter’s first family. Are you writing “these people” off as baby-sellers so that you can ignore your daughter’s connection to them? What message will you send her when you break the laws of your own country and the country of her birth to procure her sibling “on the black market.” I’m sorry – this is a child we’re talking about, not a carton of cigarettes. If legality is of so little concern to you, why not just grab the next cute baby you see in the supermarket? Oh but that baby’s from the U.S. – and that means that her mother cares about her more than a Guatemalan woman does?

    [Interestingly if paranthetically, many materially impoverished Guatemalan women don't have to worry about "no cry sleep solutions" as it turns out that the high contact child-rearing practices typical in many so-called "developing" nations actually produce babies whose needs are met and who thus cry far less than upper-middle class North American babies...]

    At the same time, this question of agency in adoption is one I really struggle with. If I say that a woman in Guatemala cannot truly consider her circumstances – and the possibility of watching her child starve to death or grow up severely malnourished – and make the difficult decision to send that child away – am I not dehumanizing her as much as Cheryl is?

    Where that leaves me – It’s crucial to me to support organizations that work to address economic injustice and improve access to reproductive choice in Guatemala. It’s crucial to me to do my homework and make sure that I am using an ethical agency and attorney so that I can look my son in the eye when I talk to him about his adoption. And I hope that we will be able to locate his first mom and connect with her, if that’s what she wants.

    For those interested in some interesting perspectives on international adoption, I recommend this public radio series.

24. Andrea on April 5th, 2007 11:08 am

    Ah, the people-having-kids-for-money card. Just like domestic welfare queens, I guess, pumping them out for the extra $100/month or whatever it is. *sigh*

    “We are college educated, wealthy, hard working Americans and can afford to raise our child (and likely others) so that she or he may attend college, grad school and have priveleged lives.”

    So were my parents. Well, except they were Canadians. And they could afford to raise me to attend university and live a privileged life. Unfortunately, they also threw me against walls when they got angry, and constantly threatened to abandon me.

    As so many others have pointed out, education, money and work ethic do not guarantee parenting skills. It certainly does not guarantee that your child will be thankful for hte material things you have provided them with–especially if you think you are entitled to their gratitude–nor that they will not wish to have spent their childhood with their birth family. I would go so far as to guess that growing up with parents that have that attitude (“aren’t you lucky for all the stuff we can buy you and the nice college we can afford to send you to!”) would be crushing to a child. Feel free to double-check that with the child psychologist of your choice.

25. Mommela on April 5th, 2007 12:23 pm

    I can only hope that Cheryl makes decisions that allow her to:
    *explain forthrightly and without feeling shame to her child;
    *explain how she actively maintained her own integrity and that of her child’s and her child’s firstfolks;
    *explain so that her child can see how the adoption was ethical.

    I’m afraid for any child placed with this woman.

26. Kate L. on April 5th, 2007 2:33 pm

    Gee Michael, could you be more condescending?

    Reading comprehension involves making inferences based on the information provided in addition to being able to reiterate the literal things she said.

    Considering the fact that the ONLY criteria she laid out for WHY she “deserves” a baby happens to be that she and her husband are well educated and wealthy, it doesn’t to me a truly far logical leap to infer that what she means is she is rich so she can be a good parent. No matter what you say Michael, you aren’t going to convince me that isn’t PRECISELY what she is saying.

    Are you seriously not the least bit disturbed that in that entire diatribe no where did she ever say that she wants a baby because she is kind, loving, caring woman who just wants the opportunity to be blessed with the trials and tribulations that is parenthood? I’m disturbed by that. Most everyone I know who has gone through infertility, adoption, etc says something along those lines. “we’d make good parents because we would really love and care for a child” She NEVER mentions those things.

    Again, being destitute absolutely can hinder your ability to be a good parent, but being wealthy does not automatically qualify you for mother of the year. Ask the menendez brothers.

27. abebech on April 5th, 2007 3:33 pm

    I haven’t read your original post (I just got here from Dawn).
    But I had (for a short time) naively thought paparents didn’t really think or say these kinds of things anymore. They seem like the kinds of things someone would invent to villainize transnational adoptive parents. And yet no one had to invent them.
    I’m a transracial/transnational amom to a remarkable little girl from the other side of the world. I have to say it’s like Cheryl and I aren’t even from the same planet.

