Why is it common for IA or infant-adoptive parents to be ridiculed for being passionate about their decision to adopt in that particular way?
Answer: When you are part of the dominant discourse—and by dominant discourse I mean the way of speaking, and formulating ideas, and getting ideas across that belongs to a particular group of people who hold power in a given place, and who are supported by every legality, every court, every media outlet, every aspect of government in the form of rebates, and tax breaks, and general and constant support by a federal legislature which cares more about the votes of this dominant class than they do about the actual lives that their laws effect—you don’t get to claim to be “ridiculed”.
You don’t get to play victim.
You don’t get to claim that you are on the receiving end of anything other than the resistance that your words, actions, reactions, and attempts at stifling such resistance bring about and which is long overdue.
I don’t know that anyone is “putting down” these people; it is strange that the reaction of those of the dominant mode in society is always personal, and in counterattack form, especially when the correct response would be for you to defend yourselves against the counter-argument to your adoptions.
If it is so righteous, and so meant to happen, and so God-willed, and so alleviating of poverty, and misery, and hunger, and homelessness, and ache, and pain all around the globe, then prove it.
Prove to me that this is the case, that in any way, 120 years of indentured servitude and domestic adoption, or 60 years of international adoption, has in one small miniscule amount done anything to change the world for the better.
And then I’ll turn around and show how with all of the money and time that was invested in those adoptions, a revolution could have taken place, and there would be no orphans as you call them whatsoever.
So explain to me yet again how this is about “the children”.
The problem here is for those who adopt internationally to admit that they don’t truly desire to see the end of the horrible world they decry so much; it would take away their prime reason for existing, which requires inequality as a basis for their own class position.
Adoption is based in the leveraging of inequality by a dominant class in order to procure children for those who have none from those who ideally would keep their children except for circumstances that are a direct result of this class difference to begin with.
On the international level, this same class is the one that enables, funds, equips, provides for, and sustains economic and political wars around the world that result in the very “orphans” (who all have extended families) that you claim to “save” by adopting them (however you phrase it, and whatever terminology you use).
You simply need to look up any of your birth countries of your adopted children in a book such as The Shock Doctrine to see how that country was targeted and destroyed economically and politically.
That you might in your daily lives continue to act, live, consume, and go about existing in general as if this destruction is in no way connected to your lifestyle is a mind-boggling remove from reality.
I have not personally attacked anyone here, I have not ridiculed anyone here, I have stated a case based in political and economic reality, and if there is a response, it cannot be in the form of a personal attack, but in countering what I have said.
Using the facts, logic, and reason that your culture claims to value so much.
And I welcome such a discussion that has yet to appear; I wait for it and I welcome it.
The Shock Doctrine, by Naomi Klein
The political and economic context of adoption, by Daniel Ibn Zayd
Debate Tactic: The personalization of the discussion is a tactic; for this reason it is best to avoid anything subjective, including our own personal stories. If we do speak personally, we need make comparison to other adoptees in a geographical, historical, and economic context, as well as others who have been equally displaced and dispossessed.