Paltrow to adopt Brooklyn baby?

by Jennifer Jordan (Subscribe to Jennifer Jordan's posts) Feb 12th 2008 9:37AM

Categories: Adoption, Celeb Parenting, In The News

According to a recent interview, Gwyneth Paltrow would like to adopt! Like many celebrities before her, including her Madgesty Madonna, Gwynnie is considering a blended family with hubbie Chris Martin of Coldplay fame. Only unlike many celebs of late, she's looking in to adopting a local, homegrown babe.

Says Paltrow, " We might get one from Brooklyn. No baby is more helpless than another baby. And I'm a New York Girl." I'm not exactly sure how I feel about the "helpless" comment, but I am happy to hear of anyone adopting a baby from any area.

I've long considered adoption and have always desired to have a blended family of my own. It didn't occur to me, until Ms. Paltrow brought it to my attention, that the possibility existed of adopting a child from my adopted hometown of Brooklyn.

Good luck to Gwyneth if indeed she is planning on adopting, wherever the child may be from. I would strangely feel a sense of pride if she did adopt from Brooklyn. But then again, I'm biased--I think the best of pretty much everything can be found in Brooklyn, and that includes babies!

Source

Comments (17)

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Cathy 2-12-2008 @ 9:58AM

I don't know about those odd remarks. It makes it sound like she's shopping for shoes. Hopefully, her quotes were taken out of context.

Jessica 2-12-2008 @ 10:16AM

It is exactly shopping for shoes with some of these celebrities.
-Honey, I heard the Jolie-Pitts are adopting again
-Oh, really
-Yeah. I think I want to adopt, it sounds like fun
-Oh, OK, dear.
-Hmmmm, where should we adopt from?
-wherever you want, dear
-Hmmmmm, India....Nigeria......oohooh, if we want a girl we could adopt from China....or, I know, I know, no one has actually adopted from their own city....ooh, ooh, ooh, we could be the first!!! Let's do that, it would be so, imaginative

Does it really matter anyway? Either way, they're giving children a chance at a better life.

SKL 2-12-2008 @ 10:40AM

The blogger does speak as if adoptable children are a commodity rather than thinking, feeling individuals.

I'm not sure about Ms. Paltrow. I certainly won't make assumptions about her motives. But I do wish that people would be a bit more sensitive when they post about adoptions. We no longer call black men "boy" for similar reasons.

Jenna 2-12-2008 @ 11:36AM

Found? Sigh.

Adoption is about finding families for babies, not babies for families.

As a birth mother and an everyday mother, the comments made by both Paltrow and the blogger are disheartening and discouraging. Just a further sign that the general public continues to base its skewed reality of adoption on what the media feeds them. But I will keep hope in the reform movements and I will keep speaking out.

Mel 2-12-2008 @ 11:45AM

What did the blogger say that was "disheartening and discouraging"? Two commentors have said that now, and I really don't see what was said that was the least bit objectionable. Enlighten me, please.

SKL 2-12-2008 @ 12:10PM

Just imagine that you are a child waiting for a family, or as Ms. Paltrow or Ms. Jordan might say, waiting for someone to decide to "get" you, and you hear everyone saying stuff like "you can get the best babies in Brooklyn!"

Personally, this kind of talk brings forth an image of the days of slavery, when prospective buyers forced people to open their mouths so they could judge them by the quality of their teeth before deciding on their purchase.

Humans, however old, are not merchandise. We have made slavery and prostitution illegal based on a similar philosophy. But people still seem to think we can "get" a made-to-order kid, or that adoption is the result of comparative shopping at the best kid outlets. It's dehumanizing.

Mel 2-12-2008 @ 12:22PM

So basically the problem with the post is the blogger's use of the words "get" and "best" with regard to adoption? Honestly, that analysis sounds like a nit-picky attempt at a semantics attack. Adoption is admirable, and it certainly sounds like Paltrow and the blogger agree. Some adopters get very wound-up about the language and attitude surrounding the adoption process. I believe this is an extension of the hyper-PC atmosphere of family issues.

The blogger imparted flavor in her writing, which is I think the raison d'etre of any blog. When she says "the best of pretty much everything can be found in Brooklyn," she is not saying that babies are not worthy of adoption if they are not from Brooklyn. You understand that she was not being so daftly literal, I'm sure, but you still insist on imbuing her words with frivolity, malice, or ignorance.

CLM 2-12-2008 @ 12:27PM

When did we start calling families which include adopted and biological children "blended"? I thought that term referred to families formed through the marriage of people who already had children from a prior relationship.

As a mother whose family was formed through adoption, I have come to the conclusion that most people are kind-hearted but lack the vocabulary to properly discuss adoption. I am constantly asked where I "got" my children and honestly the question does make me wince internally every time I hear it. I worry about how that will sound to my boys when they are older.

BTW - Spence-Chapin in NY is a very reputable adoption agency with domestic and international programs.

Jan Bay 2-12-2008 @ 1:14PM

Just like the OP, Jessica, said, it's about giving a child a better life. International adoption is a good thing, but it's also good to see local adoptions. I have wondered if celebrities are oblivious to the dire circumstances of some of the USA's children?

