As an adult transnational adoptee blogger at Harlow's Monkey writes:
Why are no mainstream media outlets asking how this is going to affect the child in question? Why have no media outlets asked an adult person who was adopted internationally and "disrupted?"This is the essence of what many autistic adults have been saying as well. For both adoption and autism, there is a prominent cultural narrative which treats parents as saints and martyrs, often refusing to acknowledge that said parents might sometimes make mistakes. Would it be socially acceptable for a parent to put any other seven year-old child on a transcontinental flight with no one waiting at the other end? Would it be acceptable for a parent to decide to return another child like a car that doesn't work correctly? Yet because this child is adopted, and coded by his adoptive mother as "violent," "unstable," and "disturbed," the ethics of the situation are apparently up for debate. Defenses of the mother's actions appear in mainstream publications. The actual child's perspective? Well, apparently that's just not very important. Most of the coverage I've seen quite explicitly identifies itself with the "mother," by which I mean that it looks at the situation from the perspective of adoptive parents exclusively, being inherently sympathetic towards them. But not towards adopted children themselves, apparently.ADOPTEES HAVE FEELINGS! Plus, guess what? Some of us are experts in adoption disruptions. Want to know what it feels like to be an adoptee who was kicked out by their adoptive parents? There actually are a lot who could answer that question for you.
This is one more example of how children in general--and "abnormal" children in particular--are objectified as commodities. Like commodities, children are intended to fulfill parents' fantasies of happiness and "normality." When a child turns out to be different than expected, they can expect to be treated as "broken"--and, as in this case, even returned to the sender. (For another example of the normality-fetishizing discourse, see this thread on WrongPlanet.)
As Harlow's Monkey writes:
We are not packages to be sent back because we didn't come according to standardized factory specifications. Maybe we should start putting consumer warning labels on children:
Warning: Hand made. Each one is different, therefore no two will be alike. Actual product may differ from the one shown in advertisement. NO RETURNS.
This particular case presents a clear example of the intersection between adoption discourse and children with disabilities discourse. Please note that this has nothing to do with whether the boy in question "actually" has a diagnosable psychiatric disability. That's besides the point. The pertinent fact is that the adoptive "mother" has justified her actions on the grounds that "this child is mentally unstable. He is violent and has severe psychopathic issues/behaviors" (direct quote). This kind of dehumanizing, faux-medical* vocabulary is commonly used to describe people with psychiatric and/or neurological disabilities. And, apparently, to justify our being treated in ways which would be unthinkable for a "normal" child.
*"Psychopathic"? Really?
Posts
6 comments:
great post
I'm not sure how the 'media' is presenting this, but I have to say that commentary I've read by real, actual people about this case, most of them feel that this woman's behaviour is criminal and she is guilty of neglect and should be charged to the fullest extent of the law. Regardless of the child's behavior, most of them feel that she's as responsible for his welfare as if she were his biological mother and should be prosecuted.
Good post. I sent a letter to the Russian Embassy offering to adopt this child but I have not heard back from them.
Excellent post.
As a parent thru adoption to two great kids (who happen to also be "different" by society's standards), I was considering writing a post called "No Lemon Laws (yet)" Describing how children are commodified before birth, then magically gain full rights at birth, but lose them again if they are not "perfect", and are thus re-commodified.
Your post today hits the nail on the head.
I don't know, I'm not saying it's right to do something like that, it's quite wrong, however, the problem lies with Russia's system. It's infinitely more screwed up than the foster care system in the US which needs reforms, but kids are being tossed aside. I'm about to read a book about a boy who had a disability and survived the horrible conditions of orphanages for kids with disabilities in Russian. It's a complicated system.
It's not right to do this to this one child who probably grew up without a caretaker he could rely on and trust. This could hurt him even more. He's only 1 of thousands of children.
What is also annoying is, they have incentives for folks to adopt domestically in Russian. These articles don't mention how many of these kids are taken back to the orphanages once the parents get the money.
They are not looking at the abuse going on there and doing something about it. Pennies a day are spent on these kids! PENNIES! It makes me furious. Stuff like this wouldn't happen in the first place if these kids were more of a priority. Children need to be more a global priority.
Also, there's really not enough resources for something like RAD. I want to adopt in the future. RAD is scary. I feel like I may be on the spectrum so I can somewhat understand a bit autism. RAD on the other hand...
It's something that can be prevented too! That's the thing that frustrates me. A child doesn't have to end up unable to trust. I see so much harsh judgement of this woman, I'm not condoning what she did, but what good will punishing her besides not allowing her to adopt again?
The real priority should actually be these children! Its the same with children in our own country (And no more of those there's kids here who need to be adopted, yes, this is true, but most of the children in our system are NOT available for adoption. Their parents still have legal rights.) who are bounced from one foster home to another, who do not have enough stability.
That is the real thing that makes me angry, because it's at the core of things like this.
Post a Comment