28. B on April 5th, 2007 5:18 pm

    Andrea–I feel for you, as I and my siblings were in much the same situation. I suppose our upbringing allows us to get jobs that can pay for therapy that we wouldn’t have needed in the first place if our parents hadn’t thought that money was the only thing necessary to being a good parent.

    I’m not saying that less affluent parents are better–there are tons of f’ed up families living below the poverty line–but that doesn’t mean that money makes everything grand.

    Also, growing up among a ton of white, affluent kids, and those factors didn’t green-light all of them great careers, and certainly didn’t make them better people (like the valedictorian that cheated her way to Harvard.).

29. Michael on April 6th, 2007 1:28 am

    Kate L. said,
    April 5, 2007 @ 2:33 pm

    Gee Michael, could you be more condescending?

    Are you kidding? I could never match the down right mean and cruel comments made here about Cheryl. I won’t bother to past all the nasty remarks. As for your definition of reading comprehension, that is exactly what it is NOT. This is often why people make errors. They read into what is said rather than what actually is stated. I gave you a perfect example in the thread above this where Admin had the decency to admit she mischaracterized what David had to say,

    Kate L. also said,

    It doesn�t to me a truly far logical leap to infer that what she means is she is rich so she can be a good parent. No matter what you say Michael, you aren�t going to convince me that isn�t PRECISELY what she is saying.

    You just said you are inferring a conclusion based on what she said and then you claim to say this is ‘precisely ‘ what she is saying ? That is a contradiction. Therefore that is NOT what she PRECISELY said. Rather , it is what you are infering .

    Kate L. also said,

    Are you seriously not the least bit disturbed that in that entire diatribe no where did she ever say that she wants a baby because she is kind, loving, caring woman who just wants the opportunity to be blessed with the trials and tribulations that is parenthood? I�m disturbed by that

    NO. I take that as a given. I don’t need to hear someone tell me how caring and loving they plan to be toward a child. I have yet in all my years ever heard anyone say they plan to treat a child like dirt.

    If you read what I posted you know I have 2 adopted children. The last adoption was done with the help of a close connection involving a family member and a Chinese official. When my wife and I were asked what we had to offer a child we stated many of the same things
    mentioned by Cheryl, although we worded them quite differently. If you understand anything about where the Chinese are going with the new strict rules you will understand that they consider income to be very important. So we did stress that my daughter goes to the very best schools, studies piano, and is involved in several sports. I also mentioned that my daughter and I have been attending classes involving the culture, history and language of China. In addition, my wife’s family are part Asian and have lived and worked in the country.
    As I mentioned earlier in the thread I am NOT completely happy with all the rules and values involved in certain adoption countries. I felt that China was best for us for several reasons. The most important is that I see a real NEED. Next was the fact that these adoptions are very clean. This means I am not as likely to have someone demanding that I return a child with whom I have become bonded. Another factor involves the health of the babies. They do come with some separation anxiety and the need for a lot of holding in the early phase. There was also the fact that we have relatives with a shared heritage which will allow the child to feel they are not completely different within the family. Despite all these concerns, in the end my daughter has fit in very well with my side of the family.

    I am constantly amused by those who think they are fit to judge who is fit to be a parent or what children people should include in makes their family. the fact that Cheryl doesn’t come with exactly the opinion you have concerning wealth and adoption doesn’t
    bother me in the least .I say what I mean and I mean what I say . I give others the respect that they are doing the same . But I doubt Cheryl has some simplistic belief that having money makes a person a good parent or that poor people are somehow unable to do the job well .I also don’t think it is wrong to stress that wealth and education gives you
    an advantage in helping a child to reach his or her potential .

    My parents had truly tragic childhoods . My father and his 6 siblings were abandoned by both parents who went thier seperate ways .Mom had a wonderfuly close family that was riddled with tragedy . When my parents married they moved into a small apartment and brought with them her 2 brothers and 3 sisters .Both of her parents died within a month of thier marrying .