Jan from http://www.unique-baby-gear-ideas.com/

SKL 2-12-2008 @ 8:57PM

I am not sure why we have to get into "why don't celebrities adopt domestically" discussion every time adoption comes up. How about this. Unless YOU are not going to adopt domestically, how about you hold your tongue about anybody else's choice not to do so. Because until you have done your own research and soul-searching, you cannot understand the choices adoptive parents make. And more importantly, it's none of your business.

SKL 2-12-2008 @ 8:58PM

Typo alert: my previous post should have said "unless you are going to adopt domestically," not "unless you are not . . . ."

SKL 2-12-2008 @ 9:00PM

Mel, where did your parents get you?

Mel 2-12-2008 @ 9:47PM

My parents made me. They got my adopted brother from Vietnam.

Your facetious question frames my point precisely. The fact is: Adoptive parents do not make their children; they get them. Actually, the most appropriate verb is probably obtain or, aptly, adopt. But for the sake of being succint in speech and informal writing, many people opt to use the colloquial "get."

There is a similar linguistic parallel for biological mothers: "When will you have the baby?" Well, she won't be "having" it - more like she'll "birth" it. But "birth" is unwieldy, so most people use the colloquial form of the question. One could make the argument that "having" a baby insinuates possessory intent or some such extreme claim. The same goes for the present issue. While linguistics can provide a window into a person's/culture's intent, it's pretty obvious that we don't collectively look down upon adoption merely because we use a particularly common, handy, and versatile verb to shorthandedly describe the process.

It is in no way disrespectful of the child, the parents, or the process to acknowledge the fact that adoptive parents created their family through means other than biology. To suggest otherwise is likely a reflection of the one who is offended.

SKL 2-13-2008 @ 2:07AM

Mel, the difference between "get" and "adopt" is vast in my opinion. The word "adopt" recognizes that there is a human being on the other side of the action - this human is being accepted and embraced, but still remains a separate individual - like all children, a temporary charge of the parents, but a person who will hopefully have a lifelong relationship with the parents.

The use of the word "get" or, even worse, your suggested synonym "obtain" implies that the object of the verb is something material and of much less import and value than the subject.

I totally understand that the unthinking use of the word "get" is rarely an intended slight, but it's still insensitive. When someone points out that this is offensive to many in the adoption community, it should be viewed as a matter of education - I learned something today; I'll try not to do that again. Once aware that a particular word choice (or general manner of referring to adoption) is offensive, why would anyone want to fight to keep using it?

Mel 2-13-2008 @ 9:44AM

SKL, I take your point that it would be just as easy to switch "get" for "adopt." It's true that it wouldn't be a huge burden to shift our language a bit in an effort to make others feel more comofortable. But there's just too much of that going around. People find ways to be continuously offended; I think those people need to learn that not everything is about them. Being offended is pointless, but that's a feeling and everyone is entited to their feelings. What I have a problem with is when those who are offended get indignant. The indignancy is an external manifestation of internal feelings. One can feel offended without droning about how they have been disrespected, marginalized, or disenfranchised.

Bottom line: We all have different ways of saying things, and most of what we say in speech and informal writing is colloquial. Colloquialisms tend to simplify that which they describe, perhaps not ascribing proper import to a particular subject. You stated that you know that people such as the blogger don't slight adoption, it merely makes you feel uncomfortable. If you know that there is no malice, let it go. The truth is, I have always felt trepidation at using the word "adopt," so I've used "get." It's not all about me, of course, so I could have used "adopt." However, I haven't switched terms because, til now, I've reasoned that if it sounds unwieldy to me, it may come off as unnatural. it seems my analysis was wrong, and that adoptive parents don't want the word "get" describing their situation. You place the onus on everyone else to identify offensive phrases and to find other expressions; I say the onus is on you to identify the existence or non-existence of malice, check the indignancy at the door, and move on.

Mel 2-13-2008 @ 9:50AM

I couldn't pass up the irony of this sentence from Jennifer's entry about Uma Thurman's desire to get pregnant again:

"Well, good luck, Uma! If it's more kids you want, then hopefully more you'll get."

Get.

Is the use of the word offensive to biological parents?

CLM 2-13-2008 @ 12:38PM

Mel, as an adoptive parent frankly I could care less about the use of the term "get" as it applies to me. My concern is for my children. Children do not spring into this world with linguistic sophistication. They will be unlikely to understand the term "get" is merely a colloquial (lazy) way of referring to adoption. As adults, it is our responsibility to at least attempt not to offend the sensibilities of those around us. Granted, some people are offended no matter what, but let us for the moment assume we are not discussing them.

It really comes down to the impact that words have on our children. I don't think any parent would have a problem with that concept. Adoptive parents are not in general a group easily offended. After all, we've had our private lives pored over in ways most biological parents never will. And, of course, there are all of those nosy questions about why we can't have "our own" children. Many of us, even on a bad day, try to assume questions are being asked from a positive motivation and use the moment as a chance to ever so gently educate. For example, when I am asked where I "got" my children, I explain that we are a family formed through a domestic adoption. Sure it sounds awkward the first dozen times or so, but you get used to it. I do not ever want my children to hear me refer to them as something I "got".