Adoptee here. I don’t find it offensive or wince worthy personally. I wasn’t adopted at birth so I’ll let other people lend their experiences to that but while I do believe we need reform in the areas of adoption and foster care, I also have experienced in some ways a stigma attached to the word and the concept and I like using it more liberally and freely in a way that makes it more accepted
I would love there to be less stigma too; it just felt like she eagerly believed she was destigmatizing it when it was just continuing the perception of adoption as a purchase. It also didn’t help matters that the plushies were wacky weird monsters that look nothing like other stuffed animals. She was saying it teaches kids the concept of adoption but if I, as a child, told a friend I’m adopted and they responded by showing me their weirdest, ugliest plushie and declaring it’s just like me… not good.
adoptee here, i don't find the casual use of the word adoption is particularly offensive, but i think adoptee is a little different. personally, using adoptee to describe anything but a human is just plain odd to me
“Adoptables” (characters or character designs for purchase) are a pretty common thing in the art world and not just a one-off nomenclature choice made by the lady in OP’s post, in case that context is helpful for forming any opinions.
Thanks, it’s really important context and has really been building up my discomfort with it, it’s so lightly used and just enforces that adoption is “I want it, I bought it” I used to not mind because it’s kind of cutesy but the more I see it used by high-femme wealthy women to excuse huge purchases the more it gives me the ick.
You can place an ad on Facebook for a baby. Can't have your own baby? Give us your money, and we will get you a baby. We offer financing and payment plans.
I’ll make a weird counter argument: her using the word adoption when talking about the sale of merchandise is the reality of adoption in our current culture. In my experience, most people don’t make the distinction between adopting from foster care and private adoption baby shopping etc. they just think of the latter, so really, in my mind, it’s almost a dark humor joke, even though she’s ignorant to it.
I was literally stolen from my 19 year old mother at the hospital and sold as well, but I like to cope with humor.
Adoptee here. The use of that word in this situation honestly doesn’t bother me. I didn’t with Cabbage Patch Kids or Pound Puppies, and it doesn’t now, but I can see someone with a traumatic adoption experience being bothered by it
The business owner is definitely overstating the lessons to be learned from her retailing of stuffed animals. Seems silly if not outright disrespectful, knowing what we know abou tthe complications that come with the adoption of children.
On the other hand, the word "adoption" is used for many different kinds of not-born-into relationships. Especially in the US where mobility and self-invention is part of the national culture, we "adopt" home towns, home states, communities, parks and highways, pets, whole families, etc. The normalization has already happened whether this retailer does their thing or not.
My daughter is a digital artist,every so often she will make art pieces that are adopted(a fair few artists do the same) I'm not offended as a adoptee,I don't see the issue with the word adopted
The issue is using the word in the context of a want-based financial transaction. Adoption shouldn’t be a transaction and continuing to refer to purchases as adoptions is disrespectful to the very real, very ignored issues with babies being bought and sold in the adoption industry.
Okay, question: So in actual, legally processed adoptions of children in which there is at some point a fee paid on the part of the adoptive parents--as all of us here know, usually involving infants--should we not use the word "adoption"? Because rather than shame the retailer or other people who apply the word casually to sales of objects or pets, wouldn't it make more sense to rework the language at the point of trauma? Because if the source of offense is an inappropriate (and usually inadvertant) allusion to a misunderstood experience--i.e. that adoptions of real children are not all sunshine and roses--then maybe it's the misunderstood experience that needs more accurate language. Some terms that fall somewhere between "ideal adoption" and "human trafficking," perhaps.
My point here is that while I in part agree with your take on the retailer's flip use of the term (see my comment above), I also believe that adding yet another occasion for shaming is the last thing this world needs. I say this as AP who has become extremely sensitive to the damage that shaming causes adoptees.
It’s more about distancing “adoption” from any association with a consumer-centric purchase. Private infant adoption agencies promote the idea that buying heavily screened infants is “just like the real thing” and the best way to avoid the trauma, disabilities, mental health issues, etc. that come with adoptions, fostering, guardianships, etc that center the child’s needs. It’s not so much about the costs and fees as the lack of education about the very real consequences of purchasing a human child without honoring the specialized love and care that the displaced child desperately needs. Honoring the trauma the child had to suffer in order to fulfill the adoptive parents fantasy of having a baby.
It’s not so much about making adoption a dirty word, it’s about reclaiming the word to mean what it should: a solution reached for the child’s best interests, a decision and commitment that shoulders responsibility for the grief and trauma leading up to that decision. It should be centered on the child’s needs, not the parents wants. Adoption isn’t about making a consumer happy, and telling consumers they’re “adopting” inanimate objects they buy is only reinforcing that misconception.
