Is there a connection between the feminist movement and women's desire to adopt?

Question

Some people blame the legalization of abortion for the 'lack' of babies to adopt.

But isn't the feminist movement also responsible for Western society's high infertility rates? By most accounts, a woman's fertility starts falling at 30, and to more than 50% by the 40s.

Has our culture taught girls to 'achieve' in other arenas, and minimized the possibility of having a family?

Do most women want to adopt because they spent their fertile years pursuing other goals?

Should we be educating girls about diminishing fertility in schools?

Answer 1

Well, abortion is only one factor that has contributed to the relatively lower numbers of healthy white babies to adopt. There are also contraceptives and single mothers choosing to keep their babies. Of course, if abortion and contraception became largely unavailable again and single mothers were once again made to give up their babies, the orphanages and foster homes would once again fill up with these babies, just like they did in the past. Also, it would become much less expensive to adopt them. I once had a college instructor tell her class that she adopted two girls in the 1960s. The total cost for adopting both of them was $300.

Answer 2

I believe that the biggest contribution that feminism has made to the "lack" of babies available for adoption is that women can now financially take care of themselves and their children.  They no longer need rely on a man to support them financially.  

This doesn't mean women don't need or want or desire men in their lives.  Nor does it mean that children don't need  fathers.  We do, and they do.  

It simply means that women are no longer in the position of having NO OTHER OPTION when they discover they are pregnant and the man in their life waffles, or runs, or (oops) turns out, is married**.      

There may be a greater DEMAND for babies to adopt because, in some cases, women are delaying childbirth until later in life, only to discover they have fertility issues.

However, adoption stats from the 60's through the 90's show an ever declining number of women choosing to relinquish their children.    

PS: Absolutely, Tish! "women are not placing their babies because they don't want to"!

PSS Regarding parenthood & travel...we went to London, Italy & Greece last year with my daughter, son on law & granddaughter.  I had my daughter at 17, finished high school, graduated college.  Took my first trip to Ixtapa at 29, have been on 4 cruises, including Puerto Vallarta & 6 ports in the Caribbean.  When my friends were partying in their late teens & 20's, I was a responsible mommy.  Now they have young ones at home, & my husband & I get to travel.  

So, yes, you can be a mommy & have the career, raise your babies & explore the world later.  Or, like my daughter, you can travel to Europe with  your 2 or 3 or 4 year old (she can tell you ALL ABOUT traveling with kids & on a budget!).

You can have it all...but trying to "have it all" all at once is crazy making! = p

I'm not sure it's society's expectation as much as it is our own to be wife, mom, worker, cook, bottle washer & laundress. WE place a lot of pressure on ourselves to be perfect. Besides if we don't do it...who will?  LOL

In the early days of feminism, women said, "We can do it all! Work & take care of the house" because we wanted CHOICES.  It was a bargaining chip & we sorta hung ourselves.  

Today, many young women don't identify themselves as feminists & probably don't even realize how much in their lives have been influenced by early feminism.  I believe we need to renew the feminist movement - updated for today's issues!  But that's a different topic...is there a forum? LOL

PSSS  To katiesaik~OMG it's just sad how little we women know about the feminist movement.  It began with the suffraggetes in the late 1800's working to obtain VOTING rights for women, & included things like s*x education & birth control for women, which were actually ILLEGAL in the early 1900's.  It's about so much more than just equal pay! And it began LONG before the50's!

Answer 3

Fertility has a lot to do with insulin. Females with insulin problems are more likely to have ovarian cysts. These cysts mess up the release of the egg. So the body is not ovulating. And if you look at the increase of obesity and diabetes since the early 1970's...the same period of time for the Feminist Movement...you may be attributing one problem to another's cause.

Answer 4

I'm 25, perfectly fertile, and chose to become a foster parent at 24, without having biological children.

I'm educated, have worked until having children, and am now a sahm.

I think people do things for their own reasons, and it's not always our place to judge what we might not understand.

Answer 5

I think feminism has given women more choices. One choice they didn't used to have was to be a single parent. Another was to use birth control. Another was to have the right to get an abortion. Another was the right to have a real career, which is harder to do if you are pregnant or taking care of a baby.

