Color-blind racial ideology linked to racism, both online and offline [University of Illinois News Bureau]
In a study that examined the associations between responses to racial theme party images on social networking sites and a color-blind racial ideology, Brendesha Tynes, a professor of educational psychology and of African American studies at Illinois, discovered that white students and those who rated highly in color-blind racial attitudes were more likely not to be offended by images from racially themed parties at which attendees dressed and acted as caricatures of racial stereotypes (for example, photos of students dressed in blackface make-up attending a “gangsta party” to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. Day).
Sandra Bullock, Transracial Adoption, and the Worship of White Motherhood [Change.org]
The White Mother, if media representations are to be believed, is perfect. She is smart, caring, and classy. She can take a black child who’s been ignored by his negligent, crack whore of a black mother and bring out hidden talents. See Bullock’s Oscar-winning performance in The Blind Side and Jessica Lange’s performance in Losing Isaiah for proof. In fact, this year’s crop of Oscar favorites were pretty hard on black motherhood, with top honors going to The Blind Side and Precious, both of which perpetuated favorite stereotypes of black women: the crack whore and the Welfare Queen, sometimes both at the same time.
My daddy’s name is donor [FamilyScholars.org]
First-ever representative, comparative study of adults conceived via sperm donation reveals they struggle with the implications of their conception; report aims to launch international debate on the ethics,meaning, and practice of donor conception. [Editor's Note: This report is a publication of the Institute for American Values. A reader has raised concerns about this organization's stance toward gay marriage, and that this stance may have informed the study's findings. Please keep this possibility in mind as you review the report.]
Protecting boys with condoms for kids [Sociological Images]
Causing a cascade of mixed feelings, a Switzerland company is now manufacturing and selling extra-small condoms for boys age 12 to 14.
Not to say that there isn’t real work to be done on the topic of donor-conception, but I think it would be fair to mention that the Institute for American Values is hardly a disinterested party. (Nor do they stand for the values I consider American, come to that.) I have real doubts that the report they’ve put together is representative of much beyond their usual views. Said views include strong disapproval of gay marriage — you can hire a speaker from them to tell your group just why gay marriage will destroy the American family.
Not that you shouldn’t put a link to the report, but isn’t some kind of caveat in order, given the source?
Thanks for that info, Bionic Baby Mama. I came across this article on another site that is run and facilitated by adult adoptees, and it just never occurred to me to vet the original source. I will happily add a caveat. We want this space to be safe for all families and we certainly don’t support anti-gay views.
Thanks. I haven’t looked at the report myself yet, but from what I’ve heard, it’s rather lacking in data beyond the anecdotal.
Okay, I promise I’ll stop hogging the comments soon, but I have started looking at the report, and you know what’s really striking?
The narrative sections — recommendations, etc. — claim to be all about listening to donor-conceived people, learning from their experiences, etc. The report states that governments, churches, and individuals should not allow donor gametes, because the donor-conceived are unhappy, etc.
BUT.
If you look at the actual data, in almost every case a plurality of the actual respondents comes down on whatever side of the issue would tend to encourage the use of donor gametes. For instance:
Health insurance
plans and government
pol icies should make
it easier for people to
have babies with donated
sperm or eggs.
– 76% or donor-conceived respondents either agree or strongly agree.
Ar ti f icial reproductive
technologies are good
for chi ldren because the
chi ldren are wanted.
– 76% again
I think every person
has a right to a child.
– 76% again (why is it always 76? the split between agree and strongly agree varies.)
…and so on.
Who tends to agree less strongly are the adopted and raised-by-bio-parents respondents, but is that really whose voice should be loudest here?
It seems to me that the study started out with an idea of what its conclusions should be, and blithely ignored the fact that its data doesn’t fit. What could the donor-conceived possibly know about their own lives, anyway?
Condescending much? GAH.
the thread on adoption at change.org enraged me. its truly frightening how many white parents are adopting children of color and are completely unable to even listen to the concerns of people of color when they say that the savior narrative is problematic without becoming defensive and feeling like THEY are being attacked.