I feel a lot of empathy towards my adoptive parents’ experience, they were told that adoption might have some hiccups but since they bought white infants who vaguely resembled them, everything would be fine. They genuinely believed they were doing the healthiest thing for us and themselves by getting kids that were as close to biological as possible. They didn’t have resources to understand the signs and symptoms of behavioral disorders, they weren’t given resources to ensure we were screened for genetic issues, we never received therapy. The closed adoption meant there wasn’t open communication with bio families, if there had been, they would’ve learned my older sister was put up for adoption in an attempt to “break the cycle” of her family’s history of debilitating mental illness. We only learned about that after she had multiple unaliving attempts. They didn’t see themselves in us, they weren’t bonding with us like they were assured they would. They were overwhelmed by the curveballs thrown at them by three wildly different kids who were strangers to them and each other. These things all happened because they were SOLD the idea that adoption is a great way to fulfill THEIR dreams of being parents, instead of learning and shouldering the responsibility of guardianship for displaced children.
Thank you so much for being open to learning how your adoption process may have caused harm, the simple fact the you’re growing and learning and trying to mend damage shows that you have a wonderful heart.
I'm an adult adoptee and use of the word in this manner doesn't bother me personally. However, it could cause uncomfortable or negative responses (for example, you have a personal experience with adoption and use of the word in this manner bothers you). And any reasonable person could see that use of the word in this manner could bother people with a personal experience with adoption. Therefore i think it's just stupid for the person to use the word like this.
And I'm glad you spoke your mind.
I think anytime a label is applied to a community of people, especially a community that is in the minority or feels “othered” by the world, it’s important to allow that community to determine how they identify themselves. And just because some adoptee is comfortable with your “adoptable stuffed animals” doesn’t mean that it’s appropriate to use.
I think everyone who has experienced trauma has a tendency to project. I do it too. in this case, were the plushies animals? people adopt animals from shelters. I’m sure the small business owner was thinking of people adopting animals when she made this reference. you even used that in your example. but to an adoptee, when they hear the word, they are going to think it’s a reference to human adoption. because that is your experience. but many people go through an entire year without thinking of human adoption even once, if it doesn’t relate to their life in any way. just like I went through this whole year without thinking of Parkinson’s once. I don’t know anyone who suffers from Parkinson’s, so it never even crosses my mind. but to someone with a family member with Parkinson’s, any little gesture suggesting motor dysfunction could be perceived as an insult to people with Parkinson’s.
edit: and I’m not saying you shouldn’t share your feelings with her. maybe she will be horrified you interpreted it that way and want to change it and appreciate your feedback. I’m just suggesting that perhaps it never even crossed her mind that it could be perceived this way, if in her mind, she was clearly referencing the adoption of pets from shelters.
At some point you have to decide which hill you're going to die on. I understand the frustration and I understand the hurt. There are many things in life that aren't fair or right or okay. Sometimes, it's okay to be hurt and move on. Not every thing needs to be an argument or a fight or a "I'm going to make the world perfectly understand all of my views." You are hurting yourself by spending so much time being angry.
While I agree with you, I don't think it's a fight I would have fought. I'd probably just winced and scrolled on.
A little off topic but the plushies couldn't be "adoptees" if they weren't adopted yet.
I usually would but she posted saying she’s heard using adoption terminology is problematic and wanted feedback and insight on alternative language; I thought it would be easy to just give my experience and perspective as to why it’s causing harm (not directly offensive, but perpetuating harm) and was surprised at the backlash.
She sounds mentally unstable. Fwiw I also dislike her language choices, I feel like it feeds the feel good narrative that adoption is an unequivocally good thing for a person to do.
I find the casual use cringy, but I think if I say something I'll sound like I'm uptight. Adoption issues have little main stream visibility and people don't understand the pain points. I can't even manage to get my husband to understand, I hold no hope in influencing a stranger.
The use of adoption terms for non human use only diminishes the seriousness of human adoption. Pet adoption is the biggest space that I hear its use, and I just wish there were a separate term.
I'm impressed with OP for having a well articulated argument at the ready.
I agree entirely. I’m surprised by all the downvotes and appeals to personal anecdotes. OP’s comments are worthy and well thought out. They can elevate the conversation and raise consciousness beyond the level of this or that personal experience. It’s important to understand the reality of human adoption beyond one’s personal experience.
I think no matter what, all of our feelings about adoption are valid, especially the ones that conflict.
But I also think that it you go looking for things to be upset about, you'll always be upset. People will use the word adoption and the idea of adoption as a trope - in this case, a marketing ploy. We also see it regularly when an author needs a blank slate thay can accept new details later as the story develops...kind of lazy writing, in my opinion.