But I don't think feminism is to blame, if you see what I'm saying. All those other things are helpful improvements to women's lives.

I think more women are able to be open about not wanting to be a mom, too. I have several family members who choose not to be parents. That wasn't possible before feminism, either.

Answer 6

Excellent question.  I think its more than legalization of abortion.  Contraception and the removal of stigma of single parenthood also played a big part in this.  In fact this is a topic currently on some feminist blogs.   I believe its the choose life license plates.  The money is not being used in the function that it should be.  Its not going to mothers who raise their own children.  Its not going to the women who put their children up for adoption.  

The women's movement has ignored for the most part a woman's right to raise her own child.  They will defend the right to abort to the  hilt but the right to raise one's own child.  That is a whole nother ball game that they don't want to look at.

Answer 7

Yes, I agree to some degree. The feminist ideal was that women can "have it all".  In reality that is true for a few women who have the money to "buy it all".

It is sad to read adoptive parent profiles of couples who have sacrificed their fertility years in exchange for the self indulgence of fancy houses and dream vacations.  The saddest part is that they use their selfish material gains as "credentials" to be parents.

And yes, girls should be taught about all of the factors that lead to infertility - age, smoking, STDs, obesity, and frequency of intercourse.  (comment based on an Australian study that showed that couples who smoked and were too lazy to "do it" had trouble conceiving).

Answer 8

No, the feminist movement is not responsible for high infertility rates. That is a myth. Contrary to modern belief, the purpose of the feminist movement wasn't to get more women in the work force. There were already millions of women in the workforce by the time the feminist movement started. Women had bared the brunt of the domestic economy during WWII and didn't leave when the men came back. Instead of returning to the home like everyone told them to, they simply opted to stay in the workforce and accept more "traditional" jobs. The ladies at the steel mills became secretaries. Even as the 50's rolled in and the propaganda machine churned out more images of the "good housewife" and obvious disparities in the workplace continued, the numbers of working women kept increasing. The feminist movement came in to play, not to increase the number, but to give working women equal pay, and equal opportunity for advancement. The feminist movement existed to make sure women were treated fairly and equally in society. To this day the pay and equality gap is proven to still exist. The feminist movement didn't have as big of an impact as a lot of people think. However, the small strides it did make are something we should ALL be thankful, especially other women.

Answer 9

You are right on. I agree that girls should be informed. I also think that it's terrible that intelligent American women are not having babies while uneducated 3rd world country women are popping them out every nine months. Something wrong about that picture.

Answer 10

actually, there are more options then just adoption, such as foster-care, and I'm not entirely sure about this statistic, but there are plenty of children to adopt both domestically and internationally. and interestingly enough higher abortion rates from the 1970's actually showed a decline in crime. basically, the woman having abortions were most likely young woman who  wouldn't be able to raise kids.

Fertility doesn't just one day up and "fail" it decreases over an extended period of time starting practically at birth, and is different for every woman.

many women achieve great careers and still manage to have families, and, i also know several couples, specifically teachers who both partners don't want children (the teachers in question both happen to be male, and one's wife is a librarian at the Harvard library.)

not, i plan on adopting a child by myself at some point in the future, and it's because i personally don't want to have my own children, for the reason that i don't see the need to have "a little me" running around, and would rather adopt a child who wasn't born into the best circumstances, and who otherwise might end up living on the streets.

Answer 11

A real feminist has children precisely when (and if) she wants to; that's kind of the point.  There is no lock-step Official Feminist Method of controlling our own reproductive lives.  If anyone buys anybody's bill of goods about how to live and is later rendered unhappy by that, well, they deserve it.  

Why do we not bewail the culture that "teaches" males to postpone family?  Why don't we complain about the culture  that expects women, many of whom work because they have to, to continue doing most of the work of child rearing?  Why don't we want to change a society that "teaches" women they can't have both a family and a career--not because many men don't want to help around the house, or because the US doesn't provide decent benefits and child care for all workers, but because wanting career and family too makes a woman a greedy, selfish creature who wants to "have it all"?  (All we call a man who expects to "have it all" this way is--a man.)

