You can buy t-shirts, hoodies and caps with slogans about orphans. Here are some of my favorites: Defend the Orphan, Give these Orphans a Home, 5 Million Orphans – Can’t You Help Just One?, and It Isn’t Ok With Me – 145 Million Orphans Worldwide. There are blogs where people post pictures of the “orphans” they adopted wearing these kinds of shirts. One woman I know wears a “One Less Orphan” t-shirt while out and about with a recently adopted orphan of her very own.
You can even be an orphan for a day. Sort of. There’s a product called “The Orphan’s Table” available at Orphan Sunday. Read the product description below. What I don’t understand is, why aren’t they giving the food to the orphans?
Experiences impact us more deeply than words.
On Orphan Sunday, share a meal eaten by orphans around the world. Gather with family, small group or church for the meal, discussion and prayer.
The “Answer the Cry: Faces of Hope” DVD can deepen your experience! We will be posting a LIVE streaming link of this 30-minute program from the Cry of the Orphan Partners.
When you request The Orphan’s Table, we will ship you:
· An easy-to-cook meal package—the same food provided to feed orphans worldwide. (Prepare by boiling, instructions included.)
The cost is simply a donation of any amount. $5.00 will cover materials shipping for up to four servings. Please indicate the number of servings needed.
As you join in The Orphan’s Table, we pray God’s love for the fatherless will grow in your heart as well.
Aside from the mass marketing of the orphan movement, there are a few other things that get under my skin when it comes to orphan talk.
Orphan rescue advocates use UNICEF’s orphan numbers to support their cause, while at the same time denouncing UNICEF as being anti-adoption. Here is UNICEF’s definition of orphan, followed by an explanation of how their numbers can be misinterpreted to state that that number of children are actually in need of new homes. An excerpt, emphasis mine:
UNICEF and global partners define an orphan as a child who has lost one or both parents. By this definition there were over 132 million orphans in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean in 2005. This large figure represents not only children who have lost both parents, but also those who have lost a father but have a surviving mother or have lost their mother but have a surviving father.
Of the more than 132 million children classified as orphans, only 13 million have lost both parents. Evidence clearly shows that the vast majority of orphans are living with a surviving parent grandparent, or other family member. 95 per cent of all orphans are over the age of five.
An excerpt:
The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which guides UNICEF’s work, clearly states that every child has the right to know and be cared for by his or her own parents, whenever possible. Recognising this, and the value and importance of families in children’s lives, UNICEF believes that families needing support to care for their children should receive it, and that alternative means of caring for a child should only be considered when, despite this assistance, a child’s family is unavailable, unable or unwilling to care for him or her.
For children who cannot be raised by their own families, an appropriate alternative family environment should be sought in preference to institutional care which should be used only as a last resort and as a temporary measure. Inter-country adoption is one of a range of care options which may be open to children, and for individual children who cannot be placed in a permanent family setting in their countries of origin, it may indeed be the best solution. In each case, the best interests of the individual child must be the guiding principle in making a decision regarding adoption.
When it comes to families of origin, I find it ironic that many of the orphan rescuers I know or read about state that they’ve met their child’s “birth” mother. Invariably the event is described as deeply meaningful and one they will remember for the rest of their lives. There is usually mention of how valuable it is that they will have pictures from that meeting to share with their adopted child. As if that will be enough. It’s clear that those adoptive parents have no intention of maintaining contact with their child’s family of origin. And the fact that their child is not an orphan at all seems to elude them.My last objection, for the moment, to the orphan movement is the use of James 1:27 to justify adoption. If widows were helped, there would be virtually no need for adoption, never mind that the scripture doesn’t refer to adoption at all, but rather to caring for widows and orphans.
Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.A friend recently told her adopted daughter that some people celebrate “Orphan Sunday.” The young lady replied,
More about the orphan rescue movement can be found here: The Evangelical Adoption Crusade.
I love everything about this post. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteGreat post! Thank you for sharing!
ReplyDeleteThanks for this post. Spot on.
