Question: Do parents love adopted children differently?
by Carmen Van Kerckhove
Angelina Jolie was recently quoted in Elle magazine as saying this:
“I think I feel so much more for Mad and Z because they’re survivors, they came through so much. Shiloh seemed so privileged from the moment she was born. I have less inclination to feel for her… I met my other kids when they were six months old, they came with personality. A newborn really is this… yes, a blob!
“But now she’s starting to have a personality… I’m conscious that I have to make sure I don’t ignore her needs just because I think the others are more vulnerable.”
It’s an awkward sentiment to express and I’m sure her publicist is mortified. But I’m curious to hear from you, our anti-racist parents.
Is Angelina way off base? Or is there a kernel of truth to her statements? Do parents love adopted children differently (not more or less, just differently) than biological children?
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of 
Dawn wrote:
I think parents love EVERY child differently. I know my mom loves her three (bio) kids differently and this has never bothered me. (I knew it growing up — I knew we were all her favorite in different ways.) I certainly do love my kids differently because they are totally different people and the way they arrived to my family does impact my feelings about them. (They both seem miraculous in totally different ways.)
I also remember when Angelina said she was afraid (while pregnant with Shiloh) that she would love Shiloh more and I thought that was enormously brave for her to admit. (And certainly many women expecting another child — via birth or adoption — worry that their feelings for their next child will hurt the children who are already there.)
Parenthood is *complicated* and our feelings for our kids are complicated. To pretend that how and when our kids arrive to their families doesn’t have anything to do with our feelings towards them is, I think, naive (my mother-in-law has always had a special relationship with her youngest due in part to his arrival when the family was settled and stable — her first child showed up ten months after the wedding while they were stationed in Germany and her second arrived while his father was in Vietnam — how could that not impact her experience?).
Besides when we keep perpetuating the myth that adoption is “as good as” or “just like” giving birth, I think we do a disservice to our kids. For one thing, giving birth may be the default way to build a family but it’s not necessarily the “best” way (the one we need to measure “as good as” adoption against) and also again, it’s NOT “just like” giving birth anymore than giving birth is just like adoption. When we pretend it is, we usually do so at the expense of our adopted kids because it’s a way to deny the unique needs & challenges that adoption brings to their lives. (Kinda like colorblind racism)
Posted 15 Jan 2007 at 10:53 am ¶
AmericanFamily wrote:
Maybe it is just me, but when I am reading this, I am not getting much of a racial connotation out of this statement. To me, I think she is acknowledging some of the differences between adoption and birthing a child that so many adoptive parents seem intent on denying. What is wrong with admitting that it is different?
When my bio daughter was born, we called her a slug. She was a slug. All we had to do was feed her, change her and hold her and she was happy.
As we prepare to adopt an older baby, we are very, very aware that we are not getting a slug. We are adopting a baby with a history and a personality already intact and we have to figure out how to fit into her world as much as she has to get used to how it works with us.
Adoption is different. That is ok. I don’t expect to feel exactly the same about both my children. Kids or babies who lose their parents, who grow up in institutional settings have survived trauma. Why pretend that they haven’t? It doesn’t mean you love them more or less, but it is a different kind of parenting to meet those needs than caring for a newborn you birthed yourself.
And while I am well aware of the complexities of transracial adoption, I just don’t see what this statement has to do with race or racism.
Posted 15 Jan 2007 at 10:55 am ¶
Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:
Hey AmericanFamily, I don’t necessarily see this statement as having to do with race or racism either. I just thought it would be an interesting question to ask here on Anti-Racist Parent because so many of our readers have adopted children.
Posted 15 Jan 2007 at 11:24 am ¶
Jenna wrote:
“Feel” and “love” are two entirely different words. From reading it, my understanding is that she has more empathy for her adopted children and their lives prior to adopting them into their family.
Posted 15 Jan 2007 at 12:15 pm ¶
Amanda wrote:
I am going to have to Echo Dawn’s sentiment that each relationship between a parent and child is unique.
Our 2& 1/2 year old son is bio and our 1 &1/2 year old son is adopted from Taiwan.
Because they are unique individuals they respond to us as parents in different ways, causing us to carve out different relationships with each boy. I often find myself wondering how much, if any, of our differences in relationships have to do with adoption vs bio, and how much with personality.
I think that there are inherent differences in the very begining because the bonding process happens in a much different manner with each way of family building…but to me it just feels like diffferent paths to the same destination.
Underneath it all, though, is that same primal overwhelming love.
Posted 15 Jan 2007 at 12:19 pm ¶
margaret wrote:
I think Angelina is probably being very honest here. And, I also agree with the person who said “feel” and “love” mean different things.
I can’t imagine loving my daughter more than I do now (she is adopted from China). We will soon be the parents of a little boy from China (God willing) and I guess it will only be at that point that I will know if I will love my children differently. I can’t really comment on the main question though because I cannot have bio kids. But, still I cannot fathom loving anyone more than I love Anna. It just doesn’t seem possible.
Posted 15 Jan 2007 at 1:04 pm ¶
Kaywil wrote:
I have two bio kids with a third on the way. I thought that Angelina’s comments were very honest. Yes, a newborn is a blob! I had to adjust to the fact that I had spent 3 years building a relationship with my oldest and then had to start over again building a relationship with my second. I felt that the oldest was vulnerable, as his life was being turned upside down by the new baby and I wanted to make sure that he wasn’t resentful. It was because I “knew” him as to why I felt that way. It took a while, but as she said, when the second got older and had more of a personality, it was easy for him to fit in.
I understand her statement of privilege - probably as to why she chose to adopt in the first place. With so many children in such dyer need of being adopted, you can see instantly how lucky bio kids are for being born into a home with enough to eat and a roof over their heads, at a minimum.
Posted 15 Jan 2007 at 2:29 pm ¶
chicagomama wrote:
I’ve tried to post a couple of times…let’s see if this time it works
A couple of thoughts;
1. I was really disappointed to read Carmen Van Kerckhove’s disparaging commentary about her certainty that Angelina Jolie’s publicist must be mortified by Ms. Jolie’s statements. If we are to have a thoughtful dialogue about any topic - respecting those who put themselves out on the frontlines and honestly tell of their thoughts and feelings about being a family is a must. To put down someone’s comments is (in my eyes) an attempt to shut down their ideas. And that is just no acceptable.
2. I think that everyone who has commented thus far about the differences of *how* one loves each of their children is right on. As a mother of three, I know that I parented each of my children differently, express my love differently and feel differently toward each of them. And I have both biological and adopted children. However, it is not like I feel the same for both of my biological children and differently towards my adopted child. Each child has their own place in our family, and in my heart. And my love for them is not ever quantified as more or less.
3. I have to admit to wishing that on Martin Luther King Jr Day - that AntiRacist Parent decided to speak directly about race…rather than bring up a topic that has no direct or indirect correlation to race. If there was ever a day to discuss race - this would be it.
Posted 15 Jan 2007 at 2:30 pm ¶
Jeremy Pierce wrote:
I’ve heard and observed the exact opposite about birth mothers. Pregnant women often feel an attachment to their children long before birth out of having carried them for nine months and being directly connected biologically and affected in many other ways by the pregnancy. Fathers, particular first-time fathers, often don’t feel a close connection until the baby is born.
With adoptions, you have several factors that change this. One is that both parents are in the same boat as the birth father is in the more usual case. This would tend to go in the opposite direction of what Jolie is saying. But another factor is present, and she is correct in noticing it, and that’s that many adoptive parents can appreciate certain kinds of things about their children immediately that birth parents can’t appreciate until much later, due to the adopted child’s already having reached a higher developmental level. That does pull things in the opposite direction in one respect. What she’s wrong to ignore is the other respect.
I don’t know if that reveals something about her as a mother or not, because it may well affect her in ways she isn’t consciously aware of, but it does seem to be an important issue that she’s not explicitly thinking about.
Posted 15 Jan 2007 at 2:44 pm ¶
chicagomama wrote:
Jeremy
I really didn’t understand the point (s) you are trying to make in your comment. Could you please restate it/them?
Posted 15 Jan 2007 at 2:48 pm ¶
baggage wrote:
I only have one child and she is adopted, so I can’t speak to whether I would love her differently than I love a biological child.
The only thing that strikes me over and over again as different is that I hear parents say that they loved their biological children instantly. For me, it took me a lot longer to love my daughter. Love didn’t come instantly.
Of course, that is just my personal experience, as I have no idea whether I would love a biological child instantly either.
I also thought that Angelina Jolie’s comments were great. As much as she gets put down, she seems to be very educated about adoption issues and really willing to speak what is in her heart, even if it is controversial.
Posted 15 Jan 2007 at 2:54 pm ¶
Margie wrote:
This is definitely a question that can be answered from a racial perspective, and adoption perspective, and both. Because Angelina Jolie’s adopted children are black, thinking about why she feels more attached to them at this point is worth considering.
I can’t even begin to speculate on her comments, but it’s interesting to think about whether the race of her adopted children are a factor or not. Only she can answer that.
Posted 15 Jan 2007 at 3:26 pm ¶
Kathy wrote:
The first thing that strikes me is the painting.The painting of Jolie is a racist depiction of a white woman portrayed
as some sort of saintly madonna
saving her two children of
color who are naked, with her white
baby covered in the same saintly clothing
of privilege.
Adoption is about trauma and loss first,
no matter what the prior circumstances
were for the child.
While I do think Jolie is being honest about
her feelings, I also think she is reinforcing
the idea that adopted children are
poor little charity cases in need of a home,
and that is not a good place to begin
adoptive parenting, imo. Adoption
is far more complicated than that.
Furthermore, I think it places all
the motivation to adopt back on the
child and distances parents from
really making an honest effort
to meet the needs of an adopted
child, particularly in trans-racial
adoption.
I love my adopted children. I try to
respect and honor them as people
who deserve to be loved as much
as any other child because they
are human beings. That doesn’t
mean I can’t recognized that
adoptive parenting is different
from bio parenting.
This post really has me thinking about
the whole gratefulness issue that
adopted children face.