I in no way blame feminism for the fact that society has not yet accepted feminism, and instead expects a woman to be a full-time mommy, housewife, and worker.

I have no problem with a comprehensive s*x ed course that includes fertility info, however.  Great idea.

Answer 12

Are you sure that the rate of adoption has actually changed? I don't think that it has.  I think the number of infants has decreased.  Lack of white babies has merely shifted adopters to other countries where birth control is not easily available and poverty pretty common.

Most women still have their babies in their 20s.  While there was a big boom in recent years of women in their 30s, most of the boom in the 40s is due to 2nd families and new infertility treatments that may not have been available 15 years ago.  Either way, most of the new moms are still in their 20s.

I think most women know about diminishing fertility. They simply dismiss it until they find themselves wanting. Keep in mind that the number of women having infertility problems isn't all that high.  I think the highest percentage I've heard of is 15%.  Now, understand also that at 45, 50% of women who  want to become pregnant can't. The number of women who want to get pregnant at that age is actually pretty small and likely includes a large number of women who easily could become pregnant if they stopped their birth control.

Answer 13

No, I do not believe there is a connection.

Infertility is not always an issue of age.

Also, most girls taught to "acheive" also balance that with having children also.

Answer 14

There have never been a lack of babies available for adoption since the 'femanist movement' was first introduced. That is a myth, as thousands of children and babies are introduced into foster care for a variety of reasons.

Women are currently persuing more self oriented goals prior to having children, but many women are also having children later in life.....natural or with fertility treatments. I spent my 'fertile' years trying to get pregnant, and am about as 'femanist' as they come.....I want to adopt because I want to be a mommy and there are available children looking for a family to love them......I think we should teach girls about self-confidence, relationships, careers, etc....both at home and at school, so that they can make their own choices as to what their own priorities will be.

Answer 15

No, we should be educating society about infertility in general.  Trust me, while fertility rates do drop after a certain age, many more younger women are experiencing infertility at alarming rates.  An increasing amount of environmental factors are being attributed to infertility among young women.

It frustrates me when society "assumes" that I chose a career over children.  I have been trying for 8+ years to have a child and the doctors can find no reason for the infertility other than I cannot conceive or carry a pregnancy.  It has nothing to do with my age or choosing a career over children.  I actually know many families who are/were in the same situation as us.

Answer 16

Feminism is not responsible for infertility.

It is true that many women postponed having kids while they pursued their careers.  

It's not just women in their 40s who are experiencing infertility problems; plus in many instances it's the man's infertility, not the woman's.

Here's some good info on the subject of infertility, should you care to educate yourself:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/inferti...

Answer 17

There is a connection between the feminist movement and lots of things besides single parent adoption and increasing infertility......like rising salaries for women, ("equal pay for equal work"); the right to initiate divorce proceedings; "no fault" divorce; the right of women to make individual decision regarding pregnancy, including obtaining contraceptives and safe abortions.

Answer 18

of course it's feminism's fault, sunny!  so is juvenile delinquency, HIV, divorce, 9-11...

--seriously, i do think there is some "theory" floating around in propaganda-land, which attempts to connect feminism to abortion and the lack of babies available for adoption.  ironically, the rates of unintended pregnancy and unmarried live-births has only changed among white unmarried women. so, in other words, the babies that are most *desired* are now low in supply, due to...you guessed it... the *F* word.

ok seriously, women are not placing their babies because they don't want to. end of story.

--my motto is: fertility is time-sensitive.  but, for some reason it's not registering with folks...don't see where feminism has anything to do with that. and don't be fooled, most of the women who are currently looking to adopt, have been pregnant, just didn't *stay* pregnant.  so i guess, in a weird way, the very people who are pissed off at the lack of adoptable babies actually should have did the *loving thing* and gestated that love-child conceived from that rump in amsterdam with some random dutch dude she shared a hash brownie with, and gave it to a "loving couple to raise."  but i guess that only works for 'those' pregnant girls.

--i think girls should be taught that waiting until 39 to get married and start a family is probably setting her up for some drama.

