Blog Post 4, Option 1

Listening to the speaker on Tuesday, brought a new perspective of adoption to light that I had not thought of before; seeking the birth parent.  More importantly, empowering the adoptee and giving them the choice to seek their birth parent rather than the other way around.  I loved how Linda said "it was unfair that she contacted me without my consent", when she referred to the older women looking for her during her freshman year of college.  

This brings up a great point in regards to ethics, since the adoptee is the most powerless person in the system.  From before they were born, their choices have been made for them, and often, until they turn 18, they have little to no say in how they wish to have a relationship with their birth parent.  The argument about the open record policy is extremely difficult too!  She would have to pay $400 to have an attempt at finding out who her birth parents are.  The amount of money it costs isn't the issue, it is more or less the issue that the government and birth parent made the choice that the adoptee does not get to know that information.  She made a great point that, as a 48 year old Physcology professor, she can handle the emotions of finding the truth.     

I could not even begin to fathom the idea of not knowing my roots or ethnicity.  Especially when it comes to medical records and family history, I would be terrified.  I really appreciated her openness and all of her stories because it brings to light yet another view from the adoption perspective.  In my personal opinion, I believe records should be open.  I want to hear an actual argument why they should be closed other than the privacy of the birth parent.  

Brandon Kasper

Blogpost #4 Option 1

I really appreciated hearing Tuesday's guest speaker's story. We’ve read a bit about adoptees, but it was nice to physically hear her story as an adoptee and being able to interact with her. She brought a new perspective regarding open records to my attention. Before her presence in class, I was a strong proponent for open records. Reading chapter two of “Adoption Nation” further developed my stance on open records as being necessary. Adam Pertman stated that, “Adoptees are the only U.S. citizens who don’t automatically have the right to obtain the records relating to their births” (pg. 35). This made me think about the unfairness that adoptees face by not being able to obtain basic information that is important to them, such as their parents’ names, parents’ health, etc. Pertman described the difficulties that many adoptees go through when acquiring birth records and how many of the requests are denied. He stated that some adoptees might be able to get their records if they have a justifiable reason, according to the courts, but that curiosity would not cut it. After reading this, I felt that adoptees are being oppressed on the grounds that they are not allowed to find out basic information about themselves. I believed that open records should be granted to adoptees and that it is their human right. 

However, the guest speaker swayed my opinion about open records. She pointed out that the issue of records concerns the adoptee, adoptive parents and birthparents. From the birthparents’ perspective, closed records protect their privacy and their desire to remain anonymous to their child. My original standpoint on open records was from an adoptee perspective, and I didn’t consider others involved. I still do not have a well defined take on open records, but I now I see why some people are against open records. It seems that open records protect the rights of some (usually the birthparents), while impairing others’ right to knowledge about themselves (usually the adoptees). This is definitely an ethical dilemma because people’s rights of privacy and protection are at stake. I thought it was very ethical of the guest speaker to have a neutral stance on the birth records and to be able to see it from the prospective of her birthparents, whom she’s had no contact. 

Blog Post 3, Option 1 Home Study

For class today, we were given a list of some of the questions that could be found for a prospective adoptive parent home study. I thought this was very interesting to see, as I know many families who have gone through this process to adopt and I myself hope to adopt some day.

To start off, I think this is a good list of questions to get an idea of who the people are, though it is hard to know if it is the truth since it is a self-report. I wouldn't add or subtract any questions, but the set of questions that could be hard for some couples are the ones about their parenting philosophy. These could be difficult to answer if you have never had kids before. I feel like even though you may think you know what your parenting philosophy is before you have kids, that is likely to change once you are actually living with them. They are good questions to ask, but it needs to be taken into consideration that those who do not already have children may not know entirely how to answer these questions, and their answers are bound to change once they actually are parents.

I think the amount of time it would take to answer these questions can vary. It may take 2 hours, or it may take 5. It all depends on the personality of the prospective parents and the answers that they give. I think it is important to do a thorough interview, but know that it shouldn't necessarily be your only source of information about the couple. I think coworkers, friends, family, and other acquaintances should also be contacted so that more bases are covered.

As far as the question of non-adoptive parents having to go through a similar reflection process, I think that is something that naturally comes during the 9 month waiting process of the pregnancy. It is obviously much harder for adoptive parents to be truly prepared if they don't go through some sort of process like this because they don't have the physical reminder of a pregnant belly that they will be parents in "x" amount of weeks. It is something my mom talks about a lot with the pre-natal classes she teaches. During the pregnancy period, they talk about questions like these to get the parents-to-be ready to welcome another member into their family.

In the end, I don't think it is too intrusive to ask questions like this to prospective adoptive parents. They need to understand what they are getting into and how they will be able to handle it.

Blog Post #3, Option 1

I decided to reflect on the Homestudy reading for this blog post.  It took me a very long time to complete this assignment solely because I stopped to think about answering many questions for a different perspective.  I believe the questions asked were fairly reasonable, but you still do not get the whole picture of a person from these questions.  My answers probably did not give the agency a holistic view of who I am, nor do I think any amount of questions could.  One question that I struggled with was “Describe yourself”.  I could not begin to fathom the weight and unfairness of this question.  How is somebody supposed to describe their personality and emotions in words?  I did not like that question very much, since you can describe yourself very differently depending on the arena you are in. 

Since I know that the only thing standing between me and my child is these questions for the social worker to review, I am going to give the warmest and nurturing answers I can configure.  I would hate this process due to the high level of stress that goes into each question.  If you answer one question poorly, it could negatively affect the outcome of you getting your child; just one wrong answer. 

The questions asked were loaded to give a social worker an easier task of determining whether we are emotionally, physically and financially able to meet the needs of a child.  Sure, these questions do a great job at determining the current state of the adoptive parent, but only one question probes the idea of future change; do you plan any changes with your job?.  That is the only question that suggests that a person can actually change over time.  It’s possible that these questions eliminate some of the people who are unfit to be parents, but what if circumstances change?  I guess they can re-apply. 

I am willing to bet if I wholeheartedly sat down and took answered this questionnaire it would take me approximately one week to finalize, if not more.  You can never have enough time to express yourself in words, especially when it relates to something of this level of importance and desire.

       

I do not believe non-adoptive parents should have to go through the same process.  I think you cannot determine if a person is going to be a good parent or not simply by how they answer questions.  I believe parenting is just like anything else in life, you learn as you go and you gain all of your knowledge from experiences and examples.      

The question I pose is, what type of answers do social workers look for when choosing adoptive parents?  Do you believe this a fair way to determine if a person is fit to adopt? 

Brandon Kasper

Blogpost #3, Option 1

The “About yourself” portion of the home study is the easiest part. The questions are pretty straightforward and basic, but they are important to be asked of a prospective parent. This will give the adoption agency a glimpse of the adoptive parent’s personality. The rest of the sections are a bit more tricky. The “About your marriage relationship/support system” section gets more personal, with questions regarding communication and decision making in the marriage. It should be a simple question, but it’s hard to write about how decisions are made between two people because it often differs from time to time. The parenting philosophy section of the home study would probably be the most difficult, especially if the adoptive parent has no parenting experience. I think it’s unnecessary to ask about how the parent plans to encourage, disciple and nurture. It’s one of those things that you do not know until you are actually in the situation. Every adoptive parent is going to make it sound like he/she is going to be the best parent and write that he/she has a parenting philosophy. As an adoptive parent, I would feel that the questions in the parenting philosophy section are not an accurate way to gauge whether or not a person should qualify for being an adoptive parent. When I first glanced at the ethical and religious values part of the home study, I felt that it was prying too much into a person’s life about asking questions regarding their religious belief system. However, once I thought about it in depth, I realized that it is an important question to ask because religion can constitute a person’s life. Therefore, it is important to know the beliefs that adoptive parents hold. The health and financial questions are also necessary questions. The home study should ask more questions as to why the person wants to be a parent, what qualifies them to be a considered a “good” parent, what they have to offer to a child, etc. This will better assess the intention and suitability of the person as an adoptive parent. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services website provides a more detailed description of the home study report. One of the questions that it lists on the website is for the adoptive parents to describe his/her feelings about openness with the birth family. This is a very necessary question to include in the report , and it would require a lot of thought. It’s something that needs to be completely considered before the adoption takes place. With the addition of the above mentioned questions, I feel that the home study does a fair job in assessing the suitability of the person to adopt. 

