Two posts in one day, both mea culpas, and both for overactive commenting. I'm on a roll.
This time (and it isn't the first time) I'm apologizing for overstepping my bounds by submitting comments in response to two posts (here and here) on Twice the Rice that stated an opinion regarding Korean adoption travel. This blog is a good read - covers many subjects, adoption being just one of them. And the adoption discussions don't beat around the bush.
The posts in question encouraged adoptive parents to travel to Korea to meet their children, and pointed out that a-parents who chose not to travel for their own convenience were not acting in the best interests of their children. A-parents sent unwanted comments that weren't posted, triggering more indignant responses from some.
Today, the author posted a response to the many a-parent emails and comments, saying, "My blog is neither for nor about China APs. It's not about Korea APs. It's not about any adoptive parents at all." She also said, "I often find that APs, having seen their comments published on my blog, feel that this implies my 'approval' of their actions or their choices."
I should have realized earlier that, by intruding into adoptee space, I squelch a dialog that doesn't belong to me, and force acceptance where I am owed none. The contents of the comments aren't necessarily at issue - it's the fact that I submitted them at all. And I apologize. Lesson learned,
For anyone interested in the travel issue:
In the early 1990s and perhaps later, travel to Korea wasn't always an a-parent's choice. Many agencies, including ours, had policies that prevented a-parents from traveling to Korea. We were told that having a child escorted ensured that we would be awake and ready to parent when the child arrived, not jet-lagged and exhausted. (They forgot to mention that traveling to Korea was the right thing to do for your child. Oh, and that exactly three days after your child arrived, you'd be jet-lagged and exhausted anyway even if you hadn't been on a plane.) Later I learned that the no-travel policy was financially motivated. When escorts did the traveling, one-way tickets could be booked because the escorts were often GIs, students, or ex-pats returning to the states. The agency travel fees, however, were based on round-trip airfare. The difference went to the Korean agency. I also believe, but haven't gone out there and researched it, that many, if not most, agencies now at least allow travel, although I don't know how many still encourage the escort system.
One last unrelated point: I think that sometimes adoption agencies and adoptive parents are viewed as one big monolithic entity. There are certainly some adoptive parents who are so grateful for their children that they become completely loyal to their agencies, sometimes to the point of blindness. Some, however, question agency policies, and are trying to do something about that, including working toward the ultimate close-down of Korean adoption programs.