--women adopt for many reasons.  most, i believe want a child.  but, i do strongly believe--absent of medical reasons for infertility, which do not include age--that the decision to not have kids earlier was a choice. i remembered many women when i was in grad school who were traveling every other weekend, dating, drinking, drugging and partying into their 30s. many caught STDs and, dare i say it, had abortions. yet, when they tried to get pregnant and were unable; many made themselves out to be the victim. do i blame feminism?  no. i blame people who are supposed to be more educated, for not remembering the basic tenants of human reproduction.

now, let's take the women who decided to get pregnant and raise a family in their 20s. many of these women traveled no further than ocean city, md; and only obtained a high school diploma (this is NOT to diminish these women in any way, yet to demonstrate how in life, we make choices).  in other words, many women sacrificed their travels and careers because they chose to have children. yet i rarely see these women on blogs blaming some social phenomena for their deferred/delayed or unattained goals.

--although i think the schools are doing a jack-as$ed job at health education, i do think that with their attempt at s*x education-- (birth control is bad, condoms don't work, abstain until marriage)-- there will be, without a doubt more babies coming along...now, will all these girls be guilt-tripped into adoption? i can't say.  why not?  you guessed it...the *F* word.

but i do think we should teach about the effects of behavior, STDs and AGE as it relates to fertility AND comprehensive s*x education.  

it's late and i'm rambling....good night

ETA:

ok, i'm awake and having my morning decaf. i've given this "feminism-not alot of adoptable babies" some thought, mentioned it to my husband and here are some of my additional thoughts...

first, i AM a feminist. just not a delusional woman who believes i can control every aspect of my world because some professor at my liberal women's college told me i could. i also believe there is a BIG difference between a woman who understands that she is not bound by traditional gender roles and mutually exclusive paths; and one who pisses away her fertility just to whine like a 4 y.o. when she can't get the baby she wants, or sees pregnant women walking down the street!

the former is true feminism, IMO.  the latter is just a spoiled little girl in the body of a 35 yo woman, throwing a tantrum because she figured out that daddy can't buy her out of this mess... and i don't think feminism is responsible for that...

i'm a believer that women can do both if they give each it's proper priority. many women have attained advanced degrees (myself included) and have had natural unassisted pregnancies with no adoptions. now, grant it, i missed out on a trip to brazil, ghana and china; and a job with the CDC because i was pregnant and had a young baby and couldn't travel or relocate to atlanta. but, i'm cool with that! i'll go at some point and there'll be other opportunities.  so (secondary to medical infertility) it can be done. it's called S-A-C-R-I-F-I-C-E!! and the *F* word doesn't make that reality obsolete.

in addition to teaching girls comprehensive s*x ed, we need to stress that at some point, if they want children, they need to get with the program.  in other words, put up (on pun intended) or shut up!

as tony singlar (the british tangueray gin dude) says: "everything in moderation."

(once more, my comments do NOT include those for whom infertility is medical.)

Answer 19

i think feminisism and adoption equals L*****n, so yes i think there is more connection then those you stated.

Answer 20

mmm teching about fertility in schools but not "touching " upon adoption? mmmmm rather hypocritical me thinks.

you wanna watch what your sayin there you might get alot of stick for it just like me!!!!!!!! (oh rather not in the adoption y/a clan)

Anyway back to your question.

If a woman wants kids but can't have them naturally, then who has the right to tell her that shes horrible for adopting as a second or third choice?? mmmm the woman has every right to have a child if thats what she wants. Its funny because people have ago at adoptive parents for the adoptee being thier 2nd of 3rd choice, but then the adoptee has "issues" or whatever you want to call it, if they were adopted later in life!

Now thats hypocritical!

Like i have already said.

Read "a child called it" "about a boy" and "a man named dave" Now thats issues. and its also real life too.

If anything, that poor boy has something to WHINE about

Are you saying that girls should be taught to ignore the fact they might want a baby? Why? Woman have babies because it is right for them. And how they feel

Some women dont have babies because they are not maternal.

Answer 21

I think you are right, up to a point.

Yes, once women started working out of the home, they started putting off having families later and later to achieve financial independance and career goals.

  Yes, fertility drops dramatically after 30. But there is infertility treatments, donors, and ect available to help start families. And of course, adoption.