-Jill Yanish

Blogpost #2; Group post

Face of oppression: Powerlessness

1.       A. “The powerless are those who lack authority or power even in this mediated sense, those over whom power is exercised without their exercising it; the powerless are situated so that they must take orders and rarely have the right to give them.”  (Young, pp. 56).  There is a divide from one class to the other and it is hard to cross the boundary between the two.  The privileged are often born into the group of privileged and the rest try to be resilient.  In this particular context, powerlessness refers to the way in which workers are divided and segmented into jobs with individualism and authority and jobs with little or no autonomy and authority. Workers in lower-status jobs experience more powerlessness (both on the job and in the sphere of politics) than workers with professional jobs. At the same time, giving some workers a little bit of autonomy on the job can undermine a sense of solidarity that they might otherwise feel towards all workers.      

2.       The social groups that are affected are the non-professionals, and those that benefit are the professionals.  Young uses examples of authority to describe this situation.  Due to the non-professionals lack of power, professionals are able to manipulate power over the non-professionals.  They determine authority and, generally, how they function in their professional setting. 

3.       The most obvious setting of powerlessness oppression is at work.  There are "professionals" and "non-professionals" in all settings of work. For example, in manufacturing companies, the manager is the "professional" and those doing the manual labor are the "non-professionals". Another setting affected is home life because of the child-parent relationship. The parents possess the power, and the children often do not have much power (at least for a certain amount of time when they are younger).

4.       How does this form function?  There are three aspects that an individual must have in order to be a privileged professional. First, in order to acquire a practicing profession, individuals are required to obtain a college education, allowing for progressive development.  Second, most professionals "have considerable day-to-day work autonomy" (Young, pp. 57). Though they may not have a direct influence on everyone, they do have at least some privilege to make choices.  Third, professionals gain "respectability" through dress, speech, tastes, and demeanor.
           Those who lack these aspects are susceptible to the powerlessness of oppression. In today’s world, it is hard to get a job without a college degree.  It seems that things are even leading down the path of grad school.  If we were to go apply for a professional job wearing blue jeans and a t-shirt with no college education, chances are we would not land that job.  The reasons why we didn’t go to college might be because we were not privileged enough.  These privileges are easier to obtain for a person who has been around power than a person who has not. 

5.       Adoptive parents are more privileged because they have a lot more control.  Often, birthmothers are more oppressed because they are less educated and don’t often have the resources to be able to keep their child.  They don’t have the ability/respectability to prove that they can keep their child.  Adoptees are definitely the most oppressed and powerless.  They literally have no influence over what the outcome is, because they do not know “what is good for them”.  Adoptive parents that are white, have more power over those that are not.  There is power even in the realm of adoptive parents. 

Blog Post 1, option 1 ~ General Concerns

The history of these women in Solinger’s book certainly does express the many ethical issues that they faced along with the lack of choice and support. Besides just lacking their reproductive rights, they were also denied the right to their own body and how they wanted to be treated. This was being enforced not only by the society, but also by the family, friends, and doctors. As one woman states on page 98, “Adoption agencies, parents, relatives, friends all lent their subtle pressure. That’s not a choice” (pg. 98).

            The part that shocks me most is the complete lack of family support. When parents were told that their daughter was pregnant, they either kicked them out of the house (and family), or they made sure that they would get to make all of the decisions regarding their daughter’s body. A woman in Solinger’s book said “I was completely dehumanized” (pg. 73). Practically all of their rights were taken away from them by the people you would think would be the ones to provide the support.

            The parents also managed to get the doctors on their side. One woman said that she couldn’t find any doctors that would help her if she kept her baby other than a Psychologist who then diagnosed her as psychotic. Another father threatened to have his daughter sterilized after giving birth if she would decide to keep the baby.

            Though the pressure was hard from the family and doctors, the pressure from the society was even more extensive. The main idea that was out there was that you could only be a mother if you were married. Solinger said, “motherhood was not determined by biology, by giving birth. Rather, it was determined by marriage” (pg. 69). Politicians also worked to decrease the amount of single mothers. On page 68, Solinger said, “white politicians and policy makers went to extreme lengths to portray these mothers as sexually and maternally irresponsible, interested in having babies only to increase their welfare checks” (pg. 68). There were many other preconceived notions like this, for example, in a letter to the New York Times, the writer said, “Mothers who surrender their children for adoption are to be congratulated for using their better judgment in placing the welfare of the child before their own selfish ego” (pg. 84). Ideas like this confirmed and reinforced the opinions of the family and doctors. One woman said, “I tried to explain my rights to the social agency and my parents, but I was roundly informed that I had no moral right and reminded that I had no economic means to support myself with my child” (pg. 75).

