The Demand for Daughters
excerpts from http://www.slate.com/id/2093899/
"Numbers vary, but it's pretty safe to say that somewhere between 70 percent and 90 percent of parents looking to adopt register some preference for a girl with an agency."
"And, as the case of Cambodia suggests, demand can in fact exert an influence on supply—and not a happy one."
"But the adoptive parents' freedom to choose their child's gender can, as recent events in Cambodia suggest, cast a potentially darker light on this cuddly scenario. When little girls or little boys become preferred commodities—instead of just glints in the eye—there can be unforeseen, and unfortunate, consequences."
"Evidence of child-trafficking came to light in late 2001 and early 2002, when several poor Cambodian women stepped forward saying they had been approached by someone from an "NGO" who offered them a sum of money—significantly more for a daughter than for a son, though never more than $200—in exchange for their children."
"Perhaps, all speculation aside, we should regard this particular freedom with a wary eye—and applaud the growing number of adoption agencies that don't allow prospective parents to stipulate any gender preference in the first place."
__________________________________________________________
excerpts from
http://www.adoptivefamilies.com/articles.php?aid=1315
"And how does the desire for daughters affect the adoption community—and the children themselves?"
"“Agencies and orphanages end up with so many little boys waiting and waiting, with nothing wrong except they weren’t born female,” Myers says."
"“Adoption should be primarily about finding homes for children who need homes, not about fulfilling requirements that parents have,” says Vicki Peterson, director of Wide Horizons Adoption Agency in Waltham, Massachusetts, which has a policy not to allow childless parents to request a specific sex from any country but China."
Adoption professionals on gender choice:
“Adoptive parents seem to think that a girl will be sweet, help bake cookies, like to dress up. Gender stereotypes are alive and well when it comes to adopting families.”
Adoptive mothers on gender choice:
“Allowing parents to choose the child that best fits their family situation is best for everyone—child and family. Biology didn’t allow us to bear children, so why shouldn’t we get a choice that bio parents lack, to kind of even the score?”
“For us, stating a gender preference gave us back a small sense of the control that was lost as we endured years of infertility. After grieving the losses of our pregnancies, it was healing to build a new dream for a family, and to fulfill it with children who matched our mental images.”
“We chose to adopt from China because of the likelihood of getting a daughter. I adore all the girlie things about my daughter—dressing up in her princess costumes, playing hairdresser, dancing, having chatty conversations, getting lots of hugs and kisses. And I’ll cherish doing ‘older girl’ activities with her, too.”
- Sobriquet's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick.
"Good manners and bad breath will get you nowhere" (Elvis Costello)
Bad manners and varying breath:Exponential Detritus For Feeble Minds...
and that kind of sealed the deal for me to check "boy" on preferences.
IMO, I think it is unethical for adoption agencies to work with parents who will only consider one gender child. I mean, I guess it's hard to guard against since in s lot of cases parents get to basically hand-pick the child they want from photos, etc. In the situations where parents are not choosing a particular child (which is kind of creepy in itself unless it's a kid you already know and specifically want to adopt them) then they should have to rely on the luck of the draw when it comes to gender. Because this reason: “For us, stating a gender preference gave us back a small sense of the control that was lost as we endured years of infertility. After grieving the losses of our pregnancies, it was healing to build a new dream for a family, and to fulfill it with children who matched our mental images.”, (ie. that adoptive parents should have the right to handpick characteristics like gender as a consolation prize for raising a child that is not biologically their own) is not good enough by a long shot for the consequences that can result. What are we supposed to say- "Poor things- they couldn't conceive... at least let them have a girl like they wanted"??? That's sick!
Adopting a child is not making up for some sort of cosmic injustice, and neither is gender selection.
Sunflower the unflower
Mom's Tinfoil Hat
Foodie loves Picky
Sunflower the unflower
Right, it's just evidence that in these cases the adoption is more about the parents' wishes- the desire to help a child is secondary, which is f**ked up. I guess you can't really blame the parents because if they're ignorant to problems like those listed above then I could see why someone might not see the harm in deciding to adopt a particular gender. I can see someone thinking, "I'm devastated that I can't conceive, but on the upside, now I can make sure I get a girl" or, "Well, we want to have a girl so rather than leave it up to chance we'll adopt and help a child in need- it's a win-win!!" That's why I think it is the ethical responsibility of adoption agencies to advise against gender selection. Instead they are OFFERING the option: "Do you have a gender preference?" So that families who may not have even thought of it might turn around and say, "Well, if we can choose, then yes- we'd like a girl!"