I am the proud mama of 2 adopted children,. both from China. And I am of the generation of the original "latch key kids" so I have seen alot of changes over the years.

  I do not blame the government for the lack of babies to adopt. Its a personel choice what a woman does to her body. And there was NO lack here in the US for adoption, we just had a bad birthmom experience a time or 2.

  And no, its the parents responsibility to teach kids about that not the schools.

Answer 22

I believe the "desire to adopt" has much less to do with the "feminist" movement than it has to do with other movements, starting with the abolishonists, continuing to civil rights, and being further endorsed by the global nature of the communications industry and the internet.  

Feminism doesn't create infertility, and many of the women who are infertile because they "waited too long" are too self indulgent to turn to "adoption" as an answer.  They're much more likely to have a ton of expensive infertility treatments trying to conceive their "own" baby.  At least that's what my limitted experience with the few women I know in this category has led me to believe.  However, I honestly know very few people who are TTC late in life and failing.  This probably has to do with the statistics others have quoted about how infertility really works.  

On the other hand, social movements since abolishinism have had the desire to expand out personal definitions of "us" and minimize what we see as alien or "them".  If people could hardly conceive as someone with a different skin color as truly being human, then it would be amazingly difficult to be able to see a baby that did not come from your womb as your own.  However, as society has overcome the fear of foreingness, the ability to have love overcome genetics has also grown.  Much of this may have evolutionary causes.  Even less than a hundred years ago, Americans felt a real threat of starvation if they could not provide for their families.  People living at a level of subsistance are often more driven by their own biological needs, since it's very hard to think about other things if what you need for life isn't being met.  In cases where survival seems to be in question, passing on ones own genetic code will be naturally more important.  Adoption is therefor more difficult (at least for fertile adults) because the adopted child would be then competing for resources with ones own genetic continuance.  This is why in the past, adoption was so often limitted to those who thought themselves infertile.

In present times, in the United States and most Western countries, we are no longer living at a subsistance level.  A person has to be seriously mentally ill, or try really REALLY hard to be able to starve in the U.S.  People can still be poor.  They can still have a lack of medical care at times.  They may not have a permanent place to live.  However, enough social programs exist (both governmental and privately sponsored) that even the most minimal of effort will provide a person with enough food to live.  Thus, the biological imperative isn't as strong in our intuition because we're living farther from the subsistance level.  Of course, the "reproduction drive" will vary from person to person, but on average it is lower.  Instead, we are focussing on things like quality of life, and the quality of the society we live in.  Even if we're not doing a very good job of it, that is what people are thinking about - they're not thinking about where they next meal will come from (unless it's a debate between McDonald's and Olive Garden).  In a situation like this, it is much easier for even a fertile person to consider adopting a child, espescially if they already have biological children.  They don't see the survival of their genes in competition with the other child, and instead see the addition of a new child to love and protect as creating a better world for all the children.  Once fertile people find adoption acceptable, it's an easy leep then for an increase in infertile people (and even single people) adopting, because it is seen as more socially acceptable.  People no longer look at a woman who has adopted and see her as less of a woman (unable to bear fruit from her own womb) but instead see her as a woman committed to loving and caring for children.  

None of this has anything to do with feminism.

Answer 23

Just because some women are waiting to have children, what does that have to do with the adoption rate decreasing?  women are still getting pregnant and 4,000 of them a day in the USA alone are opting to abort their babies- so you tell me why adoption is not as popular today- however I am so thankful that my biological mom, and the birth mom of my 2 adopted kids decided when they got pregnant, in their 20's to carry and be 3 people who chose life and placed for adoption.  Lack of pregnancies, because of the feminist movement no where comes near to all the abortions every day.  it seems to be many girls/women are getting pregnant by the number of abortions, doesn't it? I know that there are many pregnancies, because I counseled women in crisis pregnancies for over 10 years- there is no lack of women getting pregnant, just more women aborting

EDIT- it is SO interesting to me that people like myself get thumbs down, because we believe abortion has caused less adoptions- if even half of those women who have abortions everyday would stop we would have 2,000 more a day to consider for adoption.

Answer 24

abortion is murder no matter how you look at the subjuct.

make me something to eat woman