ReplyDeleteI share all your concerns about the orphan "trend." I recently saw a really great blog pot from a Christian blogger to her peers saying basically, Let's put a little less focus on rescuing orphans and more on projects that preserve families. This is absolutely what's needed.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you when it comes to UNICEF, however. There's nothing anti-adoption in their stated position, but the organization is adamantly anti-adoption in practice; I have dealt with them directly on this. Many nice, caring people work there, but unsurprisingly, I think someone working in development has to detach somewhat from the suffering they see all the time. I witnessed a real detachment from the suffering of kids in institutions. I think many in UNICEF feel it's better to grow up in an orphanage in your own country than go abroad. Many share that view, and I suppose you can debate its merits -- but it's quite a different point of view than UNICEF's stated position on adoption. We need better systems in place to keep families together and prevent ethical malpractice, but the fact that millions of kids are suffering without parental care is a reality. Millions of them do not have family who can help, and institutions shouldn't be an acceptable solution. I have three children, and none of them have fond memories of their orphanages.
Fantastic post!
ReplyDeleteI also appreciate Sharon's comments. It can be really difficult to sort it all out.
As an evangelical Christian, overuse / misuse of the word 'orphan' skeeves me off, too - I've blogged about it numerous times. I also agree that using James 1:27 to push an international adoption agenda is naive. I really don't like the way it seems there's a growing - movement? industry? - with 'orphans' as the marketable product. And I know very little about Unicef, and have no opinions on whether their actions in-country contradict their stated position on ICA (which, as you say, is eminently reasonable). Also, that T-shirt? Not even grammatically correct. It should be one orphan fewer. Anyway.
ReplyDeleteHowever - (you could tell there was a however coming, couldn't you??) I think it's possible to be sceptical about all the orphan-mongering around and still think that there is a place for international adoption. I agree that lack of support for mothers in raising their children is *A* real problem - and a big problem, but it's not the only real problem facing vulnerable kids. How we deal with providing help to families, and what we do when those solutions don't work / are inadequate / never appeared are two very different things, and I think that conflating the two misses the point. Doing the first properly should diminish the need for the second, but they are not interchangeable, they are not either / or. There's a big space between not caring about family preservation and thinking that family preservation is the whole answer for vulnerable kids (most obviously, when there is no family left to preserve, or when it's too late). Personally, my opinions fit into that wide space.
I have to say I'm also a little bemused by your harsh words about adoptive families and meetings with birthmothers / first mothers (both here and in your previous post). There are lots of families who intend to maintain contact and do it... join one of the yahoo groups dedicated to the subject if you doubt that! And if the right emotional reaction when meeting their kids' other real family isn't heartbreak and sadness, well, what is it???
The friend that mentioned that to her daughter is a good friend of mine and a wonderful voice for ethical reform in the adoption community. Like her, I am an AP but I am also an adoptee. When the faces of children I know started popping of up FB holding signs about them being orphans, I felt sick. Adoptees have a lifetime of being made to feel grateful and "saved". Having them pose and smile with a sign about being saved rocks me to the core. As an AP and adoptee, I try so hard to educate AP's. I send my friends to your blog becuase you are much more eloquent than me :) I can't thank you enough for your honesty. By the way, we don't "celebrate" adoption awareness month. My daughter and I live it every day and there is nothing to celebrate about the deep sense of loss that both of us feel. How can I celebrate our loss and the pain that both of our birth mothers feel? It's about as twisted as whooping it up on Sept. 11th.
ReplyDeleteClaudia, if international and domestic adoption only happened "when there is no family left to preserve, or when it's too late," we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. Adoption would be a rare occurrence. I personally don't think adoption as it is now, with identities changed for no good reason, should happen at all, but for the sake of discussion I'll go with your definition. There's also the problem of children's culture being taken from them in international adoption; adoption within the country of origin is preferable. But that's a topic for another day. Point being, the majority of adoptions are needless.
ReplyDeleteOn meetings with first families – what I see is adoptive parent pity for them; sadness that those poor, pathetic, unworthy people can’t care for their own children. I don’t read it as sadness and empathy for an equal. If APs saw their adopted child’s mom as a worthy, respectable person, would they plaster her last meeting with her child on the internet? How about their child – is it ok to post pictures and video of the worst day of their life online? It’s objectifying and horrifying. I wonder where the anger for these mothers and children is.
