Thursday, January 31, 2013

Blog Post # 2, Option #2



                In this blog post, I will be discussing the differences in “Choice” and “Rights” in regards to adoption in 1945-1973.  In Chapter 3 of Solingers book, she talked a lot about how society viewed unwed pregnant women.  She discussed and provided many stories given to her from women that placed their children up for adoption, due to the social stigma’s that surrounded the situation that these women found themselves in.  The stories provided by these birth-mothers displayed a situation that most felt forced into and most if not all of these women, felt as if they lost a part of themselves the day they were forced to give up their child.
                In the last pages of chapter 3, Solinger talks about choice.  She stated, “Worst yet for these women, “Choice” was integrated so smoothly and completely into the lifestyle perquisites of contemporary (white, middle-class) women” (pg. 98).  I think what she was trying to portray here was that the word choice was used as justification for the actions of the government, parents, doctors, etc. during this time frame.  Since all the girls/women signed the release forms so that their child could be adopted, even if it was sometimes forced upon them.  Society in later decades would say that these women had a “choice” in giving up their child or relinquished their children as stated within the book.  This as a matter of fact was not the case.  These women were threatened by those closest to them, made out to psychologically disturbed, and were thought of as unfit to be mothers (pgs. 69-71).  In other words, the supposed “choice” they posed in the lights of their pregnancies was swayed to please those around them.  Therefore, the "choices" these women were making were no longer their own.    
                The reason that Solinger prefers the terminology of “rights” is because a right is something no one can take away or argue.  A women has a choice to keep her child, but a person’s choice can be easily be manipulated into someone else’s choice.  A “right” is permanent and something that is thought of as universal (generally).     

Lisa Ritzer    

1 comment:

  1. GRADED REPLY #2

    I found your take on the difference between “choice” and “right” very enlightening. I discussed this question in my own blog, but I did not think of some of the larger, societal implications of using “choice” instead of “right”. You made an excellent point when you said, “the word ‘choice’ was used as justification for the actions of the government, parents, doctors, etc.” It is true; in many of the situations discussed in Solinger’s work the authority figures in the birthmother’s life were using the word “choice” to almost excuse their actions. These people were controlling the birthmothers’ lives, but at least they could save face and say that they gave them a “choice”. I think the birthmother quoted in Solinger’s book saying, “The agency, society, those with money had won” captured the turmoil these adults caused for these women by not respecting their rights perfectly (Solinger, pg.76).

    I also agree with your view on rights, especially after our discussion in class. I think you interpreted the reasoning for Solinger’s preference for the word “right” correctly when you said, “a right is something no one can take away or argue.” I did not think of it this way, but this is very true. A choice can be made to seem like an independent decision while in reality it has been manipulated by those around the decision maker, but a right is, in your words, permanent.

    I greatly enjoyed reading your opinion on the same question that I had also discussed. It is always intriguing to see how someone else picks up on so many clues that I missed in a reading, it helps me to gain more understanding of the text. Thank you for your insight.

    Julie Thurmes

    ReplyDelete