    My parents did make it out of poverty but not without some real pain. I remember the times when my mother cried long and hard over the shortage of money. It made my sisters nervous wrecks. We tend to romanticize poverty. When I look back I would never want my childood for my children . I make sure my niece has everything my kids have precisely because I know how it feels to have less than everyone else around me .I saw my first real play when I was in my early twenties . I started bringing my niece when she was just 2 .She was transfixed and sat in her chair the whole time and clapped only at the apropriate times . When she wanted to try dance I paid for all her classes since my sisters husband was unable to afford them . She flourished and now acts in many of the reagional plays .She has even done some small parts in commercials . Her potential is being realized partly because I can afford to offer her the chances her parents simply can’t.So yea . Money does matter when it comes to raising a child .

    Part of what makes me a good candidate for adopting a child is that I can afford all the costs of raising the child without any of the costs of not being able to provide the child with those things the child needs, not only to survive, but to flourish

30. amber on April 6th, 2007 9:53 am

    Can someone send this woman’s comments to her adoption practitioner?

31. Nancy on April 6th, 2007 12:01 pm

    We adopted internationally 15 years ago and the same hot button issues existed then. Despite the Hague Convention it seems they persist.

    Wealthy parents in a wealthy country adopting children from poor famiies in a poor country are, by definition, in murky ethical waters. It is possible to adopt ethically under these circumstances but only if the adopters proactively take steps to ensure the adoption is ethical and legal.

    We owe it to our children to be able to say to them: “We loved you enough to do everything in our power to ensure that your birthfamily freely relinquished you–that you were not stolen or sold.” To do less is to say that our child’s origins are not worth caring about.

    Studies have shown that when an orphanage is opened in a poor, developing country, more children are abandoned by their birthfamilies and placed in the orphanage than before. When you are trying to raise children in conditions of desperate poverty, it is easy to understand how one might choose to do that. In fact, in the U.S. this practice occurred. Parents would sometimes place kids in an orphanage for a limited time while they tried to improve their economic circumstances, planning to claim their children again when they were better able to provide for them. Sometimes these temporary placements never ended.

    When we adopt children from developing countries, we are changing the dynamics of parenting in that country, whether we intend to or not. I believe the only ethical choice is to be very careful about how we go about it. Fortunately, as other posters have mentioned, there plenty of good resources out there to help.

    While we are in the adoption process, we get consumed by it. The expense, paperwork, emotional rollercoaster all take up our attention. It is easy to forget that this is all about becoming a parent. Once the child from a developing country, especially where the child is of another race and ethnicity than the adoptive parents, is at home, we will have many more issues to address. Adoptive parents who have contempt for or even just indifference to their child’s birth country, culture, and most of all parents, are going to convey that to their child. This is not good.

    I have biological and adopted children (one of each). My adopted child is 15 and has been working through many adoption issues. We are very close and I can’t convey how important it has been to our relationship that I can look her in the eye and say that we made sure her adoption was legal and voluntary.

    We have visited her hometown in northeastern Brazil and plan to do so again when we can afford it. I speak some Portuguese. When we were there last, we were interviewed by a local TV station about Americans adopting from Brazil (we did this before the Hague Convention came into effect). We were told that although many international adoptions had been carried out there, we were the first adoptive family to return for a visit. That seemed very sad to us.

    When you adopt a child from another country, you are adopting that country and culture. If not, you are disinheriting your child. Adoption losses are many and most are inevitable. Sadly, some of them are voluntary, when adoptive parents don’t bother to engage with their child’s birth culture. It’s a frustrating loss. My daughter’s birth culture and our connections to it have only enriched all of our lives. Our love of it and respect for the people of her birth country are a way of showing her that she has our love and respect.

    What adopted children need to survive includes the knowledge that their adoptive parents have done everything they can to bridge the gap between birth and adoptive family and culture.

32. harlowmonkey on April 6th, 2007 12:17 pm

    Michael, I now understand your critique. You are an adoptive parent. It makes sense. I wonder if you can set aside the defensiveness about your own personal decision to adopt from China and read Rachel’s comments without taking it as a personal attack on your own decision to adopt. Many other adoptive parents of children adopted transnationally are able to look at the specific criticisms without taking it personally. You’ve criticized others on this thread for making inferences about Cheryl’s intentions but you’ve done the same, just in the other direction.