It’s not that the child didn’t have
a need or live in dire circumstances
but rather, that we adoptive parents
wanted the opportunity to be a
parent that should be the focus.
It is so typical to frame adoption
as the savior parents of needy
children and not to address the
aspect of privilege that it involves.
The child becomes a victim of this
myth, from the media, extended family
and from their relationships with
friends and classmates.
I think it would be almost amusing if
it wasn’t so sad that Jolie uses the
word privilege but doesn’t seem to
recognize the significance of it
in regard to trans-racial adoption.
Posted 15 Jan 2007 at 4:01 pm ¶
margaret wrote:
Kathy - now that you mention the image I am really looking at it and I’m not sure how to interpret it. Your suggestion is certainly a possibility. I’d like to know where the image came from and what the artist meant.
Posted 15 Jan 2007 at 4:20 pm ¶
Kim wrote:
This thread is so full of places to start…don’t know where.
As to Jolie’s statement. Maybe race was there, in the undercurrent of her concern, and maybe their displacement from their first homelives and then countries and cultures of origin, were central to her concern.
It is quite possible that she used as euphemistic an expression (the generic ‘vulnerable’) as available to her, realizing she seeks to cover ground that indicts persons who “look like her,” but may not feel as she does about the basic humanity and dignity of those who look like these “other” children of hers.
As to loving the children, and considering their needs, separately, uniquely, Dawn has some points there (I like Echo Dawn, thanks Amanda, but I’m through…Kaywil, can you use it?). Each of our children come to us differently, at varying points in our own family stability, financial liquidity, spiritual groundedness, and sibling readiness.
How do their unique entries into the world affect (effect) the birth story that we tell, and our resultant experiences in holding that child- and their first moments with us- in memory, when we close our eyes?
I had just finished reading The Good Earth, and was excited that I was part of a continuum of women that could bring a child into the world, rip that umbilical cord off all by myself, and get up and on with my day (wasn’t planning on doing it that way, but it totally prepared me mentally for what came next…).
When we didn’t make it to the hospital, and found ourselves sprawled in the middle of a NYC street with baby on the way, my husband went into active mode, baby came while I squatted, hubby caught him, the cab driver who was standing there waiting for me to get in, spun counterclockwise (I believe) and gave praises to Allah for bringing life into the world in the backseat of his car (not technically, but that is where the newborn and I were placed, umbilical cord still attached- I am told the term for this is ISH-RAM) , with ambulance parked one hundred feet away from us - unwilling to come down the street because it was East Harlem and narcotics officers were all over the place watching (WATCHING ! NOT EVEN ASKING TO ASSIST) my husband do his thing.
A neighbor (former nurse) came down and sucked the stuff from his nose, and cleared his throat, and then he begain to breathe and wail (for which my husband and the cab driver were truly grateful- ever see two large men perched on the edge of volunteering their own heartbeats and airfilled lungs for a little one?).
That’s one helluva birth story, true, but I’ve got three more kids, and they each have their own highs, lows and points of drama at point of entry (try bringing a ten-pounder into the world only to find the twenty packs of infant size diapers don’t fit right from the start, and neighbors gladly trade up with you).
Each need, and accept, the same things from us in different ways, to this day. We are back in school all over again, everyday.
I think Carmen took just as much of a step “out there,” as did Jolie. I think as moderator, site administrator and director, that is what she does, and there were no barbs intended in her words.
Posted 15 Jan 2007 at 4:23 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
>Because Angelina Jolie’s adopted children are black,
Margie - I think you meant, “non-white” instead of black. Her eldest child is Cambodian, I believe. And most recently, there’s rumors of a potential adoption from India.
Re: Kathy: I think you’re dead-on w/ the image, and I hope Carmen can tell us where it’s from. My Catholic roots are screaming at me that this IS portraying Jolie as the Queen of Heaven, Mother of God, etc. The rays of light and clouds are a dead giveaway. Not sure if it’s intentional that her bio child is the “privileged” one, or just merely the youngest and therefore swaddled and held (a la’ Jesus). But the other 2 children are arranged like Renaissance cherubs (they usually were painted unclothed as well), and at first glance a viewer may not think they belong to the Mother Figure.
ChicagoMama: Actually, since many of the parents w/ adopted children are also transracially adoptive parents, I think it’s a valid post. Not EVERYTHING today has to be about MLK directly, and Carmen has expressed a wish to make Mondays the “Pose a Question” day, in the effort to jumpstart discussions just like this one… in which case, Mission Accomplished.
As for the publicist possibly being “mortified,” any publicist wants their clients to conform, comply, and march the party line, except when it’s financially logical to do otherwise. So I don’t see Carmen’s snark as off base. Carmen wrote “awkward,” not BAD.
Kim: My god, that’s one heluva birth story… and I’m sure you don’t love that child any more than the others… but you do have great ammunition when they cause you any grief.
Posted 15 Jan 2007 at 4:49 pm ¶
chicagomama wrote:
Lyonside - I don’t think that I said I thought a post should be about MLK…I said that on MLK day - it would have been nice to read a post or question about *race* rather than a post that used a polarizing figure to discuss a question that anyone who has more than one child already has an answer to, and for those who don’t have any children or only one…remains purely hypothetical.