Yes, there are some adoptive parents who visit their children’s first families in their home countries, and that’s great. Some of them even do it without seeking hero status for it. There are few, though. It doesn’t change the fact that most of those kids didn’t need adoption to save them.
Loved this post, think it's great and important.
ReplyDelete1) Chalk up one family that is doing EVERYTHING we can to connect our kiddo to his culture and working to find first family so we can maintain regular contact, and build relationships for the long haul. Some folks will argue it is not good enough, that it will never be good enough, but there are many of us who try really really hard. 2) Did not love your wording in the last line "help real mothers." So adoptive mothers are not real mothers? Really?
I still applaud the post and appreciate the perspective. I am not a fan of Orphan Sunday or UNICEF's numbers being misused to represent how many children need families.
Scooping, they are real and so are we. We don't get to be the only real ones. I used those words on purpose.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment and I wish you the best on your contact. I try to do everything possible too.
Sharon, can you elaborate on your experience with UNICEF, if it's not too personal for a blog comment?
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments.
ReplyDeleteI am a little surprised that people were offended by the "real mothers" comment. A large theme in the post was the erasure of the motherhood of the mothers of "orphaned" children. After all, our understanding of "orphan" is a child who has no mother when for many orphans, this just isn't true. It does hurt to have your motherhood erased, a point certainly driven home by re-awarding the title of "real" back to the original mother which some feels implies that an adoptive mother is not real.
In the case of "orphans" who are not adopted, the first mother is the real mother because she is the only mother. In adoption, the term "real" loses (or should) its meaning. An adoptee has four real parents, one or a pair of parents they may honor more than another or not.
Andrea has already spoken for herself but I will add my 2 cents about the post. Andrea did not and could not possibly cover every possible issue and every possible solution to the issues in inter-country adoption especially given the short time period I gave her to write this in hehehe. I asked her to write on the topic of the usage of the word "orphan." One irony of the usage of the word "orphan" is the fact that many children are not "orphaned" in the sense that individuals raised in U.S. dominant culture understand it to be (e.g. "orphan" to us means both parents are dead and no close relatives are living. "Orphan" as defined in the figures, is a child who has family and at least one living parent who, for a variety of reasons, may have difficulty caring for them). The irony is when PAPs and APs meet the mother (or father, or other close relative) herself and STILL persist in referring to the child as an "orphan" for Lord knows what reason why.
Of course, finding your child's family and parents is heartbreaking. The satire piece, however, pointed out the above irony. It pointed out how there are people who say how moved they are by the poverty of their child's parents but are not so moved to acknowledge God's call to help the orphan AND the widow.
I don't feel like the satirical piece was all that harsh. I've seen APs and PAPs say all of those things and more (no, not all, and APs who aren't like that should not feel like it was painting them with the same brush). As White women, we need to learn issues of race. I am guilty as a White woman of saying ignorant things and needing to learn. Satire is just one of many teaching tools. If an AP doesn't feel it describes them, it wasn't intended to describe everyone.
*finding them is not heartbreaking, rather. Seeing their poverty is.
ReplyDeleteThis is beyond the scope of the discussion, but there's another reason I used the term "real mother" in this post. To put it simply, children are better off with their actual mothers, abuse/neglect cases aside. For a child, separation from mother is profoundly traumatizing. One thing I wish I could provide for my kids is a life where they would never have had to be in the adoption "line" to begin with. Real mothers matter.
ReplyDeleteI love this post. I consider myself my children's real mother but they also know I'm not their only real mother. They also know that when someone else asks about their real mom, they are not asking about me. My own (adopted) daughter has used that term, "you know, her real, real mom...the mom who's tummy she came out of." Because I understand that it doesn't make me any less of her mom, there's no need to take offense to it. Real moms need to be supported to keep and raise their children. It would cause much less trauma for the children involved.
ReplyDeleteAndrea - that's not my definition of how adoption DOES happen, I'm just saying that's where adoption SHOULD happen, as part (possibly a very small part) of a bigger picture that includes much more emphasis on family preservation.