Lots of food for thought here. I completely agree that if negative consequences are occurring to the boys then this practice should be stopped. I'd like to at the same time see some societal changes here to make raising girls and boys equally attractive to parents. I just had someone tell me they "didn't envy me" my boys, and I did feel a bit discouraged. There's scientific info out there about what's harming our sons--it could be used to make both being a boy and having boys seem equal. Also, for the infertile, there needs to be something to assuage the cosmic injustice of not being able to have children. It does hurt to see friends happily knocked up while you soldier on without a child of your own to love. It does seem like some positive strokes to this population instead of opportunities to exploit those with less power are in order.
***the United States is one of only four out of 168 countries studied to not have some form of paid family leave for new moms. We join Swaziland, Papua New Guinea, and Lesotho in not having that policy in place. ***
I totally feel for parents who cannot conceive, but I still have a problem with encouraging such parents to hand-pick a child from a menu of options as if they were picking out a car or a pet to "make up" for the fact that they must resort to raising a child that is not biologically their own. Not that that's what you're saying (I don't think it is) but the whole notion that parents who adopt when they are not able to conceive have somehow been gyped by karma or fate or whatever is so sad. Imagine that from the perspective of the adoptees. I think what we need is to somehow stop this stigma of adoption and how an adopted child is seen as an inferior option to a biological one to the extent that we believe that the parents of an adopted child deserve some extra perks or SOMETHING that bio parents don't get.
it seems like some adoptees choose to take it personally when it's not about them. Infertility, as experienced by the infertile, is about doctor visits, painful exams, expensive meds and self doubt. It involves extensive introspection and lots of knocking on wood. It's a suck-ass experience and a legitimate gripe regardless of outcome. If you get pregnant or adopt, that is like a new chapter in your life that often seems separate from the infertility grind. So, the infertile, I feel, are casting about for something that makes them special or lucky or something to cope with the feelings of being unchosen and unlucky. They cast about and all they find is adoption agencies that ask them if they have a gender preference. So they say, "Yeah, what the hell, right? While we're here we might as well make use of this option" at least IMO, I think this is the thought process. And they're casting about before meeting their adoptive child, so they don't know that person yet enough to feel lucky to know them. They're not at that stage yet when they ask for daughters. So let's give 'em something else societally. Beats me as to what, but something.
***the United States is one of only four out of 168 countries studied to not have some form of paid family leave for new moms. We join Swaziland, Papua New Guinea, and Lesotho in not having that policy in place. ***
then that creates a slippery slope of who gets the privilege.
***the United States is one of only four out of 168 countries studied to not have some form of paid family leave for new moms. We join Swaziland, Papua New Guinea, and Lesotho in not having that policy in place. ***
it's already there, and at the bottom of said slope is the for-profit adoption industry right alongside "welfare reform" and all the other cultural detritus that has built up around who has the "right" to parent.
"if i pass for other than what i am, do you feel safer?" ~ lani ka'ahumanu
dragon knows dragon
"if i pass for other than what i am, do you feel safer?" ~ lani ka'ahumanu
dragon knows dragon
if you note my first response to this thread above It does seem like some positive strokes to this population instead of opportunities to exploit those with less power are in order.
I'm in favor of more compassionate treatment for everyone. Perhaps I am seeing the adoptive parents as co-victims of the for-profit adoption industry.
***the United States is one of only four out of 168 countries studied to not have some form of paid family leave for new moms. We join Swaziland, Papua New Guinea, and Lesotho in not having that policy in place. ***
that made women and the "beauty industry" pop into my head, and through that lens, i think i can better see the point you're making. we are all probably in essential agreement - it's just that devil in the details, maybe?
