This book is essential reading for every member of the adoption triad, most particularly adoptive (or prospective adoptive parents)like myself. Many parents who seek to adopt are told literally hundreds of times that if they are lucky enough to adopt, it may take them many years to do so. Sometimes we hear this so often it becomes almost a tired mantra.

What Wake Up Little Suzie offers is the explanation for why adoption was so prevalent in the 1950's and 1960's and why it disappearing in recent times. Ricki Sollinger recounts the many pressures on women pregnant out-of-wedlock to relinquish children for adoption in years gone by. One story that has stayed with me, is the account of a father who rather than admit his daughter was away from home in a home for unwed mothers, instead chose to tell his friends and neighbors she was dead.

Ricki than describes birthmother homes which functioned as mechanisms to pry babies out of the reluctant arms of their mothers and into the hands of the adoption industry. Most of these homes have long since shut down, but they were a fixture of the fifties and the sixties.

One of the more shameful (and sickening) aspects of the whole process was the way that non-white and their children were treated. Unlike white women, they were discouraged from trying to place their children for adoption because they were told that "no one will want your baby". Adoption agencies had little use for children other than healthy white infants.

Finally, Ricki describes how the sexual revolution of the sixties is what ended the pro-adoption climate.

My major criticism of the book is that I think, at times, Ricki offers an incomplete picture. She talks about how the system coerced women into relinquishing, but fails to deal adequately with the fact that even in these times, fewer than 50% of all women pregnant out of wedlock placed children for adoption. Despite, the stigma that existed, more women than not ended up keeping their children. She places too much blame on the adoption industry. It sometimes seems as though the adoption industry created the entire problem. In fact, the adoption industry arose because social mores in white middle class America were very much against single white women keeping babies and raising them. The industry offered an alternative, rather than being part of a conspiracy.

Ricki deals little with the role that religion and moral values played in the whole adoption scenario. Morality and the shame of being pregnant out of wedlock (whether there should have been such shame or not)drove the whole process.

I recommend the book because its scathing and accurate portrayal of how the adoption industry functioned in the 1950's and the 1960's is history that no one involved in adoption should ever be allowed to forget. For adoptive parents like myself, its often painful, but necessary reading.

Markg91359@aol.com

I am a reunited Mom and as I was reading this book I felt the shame begin to lift from my soul. I have been asking myself why I didn't fight harder to keep my baby and after reading "Wake up Little Susie" I see there was a conserted agenda of our government, religious institutions,and those of the adoption industry to separate our children from us in the name of what others deemed was for the best.In truth it was both a punishment for female sexuality and also we were used to provide children for couples unable to procreate. The problem is those same people did not have to live with the wounds of us Moms and our children when they decided that unmarried woman were not worthy to parent their own flesh and blood in the marketting of our children.I am freeing my shame and I am now putting it where it belongs on those that profited off of the hearts of woman and children. Shame on them! And thank you Rickie Solinger for your honest account on what was done to us . Linda Webber

This book helped me understand my mother's surrender of her right to raise me. It has helped tremendously in the reunion between my mom and me. I was especially interested to find that giving away the rights to raise one's child was more of a European-American phenomenon than an African-American one. I remember taking a class once with an African-American woman who was trying to research her family tree. I felt a great kinship with her because my own roots were severed, by adoption rather than slavery. How cruel for society and the adoption industry to coerce mothers into making their babies commodities. I would like to believe that practice has stopped, but even though the maternity homes are no longer there, the coercion still is. Reading Solinger's book made me think and do even more research into the adoption industry. I'm so thankful to Solinger for writing it!

I purchased this book for my graduate-level independent studies course hoping to find definitive answers to a hunch post-war controversy over reproductve rights actually had a larger tie-in to the era's blatant anti-communism.

After all, the advent of antiseptic surgery and antibiotics meant the driving reason behind 19th century anti-abortion campaigns was effectively negated by the post-war period, so opponents of women's rights had to construct a new justifcation for extending the laws beyond their original intent. Abortion was now dangerous because it increased women's autonomy and freedom.

While May does address reproductive policy, this work suprisingly does not delve heavily into how anti-communism and reproductive bias paralleled eachother.Considering many post-war restrictions (pregnancy-related job firing and school expulsion co-existed with illegality of abortion and contraception) were directly related to women's reproductive potential, a considerable amount of research was missing from her book. The research presented skimmed what I had already discovered from Solinger et al's other works and did not provide the insight I was desperatley seeking.

Because May is able to tie anti-communist objectives into television and other cultural arenas, I remain puzzled by the selective exclusion. However well written structurally, it also seemed as if she were skipping around the same argument, but electing not to explore it for whatever reason.

This book is not a good candidate for work with reproductive policy, but would be an excellent choice for a general study of American women's post-war political agency.

Still working on my independent study project, I bought this book hoping to gain some critical insight on the apparent ties between the era's anti-communisim and renewed interest in enforcing other-wise ignored anti-abortion laws.

Originally passed in the 19th century when all surgery carried a certain degree of risk, abortion had become a fairly safe medical procedure with the advent of antiseptic surgery and antibiotics. Yet, the immediate post-war era saw massive restriction on the number of 'legal' abortions which directly contradicted medical technology's advancement. Paradoxically, when the procedure had attained a fair degree of safety, society was going to go out of it's way to remove women from their own reproductive rights.

