Comments on: Two Simple Rules for the Media When Talking about Adoption or Third Party Reproduction

By: Alida

Alida — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:49:30 +0000

Amen, sista ….. very well-said, Dawn! To a mother of biological and adoptive children it does not matter … they are all her children …. unless like you said, context requires to state that such and such is adopted. Obviously and unfortunately, the reporter who wrote the article has no clue about the adoption world and some do’s and don’ts. Thanks for this post.

By: Debbie

Debbie — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 01:31:01 +0000

While I do 100% agree with not having to note that a child is adopted or biological, I will say in Sheryl Crows behalf that the quote does appear as if she was speaking about adoption specifically….which would make sense to mention that the boy was adopted. I wonder if in every day conversation if she introduces her child as her adopted son or just her son. I have had to explain a few times in the few short months of bringing our daughter home – note I said daughter..not adopted daughter that she was adopted. It is pretty obvious when you look at her or us..but the adopted part is only relevant to the particular conversation. It is not a label the child carries with her for every situation.

By: Maria

Maria — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 02:38:18 +0000

I agree that after a while how someone joins a family is really not relevant. Especially with what the examples given of older and even adult children of famous people being singled out. That said, I am so out of it that I did not learn about Sheryl Crow until this blog. Ultimately, I know that love is contagious. The example of a loving family, all kinds of families, can only be a good thing.

By: Dawn

Dawn — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 13:12:55 +0000

Maria, you raise a good point. I agree that media coverage of celebrity adoptions has the potential to affect public attitudes and normalize adoption as a way to build a family. I think it it likely newsworthy or least tabloid worthy to write about the adoption. However, to continue to refer to the child’s adopted status years later when it is not relevant to the story undermines the idea that adopted kids are kids first and foremost and that families built by adoption are just plain old families. I think that continually referring to a child as the “adopted child” makes it seem that somehow the way the child entered the family continues to be relevant, which works against normalizing adoptions. I have noticed that transracially adopted kids are less often to be referred to as the “adopted child” perhaps because the journalist assumes it is obvious.

By: Maria

Maria — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 02:02:27 +0000

Although I agree with the insights in this article, there is something else that comes to mind. These unfortunate adjectives also help to open minds. I know of several people who have come around to the idea of adoption because they saw it as a “normal” thing to do nowadays. In my family there are several people who used to see a stigma to adoption. Now that they have been fed a steady stream of celebrity families that have adopted, they have evolved their thinking in record time. Anjelina, Madonna and the many other tabloid favorites have done more to persuade these family members than anything I’ve ever said. I hope these “adopted” children realize that their testimony does more to change hearts and minds than anything else could do. Hopefully, the next generation of prospective parents are being raised in such to be much more open to the possibilities of adoption.

By: The Gang's Momma

The Gang's Momma — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:08:36 +0000

Linking to this today – still chewing on the good stuff you brought up! Thanks for the perspective . . .

By: UltraMom

UltraMom — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 22:09:55 +0000

Well said! Thank you for saying it. Now, like a previous commenter said, we need to get this out to the journalism community.

By: Jillian S

Jillian S — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:01:18 +0000

You ought to send this to every magazine and newspaper and journalism school in the world. It’s not that hard to be sensitive, so why do so few papers and magazines do it? On behalf of adopted kids and adults everywhere and on behalf of adoptive parents everywhere, I thank you. If only you can get the stupid jerks who write these articles to listen.

By: Chandra plus 5

Chandra plus 5 — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:10:10 +0000

Thank you very much for simplifying these ideas. Why is it so hard for reporters and media to get it. they are our kids, we are their parents, we are real, they are natural, and it isn’t necessary to call them adopted all the time. Jeez!!!

By: Jamie

Jamie — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:47:43 +0000

Well done, Dawn, I always appreciate your very reasonable, evenhanded, and usually humorous approach to the ups, downs, and corkscrews of adoption!