I also don’t see how anyone gets to the conclusion that Angelina Jolie’s publicist is or would likely be mortified. I would think that any publicist who works for AJ would already be pretty familiar with her viewpoints and ideas, and would necessarily *not* be mortified with her client saying something that she feels. Especially since AJ is a celebrity who has historically never really been interested in toeing any party line, nor in being very politically correct. So, I do still think that the snark regarding her publicist statements is and was out of line. Now, if Carmen had just said, “I think she expressed this awkwardly and I am mortified by it”….then I would have asked her to explain why she feels mortified. What is mortifying about what AJ said? My problem is placing reactions on *other people*…knowing nothing about them. And the reaction she said was not that the publicist might feel awkward…but that it would be *mortifying*…and I cannot think of a non-negative meaning of “mortifying”.
I do think deconstructing the image Carmen chose to use with this post would be fascinating, and also to find out why she chose to use this image rather than any of the images from the Elle article. However…I don’t think that any of us can or should attribute any interpretation of the image to the thoughts and feelings of AJ. To the best of my knowledge - she neither posed for the image, approves of the image or created the image. We could talk about what the creator might have been trying to say (or what we garner from the image personally) - but to try to attach any of those idea to AJ is false.
And as to many of us being transracial adoptive parents, and therefore this question has something to do with race - I would ask everyone…would you feel differently about the question if it directly had asked about race. If someone had posted, “Do you feel the same love for your transracial adoptive child as opposed to your biological same race child?”
Wouldn’t you question why someone thought that your love for a child you choose to adopt would be different because of their *race*. AJ never mentions the race of her children in the comments above. Instead she discussed the reality that they had to go through so much in their young lives (poverty, illness, war ravaged countries) before she became their mother. And that they weren’t born in “optimal” circumstances, nor did they spend the first months of their lives in anything approaching optimal circumstances. And in her eyes (it seems implied) Shiloh was born into incredible privilege and a stable, loving home. Those are dramatically different circumstances, and that seems to be the point she is making. What does that really have to do with race? And would this conversation be the same if both the children she had adopted were white? Would these comments be less true if she had white children adopted from Romania, Russia, etc?
Now, if someone on this board feels and loves their child differently *because of their race* - I would be very interested about hearing all about it. What about your child’s race makes your love different? Were you aware you would love your child differently because of their race, and if you were aware of this…what was your thought process about adopting transracially? How does this different love based upon your child’s race show itself tangibly? That would be a great question on MLK day, and I look forward to hearing from these parents.
Posted 15 Jan 2007 at 6:44 pm ¶
Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:
Hi chicagomama,
I have definitely had problems with things Jolie has said in the past, but I don’t particularly feel negatively towards her latest comments. I said it was an “awkward” thing to talk about, and said her publicist would be mortified because the comments were not at all safe or “on-message.” She was clearly speaking from the heart, and not based on some pre-approved talking points.
I also thought it would be an interesting question to pose here at Anti-Racist Parent because I know many of our readers are adoptive parents. And while Jolie’s comments were not necessarily race-based (though I think some commenters here have made a good case for a race-based interpretation), I felt that the ensuing discussion would certainly involved race and country of origin to some degree.
“If there was ever a day to discuss race - this would be it.”
As I explained above, I don’t think see this topic as having “no direct or indirect correlation to race,” as you said.
But now that you bring it up, I’ve noticed that in my other blogs I’ve almost never prepared any specific content for events like MLK or Black History Month. I actually think that making these few days of the year *the* time to talk about race is part of the problem with the way race is discussed in America. Every day should be a good day to talk about this stuff.
(I know that you weren’t suggesting MLK day as being the only day to talk about race, of course, but I just wanted to make that point since you brought it up.)
Posted 15 Jan 2007 at 7:13 pm ¶
Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:
The image I used to illustrate this post is by a North Carolina artist named Kate Kretz. I’ve seen a lot of bloggers comment on it and it’s also been discussed in the mainstream media. See ABC News for example:
http://tinyurl.com/y3yrf5
I assumed that most people would have already seen it elsewhere, but clearly that was a bad assumption on my part.
I thought the painting was funny, and a pretty sharp commentary on the public’s fascination with celebrity. I am particularly amazed by the reverence with which Jolie is treated, when a few years back she was just another eccentric Hollywood celebrity, blood vials and all.
I think part of me was annoyed at myself for using her to jumpstart a discussion. Because isn’t that attributing greater importance to her than is necessary? So I guess the image was a bit self-critical too.
Anyway, psychobabble aside,
I guess in retrospect the image added unnecessary snark to this post and if I were to do it over, I would have gone with a more generic image.
Posted 15 Jan 2007 at 7:21 pm ¶
Margie wrote:
Lyonside, my error - I should have said non-white or black and Asian.
Chicagomama raised the question “Wouldn’t you question why someone thought that your love for a child you choose to adopt would be different because of their *race*.”
I wonder if perhaps adoptive parents aren’t the ones who can see or feel the difference, rather their children can. And is this perhaps part of what I’ve heard some transracial Asian adoptees describe as being “objectified” because of their race.
Posted 15 Jan 2007 at 8:30 pm ¶
margaret wrote:
“I wonder if perhaps adoptive parents aren’t the ones who can see or feel the difference, rather their children can. And is this perhaps part of what I’ve heard some transracial Asian adoptees describe as being “objectified” because of their race. ”
Margie, I almost feel like you are saying that our love for our children either won’t be translated to them or isn’t as real as we’d like to think. I don’t buy either one.
I have read largely the same TRA blogs as you have and I am thankful to the authors for their honesty. One thing I’ve noticed is these TRAs DO describe being treated differently by their parents and not necessarily in always a very loving way.
Examples from widely read TRA blogs:
“Had you stayed in country X you would have become a prostitute”
“If you feel our relatives are being racist, then it’s your problem and up to you to deal with them”
Other aparents have equivocated over whether or not one of them is an actual first parent. I could go on and on.
I’m sorry to say this so boldly here but this is not only “objectifying” these TRAs because of race….this is NOT love at all. I think it’s very eady for any son or daughter, even as an adult to get caught in that tangle parents sometimes weave by saying “I love you so much” but then acting quite the opposite.
Posted 15 Jan 2007 at 8:53 pm ¶
Kim wrote:
Chicagomama:
Not sure if you’ve been at the site for a while. There was a discussion, based on a post by Karen Walrond, on her reaction to a columnist’s statements about the evolution of her feelings toward her AP child (due to skin shade surprises), and the ensuing efforts to acclimate both herself and her child to the world.
It’s here somewhere at Anti-Racist Parent. It doesn’t cover all the bases you’re speaking in the latter part of your last commentary, but does dip and wade into certain areas. Maybe you’d like to find it.
Probably put up in November.
Posted 15 Jan 2007 at 10:59 pm ¶
Dawn wrote:
Chicagomama said, “would you feel differently about the question if it directly had asked about race. If someone had posted, “Do you feel the same love for your transracial adoptive child as opposed to your biological same race child?” Wouldn’t you question why someone thought that your love for a child you choose to adopt would be different because of their *race*.”
I think that this is definitely a valid question for transracially adoptive parents (and most significant for WANNABE transracially adoptive parents) to ask themselves. And I think it’s part of the discussion around Jolie’s statements. We all know of adoptive parents who treat adoption across cultures like adding to their fashionable accessories or use adoption as an excuse to co-opt and objectify their child’s birth culture. (It’s interesting to segue here to what looks like Jolie’s growth on issues around race and adoption from this statement, “I want to create a rainbow family. That’s children of different religions and cultures, from different countries” reported in 7/05 to this one, “[N]ow the questions are more when you have a mixed-race family, do you balance the races so there’s another African person in the house for Z? So there’s another Asian person in the house for Madd? Shiloh has Brad and I she can look at … We don’t just want to have different children from different countries. That’s not the point. So we’re learning.” reported in 12/06.)
Posted 16 Jan 2007 at 12:15 am ¶
pacific wrote:
Kathy’s response to Jolie’s statement is very close to mine: “While I do think Jolie is being honest about her feelings, I also think she is reinforcing the idea that adopted children are
poor little charity cases in need of a home,
and that is not a good place to begin
adoptive parenting.”
and: “It is so typical to frame adoption as the savior parents of needy children and not to address the aspect of privilege that it involves.”
I couldn’t agree more.
The other aspect of Jolie’s statement that worries me is that she may be trying to subconsciously alleviate her guilt as a privileged well-off white woman & an American (i.e. world dominator) by adopting these “underprivileged” children. I may be psychoanalyzing here too much, but could she be projecting her guilt onto her biological child that may subconsciously represent this privilege for her? If this is the case, will Jolie treat her differenly - with some resentment - and will she dote over the “poor little souls that need to be saved”? I don’t know. What do others think? - BTW, this is my first post on antiracist parent
I have one bio child and plan to adopt two.
Posted 16 Jan 2007 at 1:14 am ¶
Mamma wrote:
I haven’t had a chance to read all the comments, so I hope I don’t repeat more of the same….
I have one bio and two adopted kids. I echo the comments that since my kids are different, I treat/parent them differently. They are still young, so perhaps things will change as they get older but so far, I have to say that it was different for all three.
My bio child (my first..and the only white child) is the LEAST like me. She is her daddy all the way. Even now, she is 6, I look at her and think “who ARE you?”. I feel the least connected to her in some ways because of basic personaity differences. I need to use the most patience with her. Don’t misunderstand this to mean that I don’t love her or feel bonded to her. I do. I love her dearly, but it takes me longer to “get” her and I have to try harder to see things the way she does.