ReplyDeleteI am not offended, per se, by the term real mother, my son's first mom his is real mother too, we talk about her all the time. I think we are all on the same page here, because I really do agree with the post; I just didn't love the way you used it because it is put in a way that indicates the real mother is the only real mother, at least that is how I read it. I thought those of us in the adoption world were done with using "real" or "natural" to describe a familial relationship, and just call them what it is. A first family, a second family. A birth mother, or adoptive mother. Both are real, so to use the term real to only talk about one mother is not something I love. My son has two moms, and I wish he'd been able to be with her, as much as I love being his mother, I would choose her if I could have.
ReplyDeletesorry, that comment was so full of bad grammar, I should not comment during bed time. Promise Andrea: I totally love your perspective.
ReplyDelete@scooping it up- It's not up to adopters what adoptees call our parents. And by the way, "Birthmother" is offensive to most first mothers, and their children.
ReplyDeleteI have 4 very real parents, one set is no more or less important than the other, and I will be the one who decides what they are called.
Hi Andrea and all,
ReplyDeleteMy story re: UNICEF is long and involved, and subject to misinterpretation if not told fully, because it's complicated. I'll just say this: at one point I had a very long meeting with a group of UNICEF leaders from Asia, along with Nigel Cantwell from Europe. If you Google Nigel, you'll find his name comes up a lot in situations where countries are shutting down adoption. After the meeting, one of the Asia staff reported that Nigel made this comments about me: If anyone should be allowed to adopt internationally, it should be her. This statement was repeated back to me as a compliment, but I found it incredibly revealing of conceptual bias against international adoption. Someday I will write the whole story...I will say again that I liked all the UNICEF people I met, they are committed to doing good in the world, but I also found them a bit jaded.
Scooping, I don't know how old your kids are, but probabaly one day, they'll use the term "real mom." It's the most obvious, simple way to describe the mom they were supposed to grow up with, and the mother with whom children are best off. It doesn't mean APs aren't real too, but there is a difference, and ignoring that is being in denial. And we're all real. Adoption is complicated.
ReplyDeleteIf something happened to you and your bio kids had to go live with someone else, would you want to be referred to as their birth mother? How do you think it would make your kid feel to hear that her own mother (you) is called that? It's rude, don't you think?
This is going around in circles a bit, but the use of words is really important. If mothers whose children were adopted are called birth mothers rather than just mothers, then the rest of us are more comfortable "othering" them. You hear so often that "birth mothers" love their children enough to give them a better life, as if they are different from other mothers. This is especially true with international adoptions where the mothers are from developing countries. They are viewed as "strong," etc, like they are different from "us" (mothers here or those whose children weren't adopted). I don't want to contribute to an environment that makes it easier for people to take a woman's child; calling her birth mother does that.
ReplyDeleteRunning late.....not sure if this will make sense.
If you really spend any time in the field, or in the NGO community in developing countries. And if you ever actually spoke one on one in an intimate way with women in East Africa - there is no possible way the discussion of International Adoption would be in this context. I do agree that the word orphan is used badly all the time -children aren't orphans - but many do live in an orphanage. Yes - they do need families - no it is never ever better for them not to have a family instead - ever ever. Has anyone in this blog been to a warn torn country or met any women who have bared the brunt of war? Because if you had - you'd allow for the conversation to go much deeper. And really - for all of you that seem to either be adopted or AP's - how can you even post the number of a cost of an adoption on your website. Do you know how much tax payers pay for each baby to be born in North America. It's really - well - small. Those kids need accountable adults to stand up for them. Not a bunch of white dudes pushing their paper work around and flying about in between meetings talking about how much better off they are in their scabie infested orphanage because it's just too much work to ensure they have families.
ReplyDeleteAnon, the answers to your questions can be found by reading this blog as well as the blogs of those who responded. No one here believes or even remotely implied that children would be "better off" in an orphanage. Saying that the popularization of the "orphan" concept and suggesting that there are better ways to help children and families than adoption does not, in any way shape or form, imply that orphanages where children are poorly cared for is the solution.
ReplyDeleteAs an adoptee adopted from foster care, I have been asked probably over 100 times "since you have a problem with adoption, would you have rather just 'rotted' in foster care then?" The answer is no. Wanting adoption to be practiced better and realizing my original family could have been helped in better ways has nothing to do with wanting to have 'rotted' in the foster care system.
