Excuse Me While I Rant a Bit About the Media and Adoption
avatar

Why do the media feel compelled to point out when a child is adopted? It’s never Sandra Bullock and her son. It’s always Sandra Bullock and her adopted son, Louis. The articles specify which of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt’s six children are adopted and which ones are not. As if we couldn’t look at the photos and figure it out for ourselves.

What really got me going was when I flipped through a battered, waiting room magazine yesterday and saw Nicole Kidman described as the mother of two. It was as if her two adopted children with Tom Cruise had ceased to exist—or no longer counted now that she had biological offspring. It made my blood boil.

If I remember correctly, the second of Nicole Kidman’s biological children was born via a surrogate mother. Why didn’t the magazine feel compelled to point that out?

And what about all the other celebrities who have had children via surrogates: Sarah Jessica Parker and Mathew Broderick, Neil Patrick Harris and David Burtka, Kelsey and (now ex-wife) Camille Grammar, William Petersen and Gina Cirone, Angela Bassett and Courtney B. Vance, Dennis and Kimberly Quaid. Their children are simply children.

What’s the message here? Surrogacy is okay, but adoption, while admirable, is not the same as a biological (read “real”) child. Are you kidding me? I do not want to hear this at 2 a.m. when I’m cleaning vomit out of my daughter’s hair.

It’s not that I object to talking about adoption. I do it here and in my other writing. In fact, I think it might be useful to point out when celebrities adopt because it helps de-stigmatize the adoption process. But as a society we need to stop placing so much emphasis on biology. We need to stop treating adoption as the booby prize.

I’ve lived both sides of this issue. First I spent eight years trying to get pregnant, and to be honest, viewed adoption as “less than.” I couldn’t have articulated why. I didn’t have a problem with adoption per se. I just wanted a biological child. Because that’s how most people do it. Or maybe it’s something deeper, more primitive. Perhaps we all long to see ourselves reproduced—tangible evidence that we have left our mark on the world.

Then I adopted, and now I wonder why I wasted all the time, money, and tears on infertility treatments. Because I’ve learned it’s not blood that makes a family. It’s the bond.

Here’s what I want to say to the media: A child’s adoptive status is not news. Furthermore, adoptive parents don’t want or need your pity, sympathy, awe, or admiration. Perhaps I should call it what it is: judgment. Because isn’t that what’s going on when we constantly call out adopted children? We’re passing judgment—good or bad—on the child and the parent(s).

Adoptive parents are neither better nor worse than any other. We may have gotten our children in a different way, but after that, the parenting journey is pretty much the same—which is to say that we are all simply doing the best we can at a tough but rewarding job that has no user’s manual. We’re all just parents.

I’ll bet Sandy, Angie, and Nic would agree.

Until next time,
Cynthia Patton

About Cynthia J. Patton

Writer, Editor, Advocate, Speaker, Special Needs Attorney, and Autism Mom. Also the Founder and Chairperson of Autism A to Z, a nonprofit providing resources and solutions for life on the spectrum.
This entry was posted in Adoption, My Life and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Excuse Me While I Rant a Bit About the Media and Adoption

  1. Jenn says:

    actually, I wonder if adoptive parents are actually better in some ways. Certainly to go through the process you have to have done some serious thinking about your desire to have and raise children… sometimes biology is an accident :-)

    I have to say I’ve never noticed that the media points out such things, but if someone didn’t post an article on Facebook, or NPR didn’t cover it on Morning Edition, I probably don’t know about it! Great post! Keep on ranting!! these are important issues.

    • cjpatton says:

      Well, I know I certainly had a great deal of time to think about being a parent before I actually was one. I’m sure the length (and expense) of the process weeds a fair number of people out. And who’s to say whether those people are more or less qualified than ones who accidently get pregnant? Impossible to know.

      As for the media, I never noticed anything either–until I had adopted a child. Now I can’t help but notice that the children of celebrities are usually identified with the qualifier if they are adopted. And I always think, who cares? Because anyone who is interested already knows Sandra Bullock’s adoption story, so why constantly point out that Louis is adopted? Why?

  2. Trisha Brown says:

    I have the same feelings as an adoptee. I don’t think of myself with the qualifier of “adopted,” I am simply me. Invariably, however, when I share that I am adopted, people always ask if I know my “real” parents. Yes, I do. I call them Mom and Dad and they raised me. I have also met some of my biological relatives too, and all of us together have created a family that is quite real, regardless of who shares genetic material. I know some adoptees struggle with their identity and have issues with the idea, but for me “adopted” means “much loved.” Perhaps that is what the media really is saying. “Sandra Bullock and her much loved son.”

    • cjpatton says:

      Trish, I had no idea you were adopted. Wow. I love it when I learn unexpected things about friends via my blog! I’m also glad that you’ve had the chance to meet some of your biological relatives and have created your own special version of a blended family. I have also known adoptees who struggle(d) with their identity, and I think that’s so sad. I wanted things to be different for my daughter, and so far I’ve accomplished that. For her, adoption means that she has more family to love–and who love her. I tell her she was chosen, but I love your statement that adoption means “much loved.”

      I don’t think of my daughter with the qualifier either. I would love it if that was what the media was saying, but I suspect it’s not.

  3. Julie Tinney says:

    Oh I so agree. Not only just pointed out the difference, but examples of how biological parents are superior are everywhere in the media. On Desperate Housewives, Julie finally ‘sees the light’ and decides she can’t give up her baby. Then there’s Once Upon a Time, where the adopted mother is literally, a witch! But the mother who gave up her son comes back to save the day. Rant on, sister.

    • cjpatton says:

      Wow, if I watched more TV, clearly I’d have plenty of material for another rant! Lol. Thanks for giving me a few more examples. Maybe I’ll start a list….

  4. Pingback: Excuse Me While I Rant A Bit About The Media And Adoption … | Child Adoption Process

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>