My son (aged two) was the only child that I felt bonded with from the first second. I felt a ferocious, visceral flood of emotion the first time I held him. I knew that I would chew my feet off for this kid if he needed it. I never understood it when people would say “I know what my child is going to do before they do it” until I parented this one. We couldn’t LOOK more different, but this child is the one that is a little piece of me. We have the same likes and dislikes, I can read him easily, we tend to react the same way. In many ways it makes it easier to parent him because it is more intuitive. Do I love him MORE than my white bio kid? No. It is easier to love some things about him for some reasons and much harder to feel connected for others (mostly 2 yr old boy things…. like trying to smother his sister, destroying my kitchen table and breaking the TV… all before lunch…).
I am sure that in the future, there will be different kinds of parenting involved for this very active, very happy boy who will grow up to be a black man. I am sure that my heart will break over different things for him and I will worry about him differently than I will my daughters. Part of it because he is black and part of it because he is a boy. My youngest daughter is a baby still (and an EASY one at that) and the bonding process is still happening. I know that because of the way that they look, each child will have different challenges. I also know that because of the way my children ARE they will have other ones. I also know that each brings gifts and talents too. The trick is finding out how to make the good stuff have more meaning than the bad stuff .
So, do I love my adopted kid more? No. Do I love them in the same way? No. I do feel like I have to try harder with the little ones because I need to understand things that aren’t part of my background. I need to learn things that aren’t familiar so that they will be familiar to them. I need to stretch myself and do everything I can to prepare them and protect them from the things that the world will hand them. Things that I am not familiar with because I didn’t grow up adopted. Or black. Or a boy. So, while I don’t love them MORE than my bio child, I feel like I have to work harder to give them the things that I instinctivly know how to give my oldest daughter because the world will see her the same way that they saw me. I put more work into it and that brings a different kind of love.
It is late and I might have taken too much cold medicine, so I hope that this made sense. I think that this is an interesting subject and a great one to think about.
As for the gratful thing with adoptees. I was horrified the first time I saw that and didn’t realize how widespread it was. I don’t expect my adopted kids to be any more grateful than my bio one. Ther are a few things that ALL children in our home need to learn to be grateful for: shelter, safety, opportunity for education, the hard work their mother does to take care of them every day, the hard work their father does to support this family, the gift of each other. Those are things that seem appropriate in all familes. I hope that the little ones don’t grow up feeling like I expect them to feel that way just because they are adopted.
Sometimes adoption and transracial parenting feels like a maze that we will never emerge from with happiness and health intact. Is there any way to do this right? I am starting to doubt that more and more…..
Posted 16 Jan 2007 at 4:22 am ¶
DS-L wrote:
Wow - argh - crap. How do you answer, think about such a question. (I will just answer the question and not all of the issues raised in the comments — although interesting and complicated).
I have two bio mixed race sons and a daughter adopted from China. Do I love them the same or differently? I love each of them differently on different days, sometimes differently moment to moment. But my love is always complete, if that makes sense. I love them each with my whole heart. BUT, I honestly do understand Jolie’s point — I have a special soft spot for my daughter because she was alone in the world for 10 months. Because she will face issues of deep deep loss. On the other hand, I also have a soft spot for my second son who is sweet and tender and I worry he will be hurt by other boys who are not at all sweet and tender like him. My daughter on the other hand — born not at all privileged — is tough as nails, and self-confident and strong willed. And I have a soft spot for my first born who made me a mother and is paving the way for the others.
So — in my mind, love is large, and immeasurable and amorphous and could not take the same shape for each of our children even if we wanted it to.
DS-L
Posted 16 Jan 2007 at 1:48 pm ¶
Mandy wrote:
I don’t see anything wrong with Angelina Jolie’s comments. All I think she is trying to say is that Shilo was born into a family and from the day she was born was safe and taken care of where Madox and Zahara had to fight every day to stay alive until they were adopted and given security and safety. I think she is trying to make sure every day that Z & M feel what S was born into.
I have an adopted daughter who is African American who I love with all of my heart and a step son who we have custody of and I love with all of my heart but I do love them differently. My stepson has a mom who he visits regularly so I fit into his life a little differently than I do with my daughter. I think everyone loves their children regardless of how they became to be their children but there are different levels of connection and love that go on. Some kids are momma’s boy/girls and some are daddy’s boy/girl. Different levels of connection and love happen even with children.
Posted 16 Jan 2007 at 4:58 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
>Madox and Zahara had to fight every day to stay alive until they were adopted
I’m sorry, but if they were both adopted as infants, the babies didn’t fight, although someone else fought FOR them. It would be different if, say, one were to adopt a 5 year old proverbial street urchin. Unless in my very, very casual interest in all things celebrity, I missed something? I’m not saying the children were living in anything like the typical American baby life pre-adoption. I just can’t get behind the “hard-scrabble” existance that seems to be part fo the story of any adoption of any aged kid from any part of the developing world.
Posted 16 Jan 2007 at 7:37 pm ¶
Mandy wrote:
Lyonside~ I’m not sure how much you do or don’t know of international adoptions especially from Cambodia and Ethiopia but alot of babies from Ethiopia are left in fields to die when they are found and brought to orphanages and places like Cambodia have orphanages that can only afford to feed the children once a day.
My point was that I can see where her comment came from and why she made it.