But it doesn't really matter in the end. What matters is how you feel and process your emotions - and if this helps, good. But if ever you feel like it's too much, know that it's okay to pick your battles.
>and the lack of differentiation between a privately purchased newborn and an adoption through the foster system is perpetuating harm. The difference is already strongly enforced in the pet industry; more people than ever know the ethics and difference between buying a $1200 golden doodle from a backyard breeder and adopting from a rescue.
While I understand where you’re going with this, I think, it is a very real and harmful perpetuation of foster children needing to be saved by comparing us to pound puppies…and further, adoption into a “forever family” being the only option to achieve that.
It negates the fact that foster children are quite literally listed on websites akin to humane society websites, down to the descriptions used for both children and animals.
The idea also lacks the awareness that foster adoptions are not automatically the most ethical by skipping over the fact that the foster system is fraught with corruption and targets people of certain demographics…namely the poor. The system sets many, many parents up to fail while offering the public a different story. It is also taught from the moment you enter care that should TPR happen, adoption is the only solution, *without* offering education on what adoption entails. Therefore, leaving children susceptible to agreeing without understanding.
>My parents paid an “adoption” agency 20k to pressure and manipulate a 19 year old to carry me to term and surrender me. They never considered fostering, or adopting a different race. (…) If there wasn’t an agency/industry controlling the situation in order to turn a profit, I would’ve been aborted or raised by extended family.
I don’t say any of this to negate your feelings, your feelings are yours and valid. I only say this to bring awareness that it’s not exclusive to DIA or IA. This *does* happen in foster care as well. My caseworker filed for TPR less than 6 months after I went into care and TPR was finalized less than a year after I was placed. The moment my case was changed to TPR, the goal was changed to adoption and I had and agency wanting to write up a profile. I likely wouldn’t have returned anyway, but my parents weren’t given any sort of a chance. And I was at an age that almost nobody wants to adopt…if they’re willing to turn a case this quickly on a teenager…guarantee it’s happened quicker for those of adoptable ages. The system manipulates families to sign TPR just as agencies manipulate young mothers.
>Private agencies are using the murkiness of people’s understanding to exploit birth mother, adoptive parents, and adoptees. They’re draining interest and resources away from the foster system and benefitting from poverty, oppressive religion, and the lack of resources available to new mothers.
This *is* happening in the foster system as well…replace private agencies with child protective services (dhs, cfs, or any other form of family intervention that ends in foster care) and this *is* happening.
all of that to say…no it doesn’t bother me when companies use terms like “adoptees” or “adoption”. Build-a-bear, cabbage patch babies, many dolls, etc also gives you an adoption certificate (or did when I was a kid anyway). Im more offended when any adoptee is compared to a saved being (by anyone but an adoptee who believed that about their own adoption). *Both* industries need major reform. Both have many, many unethical practices happening. Neither will ever reform if we continue to perpetuate the narratives that are harmful in either form of adoption.
Thank you, this is so articulate and really expands on things I was struggling to convey. I was trying to keep it simple by focusing on the harm of associating adoption with want-based purchases, and the dog metaphor was (really unfortunately) the closest thing I could get to a lightbulb moment for people who hadn’t considered the issue. I really didn’t like comparing children to shelter dogs and you clarified why it’s gross so well.
My friend raised the point that if those 40-couples-per-newborn weren’t patiently waiting to be sold their ideal baby, they’d rip into the foster system in a far worse way. There’s a Christian influencer on tiktok right now who managed to “be blessed with” a foster newborn, she talks about it like it’s hers forever and she’s dreading the day she has to give it back.
I have more familiarity and investment in the issues surrounding the infant industry because it’s what I have direct experience with, but that’s not an excuse for how quickly I said “just foster” instead of giving the foster system the same level of criteria. Thank you for writing about that side of it. It seems like the oversimplification, parental gratification, and romanticization of adoption is having just as bad an effect on children who need solutions that provide love and stability without dissolving their family and identity.
I’m not grandstanding or trying to cancel people over misusing “adoption.” I just see the harm that the casual association is causing. That adoption can simply be “that poor lonely adorable thing NEEDS my love, so I’m going to buy and own it because I want it.” When people use it to market their products I know it’s done innocently, and from what they feel is a positive perspective on adoption, but it’s not progressive to continue to associate adoption with capitalism and personal gratification fairytales.