33. harlowmonkey on April 6th, 2007 12:20 pm

    I just want to add that it is often said that parents come into adoption with the best of intentions. I work in adoptions and I can tell you unequivocally that that is not always true. People come to adoption for many, many reasons and not all of them are ethical or well-intentioned.

34. Nicole on April 7th, 2007 1:04 am

    Also came from Dawn’s blog.

    So here’s what I’m thinking: if the pain of infertility gives people a free pass to adopt unethically, does the pain of relinquishment give ME a free pass to kidnap back my child?

    (JUST KIDDING PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry, not trying to perpetuate stereotypes against us first moms… would never ever do it.)

    But REALLY. That’s the logical conclusion to the argument, isn’t it? Cheryl?

35. Elizabeth on April 7th, 2007 1:15 am

    Sadly, this kind of “entitlement” mentality is one of the reason’s that all AP’s get tarred with the same brush. It makes me cringe to hear statements of this type. One thing that Cheryl will come to realize (I hope) is that a theoretical child is a lot different from a living, breathing one. I can’t even imagine having to tell my child (who has a lot of questions about her birthparents) that she might have been sold, or that her mother might have been coerced into placing her for adoption. When her child starts asking questions, what will she say then to that tear-stained face? That child, who would probably have gladly stayed with the birthfamily, regardless of how many swingsets and ponies you can buy for her.
    Parents who confuse money and societal position with the basic things that children need, are going to have very confused children. This prospective AP shows no understanding of the issues that face most children of adoption, and also shows a shocking lack of respect/understanding for the country of origin, or the first family. Unless she educates herself, she will certainly pass this attitude on to her child(ren.)
    I also fail to see how she can hope to help her child(ren) deal with issues of racial identity, when she seems to think simply raising them to be wealthy and college-educated will make all of these issues magically go away. Maybe she means that because her latino kids will be wealthy and well-educated, they will be model minorities, and not like, you know, those other ones… nudge, nudge, wink, wink…
    This really reminds me, in a very scary way, of the attitude of the white family who basically kidnapped Anna Mae He from her birthparents in Tennessee, and used the excuse “well, we can be so much better parents because we live in America and can give her more, and a better life, than her family, who want to take her back to *gasp* China!!!”
    Sad, sad, sad.

36. Michael on April 7th, 2007 3:45 am

    harlowmonkey said

    You�ve criticized others on this thread for making inferences about Cheryl�s intentions but you�ve done the same, just in the other direction.

    No, I take people for what they say rather than trying to inject what I think they might have concept that Rachel and others are trying to convey. I just disagree with some of them.

    I studied each country very closely to assure exactly what I was getting myself into. I also admit I am not comfortable with some aspects of China’s rules and regulations. We chose to adopt there for the reasons I mentioned. Especially at the time we adopted there was a real need and the conditions for females were quite dire. Anyone who went to China and witnessed the conditions would tell you the same thing.

    Conditions in other countries vary with each having its own set of problems. I especially disagree with Rachel when it comes to the issue of adoptions in Guatemala. Her romantic vision of what children face there is far from reality. Unfortunately I believe we would only be exacerbating the pain and suffering of children by getting involved there.

    Believe me. The true heroes who are adopting are the ones who take the most difficult to adopt kids. The older kids or the kids with severe emotional or physical handicaps. We have become quite close with several families who have done exactly that. This is one reason I get frustrated with people who think that gay folks should not be allowed to adopt. We know several who have opened their hearts and homes to children who otherwise would
    languish in situations other than loving permanent homes.

    Adopting isn’t easy. That might deter the faint of heart or some people who wish to adopt for the wrong reasons. But in the end you get a whole bunch of responsibility and a lot of work. You also spend many sleepless nights with perhaps a few minutes to type away at the keyboard. But you look at that little human being and just have to be amazed. Life really is good .

37. Addie Pray on April 7th, 2007 11:43 am

    Oh my, it is something to see when things left unsaid aren’t.