Posted 16 Jan 2007 at 11:26 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Mandy - as I said, I’m not saying conditions were great…. but the default situation you hear about (generically) is always framed in Absolute Horror vs. American (usually white) Savior, and I KNOW there is a spectrum of possibilities and care in between.
And I really don’t follow Jolie at all, so I don’t know her children’s personal histories. But again, an infant is in the care of adults. Myh objection is to the perceived savior complex, and to the either/or tone of most of these debates.
Posted 17 Jan 2007 at 12:07 am ¶
Nina wrote:
Once again I question whether it is “brave” to admit love for one child over another in such a public forum. I am one of five and when my parents played the “you are not as smart as your sister, you are not as good an athlete as your brother, you are not as well behaved as etc.” it was hurtful to all involved and created rifts among the siblings that have yet to heal. Manyof you have responded that you love your children differently. That is not what Angelina said. She said she has a hard time feeling for her biological child and feels much more for her adopted children. I don’t think any one of the responders above has claimed to love one child more than the others. Again were Angelina’s statements brave or foolish and insensitive to the children. She has already said that she was quoted out of context so I guess she is trying to repair some of the damage. And I still wonder if her perceived “exoticness” of her adopted children makes them easier for her to love.
Posted 17 Jan 2007 at 11:46 am ¶
Margie wrote:
Margaret re adoptees being objectified because of race:
I actually think we are saying the same. My focus was on the possibility that an adoptee’s race could cause their a-parents to see them as “exotic,” and therefore love them differently because of that.
You describe a situation in which a-parents say they love their children, but then discount their racial experiences - not love, in your opinion.
I agree - I think we describe flip sides of the same coin. To “love” a person as an object isn’t love. To profess love but discount the individual’s experiences isn’t love.
Posted 17 Jan 2007 at 2:17 pm ¶
Kathy wrote:
Lyonside, I think adopted children do suffer
a trauma and the only way for adoption to
occur is for the child to incur deep loss.
Loss of family, cultural and racial connections,homeland, language, the list is long.
The Savior/Parent framing tends to ignore
these losses, and renders the parent’s deep
desire to parent as relatively unimportant.
The myth that is created is that the
parents have done a “good thing” and that
the kids should be grateful.
Posted 17 Jan 2007 at 2:51 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Kathy: I don’t think we’re in disagreement. And there is loss… but not one that a, say, 3 month old infant is going to understand or regret. That all develops later. At that age, there is no “culture,” there are basic universal human physical and emotional needs, and they are either met or not met, to varying degrees.
I think the “horrible situation” is used to bolster the “savior” concept.
Posted 17 Jan 2007 at 4:55 pm ¶
Kim wrote:
Nina: She said she has a hard time feeling for her biological child and feels much more for her adopted children.
Kim: That is a different picture, with a different shade altogether , isn’t it? I will take her statement to be not so simplistic as to be the postpartum baby-blues type of statement which means she will not attach easily, but acknowledge that which you seek to re-direct our attention to.
Margie: Oooh, strong, strong points.
Lyonside: I’m glad you wrapped that last statement up the way you did, for even as I sought to discuss the issue of separation of infants from their land of birth, I knew the fine points of separation had to be something more concrete than culture , but couldn’t pin it.
I’m thinking about pointing a young lady over at Racialicious your way; I think you would do so much better at speaking to her and her budding concerns and language of mixed-race issues than I.
Posted 17 Jan 2007 at 7:40 pm ¶
Nina wrote:
Kim, what do you mena? I don’t follow.
Posted 18 Jan 2007 at 10:44 am ¶
Nina wrote:
sorry typo, I meant what do you mean by
“I’m thinking about pointing a young lady over at Racialicious your way; I think you would do so much better at speaking to her and her budding concerns and language of mixed-race issues than I. “
Posted 18 Jan 2007 at 10:45 am ¶
Kim wrote:
Nina,
there is a young lady with whom I have been corresponding, and seeking to develop an accord with, on how best to handle the grief one gets from individuals in the world who respond, viscerally, to one’s very presence, with there being no history, no previous interaction, no known points between them at all.
Many times she encounters insufferable grief from young Black women (I think she identifies as Black or mixed-race, with no one being sure where to ‘place’ her by the eyeball test), and it has embittered her. She spoke angrily at Racialicious about some things, and I sought to direct her attention to the ways in which hurling the very same epithets that are hurled at her, don’t help her to see through what the REAL problem is that other people have, for it is not her problem, though it becomes hers.
We’d gone through some back-and-forths where she felt I was ignoring the hurt she had experienced, when I was seeking to ask her if she thought there were larger reasons for the venom other people acted out and directed at her (historical and specific instances of being devalued based on skin color, hair type, body type), and if she could consider those reasons as even larger, and at times more powerful, than the offending girls know or intend them to be, and realize each party’s (true) mutual desire to simply be accepted as they are, without the comparison and weighing of aesthetic values.
I simply think that Lyonside’s succint and encompassing manner, tying up all loose ends of the tough issues, while affirming the basic right of everyone to basic human dignity and remininding them of their interconnectedness and, therefore, duty to each other, is done so much more smoothly than my own.