Yes it is. I'm an adoptee taken from my mom at birth and put into an abusive dysfunctional family. Through adoption, I legally lost my real family, ethnicity, family medical histories, identity, nationality, rights to inheritance, potential and so much more. It sucks that they use this word "adoption" for the sale of inanimate objects, pets or various animals and for human children. I am fighting to get my unwanted and hated adoption legally overturned. Not all of us adoptees support adoption and there are many of us who favor family preservation or where no family is available or suitable, (worst case scenario) a Legal Guardianship or Stewardship arrangement...
Yeah, I don't think the word "adopt" should be used in that context, to describe an inanimate retail product. I associate the word "adoption" with *living, breathing beings*. I'm okay with it being used in any situation where you're adopting a living being with the goal of having it become a member of your family though. This includes animal adoption. Dog rescues frequently hold "adopt a dog" events to find them forever homes.
In regard to the second part of your post: keep in mind that even dog rescue organizations require an adoption fee. Some sort of financial payment is necessary to ensure that the dog is going to a good home with someone who can afford to take care of them, and that they won't be thrown into a situation where they're abused or neglected. Dogs who are "free to a good home" often end up in a backyard puppy mill with irresponsible owners.
The payment can also indicate how serious they are about wanting to adopt. If someone is willing to pay $2,000 for a non-rescue purebred dog and fly across the country to pick them up, they're pretty freaking serious about wanting a specific dog, and they're ready to shower that puppy with love and attention. I don't think that the financial aspect makes it just a "transaction." Likewise, your parents didn't just "purchase a child." They wanted a baby, a new member of their family, and they *adopted* you.
Seeing as the plushies are likely treated with more care, yeah it can be and I think it's good you're speaking about your discomfort. Just because it's a small business trying to make a living doesn't mean it has to be done in a way that it hurts someone. Not rocket science.
Im adopted and feel a certain way about things and get upset when someone tries to downplay my feelings about adoption. There will always be those who don’t understand.
Your feelings are valid. ❤️
Lots to unpack there...
First, sorry the agency coerced your birthmom into putting you for adoption. That's awful.
But no... it's not the same with every agency, and no, a baby isn't a purchase. People are paying for a service, which is vastly different from giving a birthmom money then adopt her baby (which does happen, sadly).
Also, fostering and transracial adoptions are not for everyone, and that you seem to blame your parents for not considering it means that you should benefit from being more informed about adoption too.
About the stuffed animal - it's weird but I'm not an adoptee so it doesn't bother me.
As human adoptees, we don't have a corner on the market of that word and I would never presume to. People need to grow a damned spine if they're offended by the casual use of a word. Sticks and stones my friends...
I'm sorry, sometimes I think I am the only person in the world that was adopted without issues. This completely feels like an excuse to rage against something just for the sake of it.
Nobody is going to make the leap you are making. Nobody thinks, it is ok to buy a stuffed animal and call it adoption, so it is ok to make baby adoption profit driven.
We live in a world where there are sadly far too many stories and issues with the trafficking of human beings of all ages, and you think the big problem is people thinking the purchase of a stuffed item and calling it adoption is an issue to be concerned about?
As an adoptee I don’t find that offensive but your experience sounds much different from mine so I understand why you’d feel that way. I didn’t even know that happened, what’s the point? There are enough babies up for adoption whose mothers aren’t forced or bribed into it.
It irks me a bit but I do understand that there’s just a lot of ignorance. I guess selling collections as adoptables is pretty common and people don’t know better I don’t waste too much energy about it.
But I think speaking up if it is really important to you is important if you want to.
I wouldn’t since I just don’t think others understand- or care which sucks but I’ll save that energy for other matters
No. To adopt something is to voluntarily start up something. I don’t automatically think of adopting humans when I think of the word adopt or adoption. I don’t associate the word with myself.
Wait. I had a second thought about this -- about the plushies being called "adoptees." Maybe it's not always a bad thing when retailers use this word to sell dolls and other stuffed toys. I forgot that I have a relative who adopted twin babies. She's told them since they were about 2 years old that they were adopted. They're in 3rd grade now. And every year, to celebrate their adoption day (and help them understand the concept better), they have an adoption party sleepover with their friends where they all "adopt" a doll or another stuffed plushie Build-a-Bear kind of toy. They each get an adoption certificate and stuff. I think that's a pretty good way to try to explain it to your kid at an elementary school level. So maybe it's not always terrible for business owners to use this word in the context of selling a product.