    Very revealing.

    Entitlement, is a hell of a drug.

38. Kathy on April 7th, 2007 5:12 pm

    I feel so. so sorry for you Cheryl. I truly hope that you will take the time
    to read the comments, as Harlows Monkey suggested to Michael,
    and try to imagine, for just one fleeting moment even, how your
    adopted child will someday feel. I hope Cheryl, that you read
    Harlows Monkey and all the other TRA blogs before making such
    a sorrowful choice for your baby. I hope you can take the time,
    before your baby arrives, to read how Nicole feels and all the
    other first mothers. The information is there for you. You
    will not have any excuse other than your own overwhelming
    desperation. And that desperation won’t cut it. Think about
    it, please. It’s ok to cry. I know that you are very likely
    in a lot of pain. I’m sure you must feel you are being attacked
    here for your insensitive comments. I hope someday that
    you will realize that your baby, the one you want to hold and
    love and care for, deserves more.

39. A former gift of great Joy on April 7th, 2007 9:05 pm

    These attitudes are very hard to read as an adoptee, I hate how some people cough cough Michael clearing throat Cheryl, completly miss the important fact that these babies they “neeeeeeed” are real people who are inexorably part of their original family, and all the wonderful benefits (using that important word) may not mean anything to the wonderful gift itself, using myself as an example, missing my mom made it hard for me to concentrate in fancy private school with view of ocean.

    It is hard for people to understand, I know why wonderful gifts like myself prefer our families over swimming pools, but we do, and while I am very sorry for infertility, please don’t impose your problem on my life, being a human band-aid is exhausting trust me, being a wonderful gift is a lot more work than one sees from the outside

40. Professor Zero on April 7th, 2007 10:34 pm

    Great post Rachel. Horrors of U.S. adoption: I do know people who have adopted children in state care at low cost. I also know people who have adopted in an open adoption, which took more work to arrange, but they did not seem to mind.

41. John on April 9th, 2007 2:32 am

    Michael writes:

    �As for your definition of reading comprehension, that is exactly what it is NOT. This is often why people make errors. They read into what is said rather than what actually is stated.�

    I�m not sure where you find your definitions for �reading comprehension� although I know you�ve referenced such a definition a few times in your previous statements, but I will put down the National Institute for Literacy�s definition:

    –Reading comprehension is understanding a text that is read, or the process of “constructing meaning” from a text. Comprehension is a “construction process” because it involves all of the elements of the reading process working together as a text is read to create a representation of the text in the reader’s mind.–

    Now, I�m not a star rhetorician as you Michael � nor do I have any in my immediate group of friends to consult (as you�ve suggested in a prior comment) � but I don�t see where in that definition it requires the reader to �literary� interpret (“what actually is stated”), for it to fall under �reading comprehension�. In fact, the definition clearly states that �comprehension is a �construction process��involves ALL of the elements of the reading process working together�to create a REPRESENTATION of the text in the reader�s mind.� Sounds fishily like �inference� to me � or at least, an educated deduction of not only what the writer literary wrote, but also what the text �represents� for me, the reader.

    With that put aside,

    Cheryl writes:
    �Regardless of the practices there, the children will have better lives here.�

    Reading comprehensively, the �representation of the text in the reader�s [that would be me] mind� is pretty clear: ALL ADOPTED CHILDREN FROM GUATEMALA NOT BROUGHT TO AMERICA WILL HAVE WORSE LIVES THERE. That seems, as you like to put it, a �logical fallacy� to me. It�s personally offensive, and a sweeping generalization that is impossible to defend.

    Cheryl writes:
    �The process works smoothly in Guatemala and people who *should* have children, will get them from Guatemala. We are college educated, wealthy, hard working Americans and can afford to raise our child (and likely others) so that she or he may attend college, grad school and have priveleged lives.�

    Again, this is a sweeping generalization � ALL processes at EVERY adoption agency in Guatemala (or elsewhere), for a fact, DO NOT work smoothly. Again, Cheryl is offensively righteous in her statement that �people who *should* have children, will get them from Guatemala�. Fact: people who shouldn�t (and we�ll take just one example of �abusive� parents) have in fact adopted from Guatemala (and elsewhere) � how many or what are the percentages? I don�t know, but that would be a worthwhile study.