"if i pass for other than what i am, do you feel safer?" ~ lani ka'ahumanu
dragon knows dragon
You think that society owes couples who cannot naturally conceive? That is interesting... though I don't know what society could give them that doesn't come in the form of a human child and I can't reconcile a human being as someone's consolation prize for some cosmic injustice. Society gives these parents the option to adopt and I think it's kind of f**ked up that there's this attitude that they are owed something more because the implication is that the adopted child is less-than the biological child that could not be. What about the cases where the parents are told it's very unlikely they can conceive so they adopt and then have a natural "miracle" baby? Is the injustice remedied? Are they no longer to be pittied because now they have a child of their own and are a "real" family? I know you didn't say that adoptive families aren't real, but that is what is implied when you say that people who cannot conceive are owed something from society above and beyond just being able to adopt a child. KWIM? I think that is very personal to the adoptee, whether that is the intent of the parent or not because the message is, "We love you, but we really longed for our own biological child and you're a distant second best."
1) You think that society owes couples who cannot naturally conceive?
Yes. I think our tax dollars would be better spent on IVF and drugs and adoption for the infertile than in Iraq or drilling the arctic. Currently we have tax deductions for this purpose, which obviously is a class issue. What about serious compensation for egg donors and surrogates? Currently, I think a surrogate makes about 12k a year. See, that's fine if she's already a sahm with a partner making good money, but then a lot of sahms with partners making good money aren't interested by 12k for what really is quite a bit of work. What about something like 75k? Then, a single mama could make a downpayment on a house or not work for those 12 months. Make a difference in people's lives.
Here's what I'm hearing in this, and the other adoptive threads: that adoptive parents need to be doing it *for the child* but who else is stepping up to the plate? As a biological mother, I did lots of suspect things before I got pregnant that were more dangerous to my future children than stating a preference for a girl. But, exercising my fertile-privilege I was able to have a child anyway. Also, if adoptive parents should be caring about children they don't yet have, what's to say I shouldn't care about children I don't have? I could use 12k, why don't I be a surrogate, or hell--do it for free because I care about stopping exploitative adoption practices? 'Cause nobody's holding me accountable for caring about the children and doing it for the child. That's where being infertile feels like an extra burden. I think our disagreement is about me seeing it as: They're offered this choice, then once they make it deemed unfit by some hipmamas. You see it as they walk into an adoption agency and start ticking off demands. Who knows what the reality is? We're projecting differently.
To me being an adoptive parent's like how motherhood is viewed in this country: you are pedestalized as being this wonderful person who's going above and beyond to care for a child that's not biologically yours (and I believe society is putting that pedestal on there, and that society is the originator of the idea that bio-kids are superior) but you also have to proveproveprove that you are above reproach as a perfect parent who cares only about the well being of some child you've never met and bonded with. That's why the timeline is important:
2)"We love you, but we really longed for our own biological child and you're a distant second best."
Here, I probably didn't articulate my point well. There's a timeline. 1)Try to concieve like others 2)Keep trying and failing 3)Try to adopt 4)Actually get child. Somewhere between 1 and 2 people get real anxious about whether they will ever have a child and begin to doubt they ever will. By the time many get to 4, they have partially written it off to protect themselves mentally. So, at this point, they really aren't thinking about the child. I can relate. I also am not thinking about the children I don't have. Who is?
They're bitter about the process, at least at times, and encouraged to have a singlemindedness towards their "goal" (I'll explain why I put that in quotes later) that borders on unhealthy obsession by the system. This is what I think Sobriquet is sensing, and why she said they want children. I am definitely not saying that they consider an adopted child second best. I think they consider the process they are stuck in second best to getting pregnant naturally. I think they deserve kudos for dealing with the process--not getting an adoptive child. The process and the child are separate. If the only kudo offered by the system (gender selection) indicates to the child that it is "second best" then I blame the system, not the worn-down folks who accept the kudo. People under stress are not always functioning at their best. People who've been nourished emotionally have an easier time acting ethically.