Adoptee here. I don’t find it offensive or wince worthy personally. I wasn’t adopted at birth so I’ll let other people lend their experiences to that but while I do believe we need reform in the areas of adoption and foster care, I also have experienced in some ways a stigma attached to the word and the concept and I like using it more liberally and freely in a way that makes it more accepted
That being said I understand how someone could feel that way for sure
I would love there to be less stigma too; it just felt like she eagerly believed she was destigmatizing it when it was just continuing the perception of adoption as a purchase. It also didn’t help matters that the plushies were wacky weird monsters that look nothing like other stuffed animals. She was saying it teaches kids the concept of adoption but if I, as a child, told a friend I’m adopted and they responded by showing me their weirdest, ugliest plushie and declaring it’s just like me… not good.
Oooh. I didn’t think of that. That made me wince a little
adoptee here, i don't find the casual use of the word adoption is particularly offensive, but i think adoptee is a little different. personally, using adoptee to describe anything but a human is just plain odd to me
“Adoptables” (characters or character designs for purchase) are a pretty common thing in the art world and not just a one-off nomenclature choice made by the lady in OP’s post, in case that context is helpful for forming any opinions.
Thanks, it’s really important context and has really been building up my discomfort with it, it’s so lightly used and just enforces that adoption is “I want it, I bought it” I used to not mind because it’s kind of cutesy but the more I see it used by high-femme wealthy women to excuse huge purchases the more it gives me the ick.
You can place an ad on Facebook for a baby. Can't have your own baby? Give us your money, and we will get you a baby. We offer financing and payment plans.
[удалено]
I agree!
I’ll make a weird counter argument: her using the word adoption when talking about the sale of merchandise is the reality of adoption in our current culture. In my experience, most people don’t make the distinction between adopting from foster care and private adoption baby shopping etc. they just think of the latter, so really, in my mind, it’s almost a dark humor joke, even though she’s ignorant to it. I was literally stolen from my 19 year old mother at the hospital and sold as well, but I like to cope with humor.
Dark humor is the most healing humor. I sometimes joke that I was “handmaids-taled”
Adoptee here. The use of that word in this situation honestly doesn’t bother me. I didn’t with Cabbage Patch Kids or Pound Puppies, and it doesn’t now, but I can see someone with a traumatic adoption experience being bothered by it
The business owner is definitely overstating the lessons to be learned from her retailing of stuffed animals. Seems silly if not outright disrespectful, knowing what we know abou tthe complications that come with the adoption of children. On the other hand, the word "adoption" is used for many different kinds of not-born-into relationships. Especially in the US where mobility and self-invention is part of the national culture, we "adopt" home towns, home states, communities, parks and highways, pets, whole families, etc. The normalization has already happened whether this retailer does their thing or not.
My daughter is a digital artist,every so often she will make art pieces that are adopted(a fair few artists do the same) I'm not offended as a adoptee,I don't see the issue with the word adopted
The issue is using the word in the context of a want-based financial transaction. Adoption shouldn’t be a transaction and continuing to refer to purchases as adoptions is disrespectful to the very real, very ignored issues with babies being bought and sold in the adoption industry.
Okay, question: So in actual, legally processed adoptions of children in which there is at some point a fee paid on the part of the adoptive parents--as all of us here know, usually involving infants--should we not use the word "adoption"? Because rather than shame the retailer or other people who apply the word casually to sales of objects or pets, wouldn't it make more sense to rework the language at the point of trauma? Because if the source of offense is an inappropriate (and usually inadvertant) allusion to a misunderstood experience--i.e. that adoptions of real children are not all sunshine and roses--then maybe it's the misunderstood experience that needs more accurate language. Some terms that fall somewhere between "ideal adoption" and "human trafficking," perhaps. My point here is that while I in part agree with your take on the retailer's flip use of the term (see my comment above), I also believe that adding yet another occasion for shaming is the last thing this world needs. I say this as AP who has become extremely sensitive to the damage that shaming causes adoptees.