    Fact: She�s college educated, but unable to spell privilege correctly.

    Fact: She follows her statement about �who *should* have children, will get them�, with a qualifying sentence supporting the statement, ��college educated, wealthy, hard working�can afford�privileged lives�. Is there a causal conjunction like �because� written out? No, but there is a classic formation of a syllogistical argument.

    But what does that all mean? For me, as the reader, �creating a representation of the text�, it shows a scary ownership of Guatemalan children based upon valuing a parents� financial assets, rather than their emotional, psychological, etc. assets. Perhaps that�s not what YOU comprehended Michael, but that�s ok, because it�s obvious on this board, that that�s what the general consensus seems to be.

    Cheryl writes:
    �What do you prefer? These Guatemalan girls (and boys) spend their time on the streets, sniffing glue and becoming prostitutes?? Dying at age 35? I don�t believe in Darwin, etc� so don�t even go there with me.�

    Fact: Not ALL non-adopted Guatemalan girls (and boys) will become drug sniffing prostitutes on the street. Fact: Literally comprehending what she�s saying, she thinks that if �Americans, Canadians and even Europeans� (previously stated) do NOT adopt these children, they will inevitably (liberal use of an adverb here) become glue sniffing street prostitutes. That�s not a figment of my imagination Michael, that IS comprehending the reading of Cheryl�s statement.

    Michael, I could go on and on about Cheryl�s many shortcomings and shortsightedness in her comment � but many of them have already been elaborated upon by yourself and past posters. I value your obvious conviction, and valiant effort in making this a rhetorical and or syntax-ical argument, but as an international TRA (who has had a great life � so don�t even think about putting me in the box of �abused, angry adoptee�) this isn�t rhetorical, and this isn�t about wordplay or an exegesis of someone�s writing, it�s my life. This isn�t really about Cheryl, or really about her single comment, it�s about changing an opinion, a vision of what adoption is, the roles of each participant, and yes, the deconstruction and deeper understanding of the moral questions behind its practice and continuation. Let�s make it about THAT, and NOT about your excellence in self-indulgent expository writing.

42. maria on April 9th, 2007 12:03 pm

    I believe in the adoption of orphaned children. I believe in giving a woman the opportunity of giving her unplanned child up for adoption. In general, I believe in adoption. I don’t believe in coercion and I don’t believe in having children for economic profit. As a Guatemalan, I do think that many children will benefit from being adopted, but Cheryl’s response made me quite angry. I hope you don’t raise your adopted children thinking that economic priviledge is what makes a good person. I was quite shocked to read that she’d go black market, and mostly, I was shocked at her disrespect for the country her children will come from. You’re comments about why it is fine to adopt in Guatemala, under any circumstance would never fly in the U.S. or Europe. Means to an end? Quite Machiavellican.

43. Deb on April 9th, 2007 9:26 pm

    As adoptive parents, I think we are obligated to carefully examine our own motives and the circumstances that lead to our children becoming part of our lives. We will have to explain all of those things to them one day, and our children deserve thoughtful answers. They will be the final, and only qualified, judge of whether or not we’ve been “good” parents. No matter what kind of parent we’ve been, no matter what material advantages we’ve given them, I’ve come to believe we can never compensate for their having lost their birth families, and in many cases their birth cultures. Can we offer them “better lives?” Perhaps, but we’ll never know what might have happened. Perhaps a particular child would have ended up in prostitution and “sniffing glue”. . . or perhaps they would have overcome the obsticles they faced and lived happy and fufilled lives surrounded by their birth families and communities.

    How can we possibly judge what leads a birth family to place a child for adoption, or abandon a child? Does it make it more palatable for us to assume that the birth mother was just in it for the money, she didn’t (couldn’t possibly?) love or want the child the way we do? Do we say she’s poor, or uneducated, or stupid, or mentally ill, or on drugs, or abusive, and doesn’t “deserve” to have a child? Maybe it makes it easier on you. . . but that doesn’t make it true. And once again, our children deserve the truth.

