The word "entitlement" gets thrown around a lot on this board, from more than one side. (Sometimes at adoptive parents, but also recently whenever the suggestion is made that we should support parents in crisis keeping their babies.) And it often seems like when people say it, just the word itself is considered sufficient accusation, without any real attempt made to clarify what is being said.
So when you say "entitlement" or that someone "feels entitled," what do you mean by it? Is it by definition a bad thing, or in some cases are people actually claiming something they have a right to? (For example, is a woman entitled to parent her own baby? And in that case is the entitlement really a criticism?) How do you feel a sense of entitlement can be avoided, when it's a negative thing?
Basically, I feel like "entitlement" is often used as an accusation/insult as though just invoking the word is enough to condemn someone. So my question is... what does it actually MEAN, from a practical and emotional standpoint?
SJM2009-09-09T13:29:13Z
Favorite Answer
Speaking for myself, if I use the word entitlement, I am referring to something that someone is unable to obtain independently without a government program to provide it.
In the case of adoption, I usually use this word in relation to people who espouse the "right" to have a child yet are reliant upon the government to create laws that provide them such child. Oftentimes the people who are espousing their "right" to a child are ironically opposed to people receiving financial benefits from the government, yet they see their own entitlement to a child as somehow different or even better.
I also use it when addressing adoption laws. Going into an adoption, the prospective adoptive parents have no rights to protect. All of their 'rights' are granted by government. They are the recipients of an entitlement.
While I don't necessarily oppose entitlements, especially when instituted at the state level as is the case with adoption laws, I do oppose any entitlement that directly infringes upon the rights of a particular individual. In the case of adoption, three distinct persons must surrender their individual rights for the prospective parent to receive their entitlement. The natural mother, natural father, and the child must surrender ALL rights to one another. It's not quite the same as an entitlement that is based on the taxation of a population. It's much more oppressive than taxation.
ETA: Sometimes people claim a universal right to food or something along those lines. That's not a right, That's an entitlement. But it's an entitlement that is funded by a society. Government institutes a tax and distributes the money to impoverished persons to buy food. Many people support that type of program. I don't think many people would support a program wherein individual farmers are expected to relinquish their crop to feed hungry people. That's what adoption does. Adoption takes children from individual families and distributes them to other families who claim to need children. It's nothing like food stamps or social security. No one is EVER entitled to build a family through adoption. There may be available children whose parents have done something so heinous as to have earned the permanent revocation of all parents rights. In that case, someone may be lucky enough to have an opportunity to adopt. But no one is ever entitled to expect other people to provide them with children.
Like most words, there are positive and negative aspects.
Generally, what is means to me is that a person is given some benefit on the basis of a specific reason. Any time you receive any preferential treatment it is an entitlement. For example, if you are allowed to board an airplane before other passengers, it is an entitlement; you might receive that entitlement because you paid for first class, because you have small children, because you belong to the airline's frequent flier program, etc.
The negative context used most is when people believe the preferential treatment is for unjust reasons. For example, some people will refer to minority programs as entitlements to given them a negative connotation, because they feel it is wrong for the law to give preferential treatment to someone because they are a minority. The program IS an entitlement, whether or not is is justified is up for debate.
Personally, I think people who use it negatively the most tend to do so in a biased way. E.g. they are fine with entitlements that help them or people they like, but not those for people they don't like. For example, many of the people arguing against anything that even sounds like socialized medicine are older people on Medicare (which IS socialized medicine and which they would never want to lose).
Social Security is a entitlement,medicare is a entitlement because workers paid into it on their jobs. SSI is not a entiltement,welfare is not a entitlement they shouldnt even be in the same sentence
Ever on the grounds that i used to be little and til this present day I've consistently known as my mum "Mummy" and my dad "Daddy". Just considering they not ever answered to "mum"/"dad". And it is consistently caught, I believe. Same with my siblings, too. I swear at any time when my mom calls me at paintings, and that i reply pronouncing "hello, mummy", I get probably the most strangest appears from my paintings colleagues. They consistently uncover that hilarious and often take the mic. And I can absolutely see why it is humorous lol But, it is not ever modified, and I doubt it'll. Mum and Dad will consistently be Mummy and Daddy. And regularly considering they may not reply to whatever else from their kids! : )
When I use it I mean people who think they are more deserving. For example, when someone thinks they deserve a child more than the natural mother because they can provide a, b and c, or when people say things like "we've been trying for sooooo long and "she" can always have more", or "we've jumped through the hoops and nobody will give us a baby, how do we get one faster, cheaper, easier etc".
Nobody is entitled to another woman's child regardless of what they have, how long they have been trying or their inability to procreate, imo.