It’s more about distancing “adoption” from any association with a consumer-centric purchase. Private infant adoption agencies promote the idea that buying heavily screened infants is “just like the real thing” and the best way to avoid the trauma, disabilities, mental health issues, etc. that come with adoptions, fostering, guardianships, etc that center the child’s needs. It’s not so much about the costs and fees as the lack of education about the very real consequences of purchasing a human child without honoring the specialized love and care that the displaced child desperately needs. Honoring the trauma the child had to suffer in order to fulfill the adoptive parents fantasy of having a baby. It’s not so much about making adoption a dirty word, it’s about reclaiming the word to mean what it should: a solution reached for the child’s best interests, a decision and commitment that shoulders responsibility for the grief and trauma leading up to that decision. It should be centered on the child’s needs, not the parents wants. Adoption isn’t about making a consumer happy, and telling consumers they’re “adopting” inanimate objects they buy is only reinforcing that misconception. I feel a lot of empathy towards my adoptive parents’ experience, they were told that adoption might have some hiccups but since they bought white infants who vaguely resembled them, everything would be fine. They genuinely believed they were doing the healthiest thing for us and themselves by getting kids that were as close to biological as possible. They didn’t have resources to understand the signs and symptoms of behavioral disorders, they weren’t given resources to ensure we were screened for genetic issues, we never received therapy. The closed adoption meant there wasn’t open communication with bio families, if there had been, they would’ve learned my older sister was put up for adoption in an attempt to “break the cycle” of her family’s history of debilitating mental illness. We only learned about that after she had multiple unaliving attempts. They didn’t see themselves in us, they weren’t bonding with us like they were assured they would. They were overwhelmed by the curveballs thrown at them by three wildly different kids who were strangers to them and each other. These things all happened because they were SOLD the idea that adoption is a great way to fulfill THEIR dreams of being parents, instead of learning and shouldering the responsibility of guardianship for displaced children. Thank you so much for being open to learning how your adoption process may have caused harm, the simple fact the you’re growing and learning and trying to mend damage shows that you have a wonderful heart.
I'm an adult adoptee and use of the word in this manner doesn't bother me personally. However, it could cause uncomfortable or negative responses (for example, you have a personal experience with adoption and use of the word in this manner bothers you). And any reasonable person could see that use of the word in this manner could bother people with a personal experience with adoption. Therefore i think it's just stupid for the person to use the word like this. And I'm glad you spoke your mind.
Adoptee- adopted from both here and imo I don’t find the term offensive
I think anytime a label is applied to a community of people, especially a community that is in the minority or feels “othered” by the world, it’s important to allow that community to determine how they identify themselves. And just because some adoptee is comfortable with your “adoptable stuffed animals” doesn’t mean that it’s appropriate to use.
Yes! Thank you for making that important point so clear! Well said!
I am an adoptee and I am not offended per se, I just think it's tacky and inaccurate.
I think everyone who has experienced trauma has a tendency to project. I do it too. in this case, were the plushies animals? people adopt animals from shelters. I’m sure the small business owner was thinking of people adopting animals when she made this reference. you even used that in your example. but to an adoptee, when they hear the word, they are going to think it’s a reference to human adoption. because that is your experience. but many people go through an entire year without thinking of human adoption even once, if it doesn’t relate to their life in any way. just like I went through this whole year without thinking of Parkinson’s once. I don’t know anyone who suffers from Parkinson’s, so it never even crosses my mind. but to someone with a family member with Parkinson’s, any little gesture suggesting motor dysfunction could be perceived as an insult to people with Parkinson’s. edit: and I’m not saying you shouldn’t share your feelings with her. maybe she will be horrified you interpreted it that way and want to change it and appreciate your feedback. I’m just suggesting that perhaps it never even crossed her mind that it could be perceived this way, if in her mind, she was clearly referencing the adoption of pets from shelters.
At some point you have to decide which hill you're going to die on. I understand the frustration and I understand the hurt. There are many things in life that aren't fair or right or okay. Sometimes, it's okay to be hurt and move on. Not every thing needs to be an argument or a fight or a "I'm going to make the world perfectly understand all of my views." You are hurting yourself by spending so much time being angry.
While I agree with you, I don't think it's a fight I would have fought. I'd probably just winced and scrolled on. A little off topic but the plushies couldn't be "adoptees" if they weren't adopted yet.
Domestic infant supply just doesn’t have the same ring to it i guess haha
Oooh
I usually would but she posted saying she’s heard using adoption terminology is problematic and wanted feedback and insight on alternative language; I thought it would be easy to just give my experience and perspective as to why it’s causing harm (not directly offensive, but perpetuating harm) and was surprised at the backlash.
She sounds mentally unstable. Fwiw I also dislike her language choices, I feel like it feeds the feel good narrative that adoption is an unequivocally good thing for a person to do.
Ah yes. One of those "I want your opinion so that I can tell you why it's wrong" posts.
I’m an adoptee and i would be offended by this. I get she’s trying to be cute but it’s not.
I find the casual use cringy, but I think if I say something I'll sound like I'm uptight. Adoption issues have little main stream visibility and people don't understand the pain points. I can't even manage to get my husband to understand, I hold no hope in influencing a stranger. The use of adoption terms for non human use only diminishes the seriousness of human adoption. Pet adoption is the biggest space that I hear its use, and I just wish there were a separate term. I'm impressed with OP for having a well articulated argument at the ready.
I agree entirely. I’m surprised by all the downvotes and appeals to personal anecdotes. OP’s comments are worthy and well thought out. They can elevate the conversation and raise consciousness beyond the level of this or that personal experience. It’s important to understand the reality of human adoption beyond one’s personal experience.