This removal had significantly less to do with fetal rights than concern about the woman's real and future 'femininiy'. An informal and unlikely coalition of government experts, and Madison avenue set out to convince the American woman (via comericials, movies, and atrocious sitcoms) THE way to fight the communists was through their unquestioning adoption and adherence to a pre-determined gender role, because only then could she (and the nation) be 'sure' her children would grow up unmarred by communist doctorine.

While there is some information implicating newly rigid gender roles (and the related quest to contain women's sexuality--just like the containment for the communists!)in the sharp increase in abortion prosecutions and legal/cultral restrictions, it did not go in depth as much as I would have prefered. For whatever reason imaginable, May's research into this specific facet abruptly fades in and out of an otherwise solid and engrossing text.

Elaine Tyler May's text "Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era", remains a classic in American Studies-and example of relevant, clear, well-written scholarship utilizing a variety of data to make a interesting and important case. This is not to say that the work has no weaknesses, but it remains in many ways an enduring, if somewhat superceded landmark in American cultural studies.

Tyler May's central thesis of the book is that the foreign policy of the "containment" of communism, summarized and popularized by Secretary John Foster Dulles, paralleled the rise of a domestic politics of containment, where the home space became a way to contain the economic, sexual, and social desires of both women and men. Moreover, the construction of this home space necessitated the casting of gender, sexual, and social roles in rigorous, socially compulsory terms that effectively marginalized many people from ethnic, sexual, and ideological minorities. These roles, constructed through the politics of domestic containment, were held in majority American culture to be necessary to the social survival and maintenance of capitalism in the Cold War struggle against the Soviets. Women in particular, are focused on, as the strong, independent, single role models of the 1930's gave way to increased imagery of the married, safely domesticated woman, who were under heavy societal pressure to give birth and raise children. Men too were constrained by corporate superiors, and looked to home as the one place they could exercise full influence over their wives and children. Not everyone, of course, was happy with this.

A number of surprising arguments are made and defended in this book as sub-theses to the greater point. Birth control achieved social acceptance quickly during this time, albeit "contained" in such a way as to officially promote family expansion and lower the marriage age. Fulfilled eroticism, albeit only in marriage, becomes a central point of majority discourse, to the point that women were counseled to pour more energy into their mates' fulfillment, sexual and otherwise, than the children of the household. (this is not to say those actual sexual attitudes and practices always reflected these images, as she points out on pg. 102) The Cold War demanded that the excesses of capitalism (in promoting huge differentials between rich and poor) had to be checked, lest communism breed and flourish in the nation's slums (147). Fewer African-American women went to college than white, but more of them graduated proportionately. May even shows that the so-called Baby Boom didn't start after the war, but rather in the early part of WWII, thus dispelling the common notion peace and affluence alone created the baby boom (these conditions also existed after WWI, but with no population boom.)

Another excellent aspect of this study, besides nuancing the role of the Cold War, is the inclusion and careful use of quantitative data, the Kelly Longitudinal Studies---these were surveys taken among housewives and husbands (white ones, to be sure) and they reveal a wealth of data. Rather than painting a picture of comfortable domesticity, these surveys reflect a great deal of dissatisfaction among women (and men) coping with these rigid gender roles. Women who worked in industry during the war had mixed feelings at best being relegated back to the home. Sexuality, motherhood, all of these things proved ultimately unfulfilling for many women in the surveys, causing guilt and resentment in the supposedly "placid" generation.

Tyler May leaves important parties out of her study. Black women, for example, are discussed rarely, and the labor and civil rights movements (which start in the 1950's, not the 60's) are not part of this story. Subsequent scholarship ("Not June Cleaver", "Tupperware") has demonstrated that even in this time, women created counternarratives to compulsory domesticity, that allowed many to ameliorate and contest, if not wholly counter, these discourses. But what Tyler May demonstrates is that these majority discourses of political and domestic containment maintained a definitive hegemony over the public discussions of the day, and held wide sway in the larger culture. Especially through media representations of that time period, these operative models of domestic containment and placidness tend to guide, somewhat incorrectly, popular collective memories of that time period. This fact only serves to further underscore their continued influence.

Christopher W. Chase - PhD Fellow, Michigan State Univ.

I found it odd that this book was written by someone who actually has children. I am childfree and am very content being this way. This book deals with all different reasons for being childless/free. I thought this book was horrible. It dealt too much with theories and not real life situations. Only one chapter was dedicated to those who choose not to have children. Big disappointment.

Hooray for Elaine Tyler May! This is a very well researched cultural study of infertility. It will be particularly helpful to those who desire to be parents or to those who are parents after a long struggle with infertility. As an infertile woman in the United States, I was empowered by seeing so clearly how I fit into the history of the country. Perhaps a detailed academic study is not everyone's idea of fun reading, but I was enthralled. I could not put this book down and read it cover to cover, questioning constantly how my education could have had so many obvious, women-centered omissions. I count few books as life-changing but, for me, this is one of them.

I would like to take exception with the posted review. I found the book to be fascinating. It is clearly written, and I have learned alot from it. I hope potential readers will give it a chance.