"Goal": no they don't just want children. They want to know their lives can be good. What if as a society we started in childhood sharing stories of inspiring people w/o children? I read a book recently that noted how few good stories of regular men stepping up to the plate we have nowadays, and I think that's part of why these parents are demanding daughters. You tell people often enough that men are lazy, no-good thugs and people will start to question whether they can parent boys effectively. Same goes with the old yarn we've heard so many times "Geezer turns to cheese in apartment after a/c cuts off, found 6 weeks later". You keep telling people this and they will fear an old age without children. Then you come on hipmama and hear about mamaneen's niece-type-people and get inspired that people can build community and not have to fear that nobody will be there for them in old age if they don't have children. Positive stories are out there--but rare in popular media. The author of Reviviing Ophelia notes in one of her subsequent books that as a person struggling to decide if she wanted children she needed stories of childless women. Your choices can be profoundly shaped by the stories you hear. More should be inspiring and less should be fear-mongering. That's what I think we could give would-be adoptive families societally. No, I don't think we owe them blue-eyed, left-handed daughters.
***the United States is one of only four out of 168 countries studied to not have some form of paid family leave for new moms. We join Swaziland, Papua New Guinea, and Lesotho in not having that policy in place. ***
You make a lot of good points Velma and I agree that it is f**ked up that IVF, etc. are only available to the upper-class because of cost issues. On the other hand, I am torn as to whether our tax dollars should be spent on IVF when the world is already overpopulated and, messed up for-profit adoption practices aside, there are actually lots of children in the U.S. foster care system that need parents. So, with so many parentless children, why are we going to spend tax dollars so that a couple can have their own biological child? I'm aware that it's totally easy for me to say that as someone who got pregnant without even trying and again, I'm aware of the unfairness of it all being a class issue, but still... I can think of a lot more pressing things that we should be spending the misspent Iraq war funds on, like raising the minimum wage, universal healthcare, extended social services for low-income families, etc.
And while I can't imagine the pain of infertility, I think if someone is going to reach the step where they adopt they need to experience some degree of a priority shift where the process becomes more about the child than themselves. Of course the motivation to begin the process is somewhat selfish- they WANT a child- just like people trying to conceive WANT a child- there is nothing wrong with that. But once a child is conceived the shift occurs from wanting to be pregnant to mainly caring about the health and well-being of the baby. I think the same thing should occur in adoption- once the process begins it should become about the kid. Not 100%, that's just unrealistic, but let's just say it should be more about the child than not.
seriously, i'm not minimizing. what i mean is, i've recently adopted a kitty. but prior to actually adopting, i fantasized in my head about the kind of kitty i would get. i imagined myself with a giant male chartruese, whom i would name bruce wayne, because of his coloring and size and antisocial disposition. my point is, it seems to me like my thought process about this is not unlike what a lot of these adoptive parents go through. only i, when i sought out my kitten to adopt, felt too wierd about specifying the sex or coloring of my cat. i took the first kitten that i found who needed a home. when read about people selecting babies by sex, country of origin, race... i get that same feeling that stopped me from asking for a male gray cat. i wonder about the people who are given these choices. i bet a lot of them start out just wanting to provide a home to a child who has none. then they get to the agency, and they are told that they can choose the sex, the coloring, the country... it must be a surreal experience. i imagine some feel pressured to choose too.
Totally- it's one thing if parents are going into agencies saying "I want a girl with light brown skin and blue eyes, born in Guatemala, please," and quite antoher if the agencies are the ones offering up these choices to parents who don't have such specifications. In the case of the former I STILL think it's the responsibility of an agency to discourage against making such specifications. I think it's the ethical responsibility of the agency, for instance, if there are an abundance of boys going unadopted because of a widespread preference for girls to tell the parents this and urge them to consider adopting a child outside the limits of their fantasy based on (here's a radical notion) the children in the greatest and most immediate need of a loving family. But most of these agencies are not charities- they are businesses that get paid a lot of money for their services and aren't about to tell people that they can't get what they want at the risk that those people will just go with another agency. That's what's so disheartening about the whole thing.
Navigation
Who's online
Who's New
- BeachBunny
- gayle.mallinger
- Mamapocket
- mjcwriter
- addie smith
Hm. Well, what they want is a child.
While infertility is undoubtedly a suck-ass experience, I guess I'd have to disagree respectfully that it is a legitimate gripe. That is, unless we consider becoming a parent to be some sort of right.
Then, of course, if becoming a parent IS a right, we'd need to make sure that every person who wants a child has one somehow.
I do not believe that becoming a parent is a right.