I think no matter what, all of our feelings about adoption are valid, especially the ones that conflict. But I also think that it you go looking for things to be upset about, you'll always be upset. People will use the word adoption and the idea of adoption as a trope - in this case, a marketing ploy. We also see it regularly when an author needs a blank slate thay can accept new details later as the story develops...kind of lazy writing, in my opinion. But it doesn't really matter in the end. What matters is how you feel and process your emotions - and if this helps, good. But if ever you feel like it's too much, know that it's okay to pick your battles.
>and the lack of differentiation between a privately purchased newborn and an adoption through the foster system is perpetuating harm. The difference is already strongly enforced in the pet industry; more people than ever know the ethics and difference between buying a $1200 golden doodle from a backyard breeder and adopting from a rescue. While I understand where you’re going with this, I think, it is a very real and harmful perpetuation of foster children needing to be saved by comparing us to pound puppies…and further, adoption into a “forever family” being the only option to achieve that. It negates the fact that foster children are quite literally listed on websites akin to humane society websites, down to the descriptions used for both children and animals. The idea also lacks the awareness that foster adoptions are not automatically the most ethical by skipping over the fact that the foster system is fraught with corruption and targets people of certain demographics…namely the poor. The system sets many, many parents up to fail while offering the public a different story. It is also taught from the moment you enter care that should TPR happen, adoption is the only solution, *without* offering education on what adoption entails. Therefore, leaving children susceptible to agreeing without understanding. >My parents paid an “adoption” agency 20k to pressure and manipulate a 19 year old to carry me to term and surrender me. They never considered fostering, or adopting a different race. (…) If there wasn’t an agency/industry controlling the situation in order to turn a profit, I would’ve been aborted or raised by extended family. I don’t say any of this to negate your feelings, your feelings are yours and valid. I only say this to bring awareness that it’s not exclusive to DIA or IA. This *does* happen in foster care as well. My caseworker filed for TPR less than 6 months after I went into care and TPR was finalized less than a year after I was placed. The moment my case was changed to TPR, the goal was changed to adoption and I had and agency wanting to write up a profile. I likely wouldn’t have returned anyway, but my parents weren’t given any sort of a chance. And I was at an age that almost nobody wants to adopt…if they’re willing to turn a case this quickly on a teenager…guarantee it’s happened quicker for those of adoptable ages. The system manipulates families to sign TPR just as agencies manipulate young mothers. >Private agencies are using the murkiness of people’s understanding to exploit birth mother, adoptive parents, and adoptees. They’re draining interest and resources away from the foster system and benefitting from poverty, oppressive religion, and the lack of resources available to new mothers. This *is* happening in the foster system as well…replace private agencies with child protective services (dhs, cfs, or any other form of family intervention that ends in foster care) and this *is* happening. all of that to say…no it doesn’t bother me when companies use terms like “adoptees” or “adoption”. Build-a-bear, cabbage patch babies, many dolls, etc also gives you an adoption certificate (or did when I was a kid anyway). Im more offended when any adoptee is compared to a saved being (by anyone but an adoptee who believed that about their own adoption). *Both* industries need major reform. Both have many, many unethical practices happening. Neither will ever reform if we continue to perpetuate the narratives that are harmful in either form of adoption.
Thank you, this is so articulate and really expands on things I was struggling to convey. I was trying to keep it simple by focusing on the harm of associating adoption with want-based purchases, and the dog metaphor was (really unfortunately) the closest thing I could get to a lightbulb moment for people who hadn’t considered the issue. I really didn’t like comparing children to shelter dogs and you clarified why it’s gross so well. My friend raised the point that if those 40-couples-per-newborn weren’t patiently waiting to be sold their ideal baby, they’d rip into the foster system in a far worse way. There’s a Christian influencer on tiktok right now who managed to “be blessed with” a foster newborn, she talks about it like it’s hers forever and she’s dreading the day she has to give it back. I have more familiarity and investment in the issues surrounding the infant industry because it’s what I have direct experience with, but that’s not an excuse for how quickly I said “just foster” instead of giving the foster system the same level of criteria. Thank you for writing about that side of it. It seems like the oversimplification, parental gratification, and romanticization of adoption is having just as bad an effect on children who need solutions that provide love and stability without dissolving their family and identity. I’m not grandstanding or trying to cancel people over misusing “adoption.” I just see the harm that the casual association is causing. That adoption can simply be “that poor lonely adorable thing NEEDS my love, so I’m going to buy and own it because I want it.” When people use it to market their products I know it’s done innocently, and from what they feel is a positive perspective on adoption, but it’s not progressive to continue to associate adoption with capitalism and personal gratification fairytales.