This blog entry was specifically on the label of "orphan" and was not intended to be a thorough in-depth discussion of all of the issues in every country worldwide, the effects of war, or the sufferings of women worldwide. I encourage you to spend some time reading this blog as well as those of the adoptive parents who responded for the answers to your questions. :-)
Amanda, I chose to comment on your blog because it is so awesome. And it has power to inform. There are so many horrendous stereotypes about international adoption that are simply not true. I have sat with dozens of women in East Africa so I am coming from a place of knowledge. Most women have NO CHOICE. In anything. How many children they have, how they have them, where they have them - or who is impregnating them - when they don't want to be. Mama's who adopt internationally have to speak up for these women and make a case for them on a political front to change help them change their status in their home countries so they can have real maternal health care and rights. Those kids on the ground don't really care about our issues or our politics - they do need families who will in turn help their families and from strong bonds and be real activists. That's what international adoption demands. So I guess I am arguing and trying to promote to move the conversation forward and to become more profound instead of getting caught up in old school of thought arguments. The mama's that I know who have adopted internationally are in it for the long hall and are very connected to their child's culture and create a balance as best as they can. They need support and encouragement. Just as all new parents do. But when we are talking about East Africa - and one of my dearest and closest friends who is in the top ranks of Unicef says - their couldn't be a worse place to be a baby right now...that's not okay - it is up to the accountable adults of the world who can create an alliance with a family - or be there for an abandoned child (and yes there are tens and thousands of them due to HIV and war related effects) to get on the scene and start to build and rebuild.
ReplyDeleteAnon, I see the larger point to your comment, and I've spent time in East Africa as well. Life is hard there. But I don't see how taking a woman's child is helpful.
ReplyDeleteHi Andrea, I don't mean this to separate my myself from other AP's - but our child's doesn't have living parents. Life in East Africa especially in places like Uganda, Somalia, and DRC is not hard - it's devastting. I don't know where you have been but I have spent weeks in camps and villages with literally thousands of orphaned children. They don't really care about our politics or our issues - they want families and education and more than anything safety. Leaving them vulnerable or subject to a life of becoming a child solider or a street kid is for most - their future. I think people forget the effects of HIV/AIDS in these countries. There are so many issues that impact these families and children. I consider our babies mom my African sister. That baby is here - now - period. We'd never shroud our child in secrecy. A kid gets bullied in school in NA and we raise holy terror. One child goes missing and there is an Amber alert and everyone is looking for them. MILLIONS of VULNERABLE children are left WITHOUT PARENTS and we allow a feigned idea of political correctness to impair our obligation to stand up for the voiceless. Children have no rights in these countries - and neither do women. So if you can't understand that at the start of the conversation then sadly we are worlds apart.
ReplyDeleteOk.
ReplyDeleteAnon 12:17/2:41, Thank you. I will echo Andrea, however, in saying that in all that you've shared about the hardships of women in East Africa, I don't understand how it negates anything Andrea wrote about. Yes, women are in dire situations and lack choice: how does adoption and taking their child from them, pose any sort of solution to that problem?
ReplyDeleteAnon 10:11 (and just a general comment for anyone, really) Andrea's piece, which I asked her to write, was specifically about the over and innappropriate use of the label "orphan" and the adoptions of children who don't need it, whose parents are not dead, and who could be helped in better ways. The focus was on those two issues--not anything else.
What Andrea said in this piece does not mean that there are not children who are not truly orphaned and who do not truly need adoption. Andrea never wrote that and I would not publish a piece on my blog that would suggest no child, ever, needs a new home. I've said numerous times myself that I do not believe that. Adoption does serve some children and when done appropriately, can serve more children--the ones that really need adoption.
It is a reality that children who have families are separated from them by adoption while simultaneously children who need a new family go without. I think we all can agree that the popularization of the word "orphan," people partaking in privileged acts of pity (e.g. eating an "orphan meal" at home), and people being oblivious to which children can have their families preserved and which ones can't, really doesn't do anything to help needy children.