            The biggest problem with these issues was that no one knew how much damage it really did to the birthmothers. One woman said, “Relinquishment broke my spirit, murdered my soul, and disabled me. It made me dysfunctional” (pg. 78). I don’t think that the society realized how debilitating these movements were until the CUB came into place and began to have a voice.

Blog Post #1 Option 2 (Jill Yanish)

Birthmothers believed that the loss of their child(ren) should be included as a feminist concern because they felt they were being punished for being sexually active. Society had placed an injustice on them by denying them the choice of motherhood. Sandy Musser’s story shows how women were oppressed. “Sandy Musser explained how she and most CUB members viewed the practice of sealing adoption records as ‘an affront to the basic dignity’ of women who had given birth while unmarried and lost their children. This policy, she argued, denied a group of women ‘the right to take charge of our own affairs’ because of their gender” (pp. 114). The feminist movement was about reclaiming ownership of the self, and the birthmothers felt that regaining their right to be called what they want, to search for their child(ren), have access to open records, etc. should have qualified them to be part of the movement (pp. 116). Birthmothers believed that they had a right to let go of the shame they had been living with since their surrender of their child(ren), thus they believed they should be accepted by feminists.

Feminists were not keen to birthmothers concerns as being a feminist issue because they saw it through a different lens. Feminists believed that adoption was beneficial to women because it gave women who couldn’t have children the opportunity to be a mother (pp. 117). From the feminists’ viewpoint, adoption was a personal choice rather than forced. The feminists failed to connect that legalizing abortions, subsidized day care, job training for single mothers, school programs for pregnant women, etc. (all of which were part of the feminist movement) tied to the birthparents’ fight for their rights (pp. 118).  

I believe that feminists today would be more welcoming and receptive to birthmothers’ concerns. People seem to have more respect for birthmothers today than compared to previous times. People are more open to a triad relationship – the adoptee, adoptive parents and birthparents. This is a sign that the birthparents are seen in a more favorable light. Birthparents are no longer considered to have mental disorders, as they used to when they gave their child up for adoption. 

Blog Post 1, Option 2 (MY)

Feminists work hard to convey to the world that they are fully equal with men and the initial goal is to receive respect and equal rights for them. With the first wave of feminism, many feminists fought for civil rights and the right to vote. The idea of birthmothers and the loss of their children did not fit with the goal of the feminists at the time. Feminists were fighting to be equal as their counterpart; hence they wanted to be seen as strong-headed and independent people. Rickie Solinger (2001) note “feminists organizations in the early years of second wave feminism were deeply concerned with articulating resistance to the idea –and to public policies supporting the idea –that motherhood was the life-defining activity and status for women” (pg. 116). This created a gap between feminist at that time and birthmothers because they were fighting two estrange battle.

Birthmothers felt they should be included as a feminist concern because they were females who have also been treated unfairly. They were females who were coerced into giving their babies away without a say. The birthmothers were already successful, having a great number of members in their movement, Concerned United Birthparents (CUB).in addition, by joining forces with the feminist wave, CUB would be more recognized by people, specifically higher authorities.  However, there desire to find their child was the opposite of what feminists were fighting for. Feminists did not want to be coined with terms such as caregivers, mothers, and homemaker because those have always been terms women were referred too, and at this point in time it degraded them. Therefore, many feminist could not relate to the birthmother.

I think that feminists today are more welcoming to birthmothers’ concerns because we are aware that being granted our rights does not include choosing either our job or family, but it is the balance of both. A lot of our rights have been achieved/ granted during the feminism wave; therefore we are more prepared today to fight for wider issues. I like to think that earlier before the rights for birthmothers were not taken seriously (event among feminist) because it stood next to greater problems, such as achieving equality in the workplace. I am not indicating that birthmothers were not an important issue, but that the bigger issues related and affected all women at the time, whereas with the rights of birthmothers it affected only a specific population: birthmothers. Although birthmothers contributed to a big population at that time it still was not as highly recognized.

-          MAI NHIA.

Rickie, S. (2001).Claiming rights in the era of choice. Beggars and choosers: How the politics of choice shapes adoption, abortion, and welfare in the United States. (pp. 65-101) U.S.: Farrar, Straus and Giroux