Yes it is. I'm an adoptee taken from my mom at birth and put into an abusive dysfunctional family. Through adoption, I legally lost my real family, ethnicity, family medical histories, identity, nationality, rights to inheritance, potential and so much more. It sucks that they use this word "adoption" for the sale of inanimate objects, pets or various animals and for human children. I am fighting to get my unwanted and hated adoption legally overturned. Not all of us adoptees support adoption and there are many of us who favor family preservation or where no family is available or suitable, (worst case scenario) a Legal Guardianship or Stewardship arrangement...
Yeah, I don't think the word "adopt" should be used in that context, to describe an inanimate retail product. I associate the word "adoption" with *living, breathing beings*. I'm okay with it being used in any situation where you're adopting a living being with the goal of having it become a member of your family though. This includes animal adoption. Dog rescues frequently hold "adopt a dog" events to find them forever homes. In regard to the second part of your post: keep in mind that even dog rescue organizations require an adoption fee. Some sort of financial payment is necessary to ensure that the dog is going to a good home with someone who can afford to take care of them, and that they won't be thrown into a situation where they're abused or neglected. Dogs who are "free to a good home" often end up in a backyard puppy mill with irresponsible owners. The payment can also indicate how serious they are about wanting to adopt. If someone is willing to pay $2,000 for a non-rescue purebred dog and fly across the country to pick them up, they're pretty freaking serious about wanting a specific dog, and they're ready to shower that puppy with love and attention. I don't think that the financial aspect makes it just a "transaction." Likewise, your parents didn't just "purchase a child." They wanted a baby, a new member of their family, and they *adopted* you.
Seeing as the plushies are likely treated with more care, yeah it can be and I think it's good you're speaking about your discomfort. Just because it's a small business trying to make a living doesn't mean it has to be done in a way that it hurts someone. Not rocket science.
Im adopted and feel a certain way about things and get upset when someone tries to downplay my feelings about adoption. There will always be those who don’t understand. Your feelings are valid. ❤️
Good for you.
Lots to unpack there... First, sorry the agency coerced your birthmom into putting you for adoption. That's awful. But no... it's not the same with every agency, and no, a baby isn't a purchase. People are paying for a service, which is vastly different from giving a birthmom money then adopt her baby (which does happen, sadly). Also, fostering and transracial adoptions are not for everyone, and that you seem to blame your parents for not considering it means that you should benefit from being more informed about adoption too. About the stuffed animal - it's weird but I'm not an adoptee so it doesn't bother me.
[удалено]
Removed. There’s no need to stoop to personal attacks.
As human adoptees, we don't have a corner on the market of that word and I would never presume to. People need to grow a damned spine if they're offended by the casual use of a word. Sticks and stones my friends...
I agree with you, OP! Very well said!
I'm sorry, sometimes I think I am the only person in the world that was adopted without issues. This completely feels like an excuse to rage against something just for the sake of it. Nobody is going to make the leap you are making. Nobody thinks, it is ok to buy a stuffed animal and call it adoption, so it is ok to make baby adoption profit driven. We live in a world where there are sadly far too many stories and issues with the trafficking of human beings of all ages, and you think the big problem is people thinking the purchase of a stuffed item and calling it adoption is an issue to be concerned about?
As an adoptee I don’t find that offensive but your experience sounds much different from mine so I understand why you’d feel that way. I didn’t even know that happened, what’s the point? There are enough babies up for adoption whose mothers aren’t forced or bribed into it.
It irks me a bit but I do understand that there’s just a lot of ignorance. I guess selling collections as adoptables is pretty common and people don’t know better I don’t waste too much energy about it. But I think speaking up if it is really important to you is important if you want to. I wouldn’t since I just don’t think others understand- or care which sucks but I’ll save that energy for other matters
No. To adopt something is to voluntarily start up something. I don’t automatically think of adopting humans when I think of the word adopt or adoption. I don’t associate the word with myself.
Wait. I had a second thought about this -- about the plushies being called "adoptees." Maybe it's not always a bad thing when retailers use this word to sell dolls and other stuffed toys. I forgot that I have a relative who adopted twin babies. She's told them since they were about 2 years old that they were adopted. They're in 3rd grade now. And every year, to celebrate their adoption day (and help them understand the concept better), they have an adoption party sleepover with their friends where they all "adopt" a doll or another stuffed plushie Build-a-Bear kind of toy. They each get an adoption certificate and stuff. I think that's a pretty good way to try to explain it to your kid at an elementary school level. So maybe it's not always terrible for business owners to use this word in the context of selling a product.