    I wrestle daily with the ethical questions my international adoption raises. For me, domestic adoption raises some of the same questions. How many birth mothers, if they had adequate financial and social support, would instead choose to parent? Perhaps unfairly, domestic adoption is even more troubling to me, because American society *COULD* afford to provide that support, if we so chose, to those women and families. But perhaps that’s just my own rationalization for having adopted internationally. Then again, looking to countries like Korea with its first world economy, and China with its burgeoning economy, I ask myself if adopting from these countries encourages them not to address the human costs of social attitudes and poverty.

    There are no easy answers; the questions and the situations that provoke them are heartbreakingly difficult. But I don’t think that finding something unpleasant is an adequate reason to avoid thinking about it.

    But, then again, I also think that we should consider the needs of the child first, second, and third, the birth family next. . . and of we adoptive parents in distant last place. (ok, with the caveat that we too need good post-adoption support to help us and our children navigate all the issues we face!)

44. The Local Crank on April 10th, 2007 3:41 am

    Some of the justifications of your original poster sound PAINFULLY similar to the rationale for 100 years of government policy that advocated kidnapping Indian babies and having them raised by white families who specifically denied their heritage, BECAUSE IT WAS FOR THEIR OWN GOOD! These kind of abuses finally lead to the Indian Child Welfare Act, but there are still unknown numbers of Indian adults who will likely never reconnect with their culture.
    As for the idea that domestic adoption is a “nightmare,” I’m not sure where that is coming from. I’m an attorney, I’ve done dozens of adoptions. The process is relatively quick and painless; the main delay is finding a baby. And therein, I think, lies the unspoken point-most people who want to adopt in America are white middle-class couples who want a white healthy newborn. If a white healthy newborn isn’t immediately available, then many will consider a Chinese or Guatamalan (or wherever is trendy) HEALTHY NEWBORN. Unfortunately, that leaves US social services agencies with many perfectly wonderful, loving, beautiful older children of color or children with special needs who will likely never leave the system.

45. Recommended reading at Anti-Racist Parent - for parents committed to raising children with an anti-racist outlook on April 10th, 2007 10:01 am

    [...] My Response to a Comment Left by a Potential Transracial/Transnational Adoptive Mother – Rachel’s Tavern “Does being privileged really make one a good parent? What about values such as respect, honesty, compassion, and determination. It seems to me that those are values that make a good parent, not one�s saving account balance or the number of degrees on the wall.” [...]

46. Paige on April 10th, 2007 6:13 pm

    Dear Cheryl,

    Let’s cut to the chase. You (and people like you) frighten me. You talk of your parenting skills as though they are something you can get through some sort of point system overly contingent on whatever degrees you have hanging from your office wall and whatever your current net worth is. As an adoptee, let me assure you that no one DESERVES a child anymore than anyone really KNOWS how to be a parent. As someone who is in the process of adopting internationally, it is my hope that you find a way to work through your bitterness and your inherent superiority compex before your child arrives. You may have all the money in the world & a degree from Harvard, Yale & Princeton, but you’ve got nothing on someone who adopts with both an open heart and an open mind. For your child’s sake, I hope you become that person.

    Bless you on your path,
    Paige

47. My response to the Rachel’s Tavern commenter at Anti-Racist Parent - for parents committed to raising children with an anti-racist outlook on April 16th, 2007 10:01 am

    [...] Earlier this week, Rachel from Rachel’s Tavern shared with me a comment left on her blog in response to a post about the U.S.’s decision to end working with Guatemala’s adoption program. Rachel did a fantastic job responding to the points left by this commenter and I also wanted to respond but felt I needed to wait so I could really put together a thoughtful response not imbued with reactionary emotional comments. [...]

48. erinberry on April 19th, 2007 3:42 am

    As a commenter to the original post, I’m HORRIFIED by Cheryl’s response that a. she feels that money and/or education entitles her to a child, b.she doesn’t care if women are being paid to produce children or being coerced into relinquishing their children, and c. she is openly stating she would adopt a child “on the black market”, in which a child could have been STOLEN from his/her parents.

