News Ticker

The Most Satisfying Unsatisfying Show

The ass-kicking timeline for the week is complete! This morning, The Daily Circuit on Minnesota Public Radio, hosted a roundtable discussion in follow-up to Monday’s “discussion” about international adoption. The panelists were:

Why would any media outlet want to have boring adoption agency reps on their shows to talk about adoption when they can have dynamic, informed, articulate guests like the women above?

I didn’t love the questions Tom Weber was asking. It didn’t really feel like it was a true follow-up to Monday’s program about the decline of international adoption. The focus was more on race, culture, etc.  The panelists did an awesome job fielding the questions and making brilliant comments, but I don’t feel like their expertise about the adoption industry was showcased. That oversight is most definitely a reflection of the show’s host than of the panelists. That this discussion occurred at all was definitely a step in the right direction.

I do love that adoptees were the catalyst for this roundtable taking place. Instead of just screaming in our cars at the radio or leaving nasty comments on Facebook, we took action, advocated for ourselves and earned an entire section of the same radio show that pissed us off in the first place. Like I said before, this is just one small example of the great things we can accomplish in the adoption community.

Readers, what are your thoughts/feelings about today’s roundtable discussion?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

My theme song for this week . . .

6 Comments on The Most Satisfying Unsatisfying Show

  1. It was a great start. And, as I just posted…it left me hungry for more.

  2. I agree. I am personally hungry for a more scientific/research-based discussion of the commonalities shared by ALL adoptees — in particular, what the (per$iststently buried) research shows regarding the trauma of separation of the mother/child dyad and its lifelong repercussions. Paul Sunderland calls for this “developmental PTSD” to be officially recognized. I would like to hear from numerous other experts in the field such as Allan Schore & Bessel van der Kolk.

  3. I would like to add that, as long as adult adoptees sweep separation damage under the rug lest their voices be de-legitimized, they are, at the same time, legitimizing separation by implying (by omission) that it is perfectly okay to continue separation of the mother/child dyad because we are not THAT damaged as a result. That is the message that potential adopters, existing adopters, adoption agencies, and candidates for relinquishment will cling to.

  4. keejeonghye // July 13, 2012 at 3:31 pm // Reply

    Totally agree – it wasn’t a true follow-up to Monday’s discussion, but rather a conversation (even though it was a good one) about our experiences once we’re here. Tom should have asked about the forces that brought us here, why we continue to be shipped around in high numbers, and what effect protocols like the Hague and UNCRC should have (or actually have) on transnational adoption. He should also have let us address why having a panel of adoptive parents/agency employees is incomplete when discussing even economic and legal issues in adoption. Those companies are for-profit. Their incentives should be disclosed. Transnational adoption is political. Tom needed to back up that train and stop relegating our points to human-interest stories.

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. Hungry for More | Borders and Bridges

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: