A great blog appeared yesterday on Shakesville: Breaking the Silence on Living Pro-Lifer’s Choice for Women posted by first mom “Shaker Anonymous.” It really tears the lid off the anti-abortion pro-adoptionist arguments.
It speaks for itself, so I won’t comment on it here.
Here’s a snip:
They’re [anti-aborts] always blatting on about how concerned they are for us, apparently because women aren’t capable of making decisions without the gently guiding hand of all-knowing patriarchy, lest we irreparably damage our emotions and drown in a whirlpool of remorseful tears. They care ever so deeply about the long-term psychological effects of not having at least 10 months to consider whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, but no mention is ever made about women who actually do give up the baby. Seems to me that anyone who actually does so is lauded far and wide for Doing the Right Thing, but is simultaneously despised for being an unnatural uterus-bearing mechanism which has horribly malfunctioned. Where the fuck did that narrative come from, and why does everyone buy into it at some level?
Thanks to Maryanne for the heads up!
HOLY FRAK, that was awesome. I could hug or kiss or buy that blogger a coffee. I agree with every single point.
Thanks for sharing.
Good blog. Good stuff. Thanks.
Here’s another piece I’ve liked recently, not in quite the same vein but it goes for the jugular:
i <3 Holt don't you??
Wow, does that say it or what? I still harbor a suspicion that the anti-choicers are in cahoots with the adoption industry. They make it a dichotomy…terminate or surrender. What about the option of keeping and raising if you decide to carry? What about the option os using birth control? Jeez! Great piece!
It is amazing the number of comments on this article from people who “had no idea…” “never thought about how adoption affects birth mothers, etc. This one is really reaching people outside of adoption reform!
Also amazing, the lack of the usual nasties outraged that anyone dare criticize any aspect of adoption.
This piece and its response cheered me up a lot!
“…simultaneously despised for being an unnatural uterus-bearing mechanism which has horribly malfunctioned. Where the fuck did that narrative come from, and why does everyone buy into it at some level?”
Just remember who the paying customers are. Adopters feel better about themselves if they believe they “rescued” their children from a walking uterus rahter than from a REAL living breathing woman. “Thank you so much for your sacrifice – now shut up and go away.”
What about the option of keeping and raising if you decide to carry?
Nope, “anti-choicers” never ever provide help for women who want to raise there children. Not at all!
Just want to add that it gave me an extra boost to see this terrific piece posted on an avowedly feminist blog.
It has always seemed to me that mainstream feminism in particular has always cared more about what it gets out of adoption than the negative aspects of the practice.
In fact I’d go so far as to say that it has turned its face away from the dark side.
This article and the responses to it give me hope.
Kippa wrote; “It has always seemed to me that mainstream feminism in particular has always cared more about what it gets out of adoption than the negative aspects of the practice.”
You are 100% right on that perception, Kippa. We have reached out to NOW in the past because, let’s face it, this IS a women’s issue. They refused to even extend the ten-foot pole in our direction. Yep, there were adopters in the heirarchy of NOW.
“Yep, there were adopters in the heirarchy of NOW. “
It would be extraordinary if there were not.
We never got far with mainstream feminists in the past. Carole Anderson of CUB made some outreach to them in the 70s, and even got an article on surrender and adoption into an early edition of “Our Bodies, Ourselves”. My name and Lee Campbell’s were on it as well as we did some brainstorming but it was really Carole’s article. In general, though, feminists did not want to hear from us any more than right wingers did.
But, as you say, there were many adoptive parents in NOW and other feminist groups, and still are, especially since little girls from China became a hot item.
With some exceptions feminists in the US come from the same demographic as most adoptive parents, upper middle to upper class, highly educated, and eventually affluent, although many start as starving students.
That is one of the reasons this blog is so exciting and unexpected; that so many with feminist sympathies “get it”, even those who never thought about birth mother issues before.
Exactly, Maryanne. Middle class, college educated would be me. Though at the time we adopted neither of us had well paid permanent jobs, nor did we have much in savings or own a home. Like you say, all that (such as it is) came later.
I posted this article by feminist law professor Anita Allen elsewhere some time ago. It seems relevant to this discussion.
A quote from the article:
“Increasingly, educated career women are facing the tragedy of wanting to get pregnant but not being able to” (Overblown, not?)
and another, also by the author, from comments:
“I have found a completly satisfying solution to infertility in adoption. I regret that others don’t view adoption as the perfect solution to their personal pain in a well-populated world with pockets of overpopulation. “