    Her post demonstrates a complete lack of morals. Guatemalan women do not in any way, shape, or form, exist to produce children for middle-class infertile Americans.

    And this quote: ” I don�t believe in Darwin, etc� so don�t even go there with me.”

    What the f*ck does that even mean?!

49. Leah on April 29th, 2007 4:50 am

    Hi,
    Some perspective on other people looking to adopt and what might drive them to look for a baby overseas.

    Relevant info: My husband and I are hoping to adopt a child. Several points: I am 40 he is 25 ( yes we do have a real marriage, a stable home life ), also I have had PCOS since I was a teen. We are a modern orthodox jewish couple, with a culturally rich home life, but not the bank account that usually goes with overseas adoption. We did not set out to adopt an infant, but rather an older child from the US, and have found our options limited so far by our rather unusual circumstances.( age difference, religious beliefs…prospective adoptive parents have to deal with biases too.)

    We do not have a racial or gender preferences, yet were told by various charity and “save the children” groups that there is a looong waiting list for babies of any background.( still not sure that is true…we are still looking. Read on…) We want to adopt a child to give a loving home and pass on the traditions and values of our families, as well as those of their birth country or background. We do not feel a sense of entitlement or that we are “rescuing” anyone, just hope and a sense of wanting to be a family together, to share holidays, music, laughter, and yes, tears when they happen…. Love.Not uncommon desires anywhere in the world.We are saving up and fundraising (selling homemade artwork, magazines, etc…) in order to adopt a child.

    We have looked at the welfare system and have been told by social workers that because we are a religious jewish family that older non- jewish kids would not be happy in our home ( we are not so sure that this is true , but in this case we have been told we are too “inflexible” with our lifestyle,- a report written by someone who had never heard of a sabbath-observant home and decided we were fanatics or something). So we looked for older jewish kids to adopt and found many available as foster children, but so far none available for legal adoption…So we looked for birthmothers and heard the horror stories of shady lawyers, birthmothers coerced by parents, agencies, the birthfather,religious groups… You never know if what they tell you is true.Something else to consider.

    Recently we have found an agency founded by parents who had been swindled and lied to during their own adoption processes, and are trying to do LEGEL,ETHICAL adoptions overseas. We are doing all the research we can to guarantee that this adoption will not be a bad thing on either side of the fence no matter where we are lucky to adopt from, but there are no real guarantees. The world is a complicated place. We are doing our very best and pray that it is the right thing. We hope our future children will be happy. There are no guarantees about that, but again we will give them all that love can.

    If anyone knows of a child available for adoption please contact me at yarnzilla@hotmail.com.

    Thanks for the very engaging dialogs on this site, and for your time.

    Leah

50. Jackie Kerr on May 26th, 2007 4:46 am

    As an adoptive mother myself I was appalled by your comments Cheryl. In particular I was deeply offended by your presumptions about wealth and education equalling quality parenting, and your self serving justifications for a less than proper process. I know little about the American system of intercountry adoption but nothing less than complete probity is required to ensure that the best interests of every children are met.

    I don’t care how hard life has been for you in trying to have a family. The adoption system should be set up to prevent people regardless of their wealth and education from adopting any child unless and until they can understand the complexities of intercountry adoption from the point of view of the children.

    Cheryl, a bit of grace and humility would go a long way towards showing that you are prepared for the challenges of raising an emotionally and spiritually rich child.

51. Lori Askeland on June 3rd, 2007 12:34 pm

    Leah, you said, ” So we looked for older jewish kids to adopt and found many available as foster children, but so far none available for legal adoption�”

    As a former foster parent, I can tell you that foster parenting IS parenting, and it does establish an honest relationship with the first family, which can be very helpful. Many times the children are eventually available for adoption. No there are no guarantees about how the relationship will develop, but I hope you and other pre-adoptive parents will seriously consider it. There are so many families who need foster carers.

52. Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Europeans Try to Kidnap Chadian Children From Their Families on November 2nd, 2007 2:47 pm

    [...] no need to respect the rights of poor black African families.1 Why or why am I having flashbacks to this old Rachel’s Tavern post/comment? I was so angry at that woman. I could barely contain myself. [...]

Leave a Reply