4 ms·

It's becoming more and more common for single men to adopt children. But yeah, expect some scrutiny. Otherwise we failed as a society.

by fouc 3y ago

defrost 3y ago
HN is a global forum spanning multiple countries and even more societal mores. To your point though, "we" already failed as a society by not sufficienty scrutinising the bulk of adoptions to ostensibly stable 'ideal' families in decades past. A number of these adoptions turned out fine, many did not.
- mcphage 3y ago
  > "we" already failed as a society by not sufficienty scrutinising the bulk of adoptions to ostensibly stable 'ideal' families in decades past That is correct, and what is trying to be corrected for now.
  - defrost 3y ago
    Sure .. just as long as crazy assumptons aren't made such as automatically flagging single men, single women or homosexual couples. The social history I'm most familiar with had a wide systemic issue with wealthy elite pillar of the community power couples adopting in "unwanted children" trained for menial servant roles as nannies and living breathing sex dolls .. not that you can accuse chief justices and their scaly mates down the yacht club of that kind of thing, of course.
    - em-bee 3y ago
      that sounds like something from movies. was that really that widespread? screening is really a challenge. i mean the only thing you can really do is to analyze the motivation of why someone wants to adopt. but most people that you would not want to allow to adopt can go and have their own children anyways. when does preventing adoption turn into preventing to have children? or why should anyone who could have their own children be prevented from adopting? short of a clear misaligned motivation or mental (and other serious) health issues anyone should be able to adopt.
      - defrost 3y ago
        Fairly sustained practiced from ~(1900 - 1965) and it's less common to met a girl (and yes, boys also) from that system that didn't experience some form of sexual abuse as a result. https://psychology.org.au/inpsych/2014/august/dudgeon https://psychology.org.au/inpsych/2014/august/dudgeon Reported abuse levels by relatively small numbers of witnesses are here: https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/projects/bringing-them-home-chapter-10#Heading67 https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/projects/bringing-them-h... with typical stories and it'd take a few years to convey why those fall well short of reality and to go through stories of many who never made it to witness stands. Yeah, there's been a movie or two made about parts of the stories: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lbnk8wSVMaM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lbnk8wSVMaM
      - mcphage 3y ago
        > why should anyone who could have their own children be prevented from adopting? I don't understand this at all. People with a history of abuse or neglect can have their own children—and often they do—but why on earth would you use that as an excuse to give them more children to abuse? Like, what is your thinking here?
        em-bee 3y ago
        that's not what i meant. if the abuse is so bad that their children will have to be taken away (even if only temporarily), then obviously if they have children again, and the abuse continues, those children will also be taken away. which means in practical terms, they can't really have children. what i did mean was: if whatever failures these parents have is mild enough that they are allowed to keep their children, because noone is perfect and the children are never in any danger then why should they not be allowed to adopt as well? in short, why should adoptive parents have to submit to higher standards? but, as someone else stated, there are not enough children up for adoption in the US anyways, so that argument becomes moot, because obviously you'll pick the most suitable parents first. and you do have a point. after rereading what i said: "most people that you would not want to allow to adopt can go and have their own children anyways", this is really a claim that needs further scrutiny. it was supposed to imply that the tests are to harsh, but that is based only on anecdotal evidence so i am not really prepared to defend it. in hindsight, your reading of it makes sense too, so you are right to question it. thank you.
    - mcphage 3y ago
      > Sure .. just as long as crazy assumptons aren't made such as automatically flagging single men, single women or homosexual couples. I agree completely.
- mofosyne 3y ago
  I wonder if we could have adoption process, where two random person can adopt the same person without being in a relationship? Heck maybe the adoption services can act as pairing services between two potential singles who are willing to act as a parent.

It's becoming more and more common for single men to adopt children. But yeah, expect some scrutiny. Otherwise we failed as a society.

by fouc 3y ago

It's becoming more and more common for single men to adopt children. But yeah, expect some scrutiny. Otherwise we failed as a society.

defrost 3y ago

HN is a global forum spanning multiple countries and even more societal mores. To your point though, "we" already failed as a society by not sufficienty scrutinising the bulk of adoptions to ostensibly stable 'ideal' families in decades past. A number of these adoptions turned out fine, many did not.

mcphage 3y ago
> "we" already failed as a society by not sufficienty scrutinising the bulk of adoptions to ostensibly stable 'ideal' families in decades past That is correct, and what is trying to be corrected for now.
- defrost 3y ago
  Sure .. just as long as crazy assumptons aren't made such as automatically flagging single men, single women or homosexual couples. The social history I'm most familiar with had a wide systemic issue with wealthy elite pillar of the community power couples adopting in "unwanted children" trained for menial servant roles as nannies and living breathing sex dolls .. not that you can accuse chief justices and their scaly mates down the yacht club of that kind of thing, of course.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    that sounds like something from movies. was that really that widespread? screening is really a challenge. i mean the only thing you can really do is to analyze the motivation of why someone wants to adopt. but most people that you would not want to allow to adopt can go and have their own children anyways. when does preventing adoption turn into preventing to have children? or why should anyone who could have their own children be prevented from adopting? short of a clear misaligned motivation or mental (and other serious) health issues anyone should be able to adopt.
    - defrost 3y ago
      Fairly sustained practiced from ~(1900 - 1965) and it's less common to met a girl (and yes, boys also) from that system that didn't experience some form of sexual abuse as a result. https://psychology.org.au/inpsych/2014/august/dudgeon https://psychology.org.au/inpsych/2014/august/dudgeon Reported abuse levels by relatively small numbers of witnesses are here: https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/projects/bringing-them-home-chapter-10#Heading67 https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/projects/bringing-them-h... with typical stories and it'd take a few years to convey why those fall well short of reality and to go through stories of many who never made it to witness stands. Yeah, there's been a movie or two made about parts of the stories: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lbnk8wSVMaM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lbnk8wSVMaM
    - mcphage 3y ago
      > why should anyone who could have their own children be prevented from adopting? I don't understand this at all. People with a history of abuse or neglect can have their own children—and often they do—but why on earth would you use that as an excuse to give them more children to abuse? Like, what is your thinking here?
      - em-bee 3y ago
        that's not what i meant. if the abuse is so bad that their children will have to be taken away (even if only temporarily), then obviously if they have children again, and the abuse continues, those children will also be taken away. which means in practical terms, they can't really have children. what i did mean was: if whatever failures these parents have is mild enough that they are allowed to keep their children, because noone is perfect and the children are never in any danger then why should they not be allowed to adopt as well? in short, why should adoptive parents have to submit to higher standards? but, as someone else stated, there are not enough children up for adoption in the US anyways, so that argument becomes moot, because obviously you'll pick the most suitable parents first. and you do have a point. after rereading what i said: "most people that you would not want to allow to adopt can go and have their own children anyways", this is really a claim that needs further scrutiny. it was supposed to imply that the tests are to harsh, but that is based only on anecdotal evidence so i am not really prepared to defend it. in hindsight, your reading of it makes sense too, so you are right to question it. thank you.
  - mcphage 3y ago
    > Sure .. just as long as crazy assumptons aren't made such as automatically flagging single men, single women or homosexual couples. I agree completely.
mofosyne 3y ago
I wonder if we could have adoption process, where two random person can adopt the same person without being in a relationship? Heck maybe the adoption services can act as pairing services between two potential singles who are willing to act as a parent.