BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


International adoption &, ummm, baby economics.

 
 
grant
20:50 / 03.03.05
This is sort of pertinent to some of the threads of discussion raised here in the Head Shop and here in Conversation.

It's this comparison that came up on Jane Jeong Trenka's blog, a kind of connect-the-dots thing that worries me.

And I'm speaking as an internationally-adoptive parent, now.

The first dot, with figures from the U.S. Department of State:

Let's look at the numbers of Korean kids sent to the U.S. over the past 14 years:

1990: 2,620 (two years after 1988 the Seoul Olympics, when Korea vowed it would stop sending children away by the year 1996.)
1991: 1,818
1992: 1,840
1993: 1,775
1994: 1,795
1995: 1,666
1996: 1,516
1997: 1,654
1998: 1,829
1999: 2,008
2000: 1,794
2001: 1,870
2002: 1,779
2003: 1,790
2004: 1,716

Will they do it by 2015? The Lucky 8 Ball says: NOT LIKELY.



The second dot is a Korean government program, reported in the Korean paper Chosun Ilbo:

Gov't in All-Out Effort to Make Koreans Make Babies

The government will consider fresh incentives to families with more than two children to reverse Korea's declining birthrate after criticism that current cash rewards for a third child and help with the cost of upbringing are ineffective. No more than 10 percent of Korea's newborns are third children.
The government was out in force at a discussion chaired by Prime Minister Lee Hae-chan at the Central Government Complex on Monday to examine ways of reversing Korea's low birthrate. Besides the finance, education, agriculture and forestry, labor and health ministers, it was attended by the head of the Presidential Committee on Aging and Future Society and the Cheong Wa Dae secretary for social policy.


It goes on more than that, but those first two grafs sum it all up.

Governments collect fees for international adoptions. In China, they call the biggest one a "gift" to the China Center for Adoption Affairs, but it's basically a big fat fee. I don't know what Korea charges.

One of the things I like to tell myself is that things are improving, that money into the system helps speed up the time when there won't be any more orphanages. Or close to it, anyway.

Something seems wrong, though, when the babies are still leaving a country as fast as ever while the government is launching programs for their people to make more babies.

In Korea, it could be just a symptom of the North-South divide, but even so. Even so.

Disturbing precedent.
 
 
unheimlich manoeuvre
22:51 / 07.03.05
grant, what in particular is worrying? are there other factors involved? are, for example, a disproportionate number of the adopted children female? or is it the idea of states farming adoptions for cash?
 
 
sleazenation
07:26 / 08.03.05
I think the fact that babies appear to be going abroad when they are needed to maintain the population in Korea is also a concern...
 
 
grant
14:38 / 08.03.05
idea of states farming adoptions for cash

That'd be the bit, yeah -- the fact that it appears, in this context, that the international adoption process is being used to generate cash to the detriment of the general population.

It's a creepy idea.

I think what creeps me out is that it's institutionalized (and thus legitimized) to a point way beyond, like, the Bulgarian baby black market. Which the government there stands against.
 
 
alas
16:39 / 08.03.05
This is a bit of a rant. Apologies in advance.

The use and control of women's bodies and reproductive lives, viewed by many--most?-- States essentially as baby-making machines, is particularly clear here. I've been teaching The Handmaid's Tale of late, admittedly...; but I'll repeat Ricki Sollinger's point til y'all get sick of it: Adoption always occurs on the backs of resourceless women.

That many these women are deliberately kept resourceless by deeply patriarchal and controlling states is disturbing enough. That the states are apparently profiting from their reproductive labor should not be entirely surprising, at some level--it wouldn't be the first time in history--although it's certainly thoroughly depressing at this point in history.

But the complicity of American/Western systems of family-making--the continued pressure to make a family at any cost, the belief that if you are wealthy you should be able to buy a family--and if there are "little brown children" in your rainbow family, that you get to then plume yourself on how "multicultural" you are...that's the most sickening part of all. Children may very well be primal, as grant puts it, but family structures based in and haunted by patriarchal racist and colonialist traditions aren't. Those are thoroughly cultural products.

Visit Transracial Abductees if you want to read more radical anti-international adoption stuff.

[/rant] And now, back to our regular, rant-free programming.
 
 
grant
16:44 / 09.03.05
Two observations:
The use and control of women's bodies and reproductive lives, viewed by many--most?-- States essentially as baby-making machines, is particularly clear here.

I think it illustrates the way in which the State, as an entity, views all people as machines, period. Particularly vividly. That's the creepy part -- that's the thing that sticks in my head. The mechanism made visible.

their reproductive labor

There's a pun in there about labor unions, but I think it might hide some serious etymology about, well, "women's work" and changing ideas about social roles over time.
 
  
Add Your Reply