Posted 18 Jan 2007 at 12:37 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
OK; This counts as thread-derailment, so I apologize in advance:
It’s really not a pretty sight 
———————————–
Woah, Kim, you’re not allowed to give me that big a head
I think I’ve seen some of the posts you’re referring to, and you’ve been handling it pretty well (considering the hot potato nature of skin color in the AA community… we all talk over each other even more than at each other, when of course the best thing would be to talk WITH each other). I’m not sure if you meant that you’ve also been emailing her. If so, I’m willing to share anything I can via email - that way we don’t derail a thread. Who knows, it would be good for me to clarify some thoughts before my own daughter arrives in whatever skin she’s in. Let me know… my email is lyonsden42 at yahoo dot com.
Posted 18 Jan 2007 at 1:14 pm ¶
Kim wrote:
Final note and no more derailment:
While I have not been in ‘personal’ communication with her, I have wondered if she needed a little more than the public forum for discussion, gleaning (a little late) that she is a (very) young adult.
I will offer up myself, at afroceltclanATyahoo[dot]com, and if she is amenable, will forward her to … someone far more capable (don’t worry, your head could never match the belly). Thanks.
Posted 18 Jan 2007 at 3:08 pm ¶
Nina De la Fuente wrote:
I thought Jolie’s comments had more to do with her own perception (which may be true, I have no idea) of being abandoned by her own father…Voight..and that she more readily sympathizes with “the abandoned’ or orphans.
I suspect Jolie may regret her words about Shiloh one day. Certainly, all babies deserve their parents full attention and empathy.
Posted 22 Jan 2007 at 12:45 am ¶
Denise wrote:
I was reading through here and kept thinking of things to post, and then I would read what I was thinking. Most of it has been said. I am in agreement with most that you naturally love each child differently. I admire Jolie for her honesty. I would imagine many have the same thoughts, but would be reticent to say them aloud, let alone so publicly.
But this line from Kim…
“We are back in school all over again, everyday.”
Sums it all up for me.
I have 7 kids, bio and adopted, and it’s amazing how different all their needs are. Our most recent addition was adopted at 8 and had a horrific life, including watching both parents die of Aids in front of him. And yes, I do ‘feel’ more for him because of that at times. And yes, it ‘does’ make me realize how priveledged my others have been. Doesn’t mean I love him more though. And it certainly doesn’t mean I feel like his ’savior’ or that he should be grateful.
As a matter of fact, I got so tired of people telling me how “lucky” he was, that I snapped one day, and retorted “Yes…he is a lucky little boy, so lucky to watch his parents die so young, so lucky to be so sick in a place without adequate helth care, so lucky to go days without knowing when he would eat next, so lucky to experience war, famine and disease before most children are old enough for school.” Maybe not the best way to handle it, but the person was speechless, and definitely gave the whole thing a little more thought. If anything I am the lucky one… my son has brought more to our family than I ever imagined.
And Lyonside, I agree with all your posts as well. I do think adoption in and of itself comes with some trauma. But sometimes it is hard to hear people try and compare what their infant adopted childs like to what my older son’s life was like. It goes back to all of the original discussion of all kids adopted or bio coming with different needs.
Posted 30 Jan 2007 at 9:34 am ¶
shelli wrote:
as an adoptive parent, i love my daughter with every breath of my being. She joined our family when she was 8 weeks, 5 days old. She is now 13 months old.
There have been, and there will be, hard times, but I almost feel like she is perhaps loved MORE than a bio child I may have had, because of the struggles we survived to get to where we are now.
But I can’t say for certain, as I’ve not experienced pregnancy.
Posted 04 Feb 2007 at 8:47 pm ¶
Dana wrote:
As a mom of 4 kids (2 bio, 2 adopted) I know there are days and times when I feel I need to give each of them something different. We all have concerns about raising our children, I just think Angelina expressed out loud what many of use may wonder at times. Our family unit has been together for almost 4 years, so I am much less worried about whether I am favoring one child over another. What is most important is that there are good people in this world to give loving homes to children.
Posted 28 Feb 2007 at 1:47 pm ¶
mark sta ana wrote:
I strongly beleive that parents do love more their biological child.
based onf my experience as a adopted child. and you have no choice but to bear the pain and hold on to something. al so hoping that someday my life will be different and thanks to this people.
Posted 08 Jul 2007 at 1:21 am ¶
Sara wrote:
What she means is that she loves shiloh but she dont want her adopted children to feel like they dont belong her or something else she dont want them to think about that their real mother left them and shiloh has nothing to think about i mean she is whit her real mother and father but
and angelina want her adopted children to feel like home
she is a very god mother and have worked hard to make the adopted children to feel that they belong in this familj
come on if you had a adopted child who is from africa or some where else and then you have a biological child
if you just let them be like this when they grow up the will hate each other and be jealous so angelina is doing a great work and she is wonderful person
and people just write OMG angi hates shiloh , did angi ever say i hate shiloh ? NO !!! , she is only saying that she feels more for her adopted children. becuse she dont want them to feel lonely, but shiloh she will always be just a regular child in brangelinas family , and yes a newborn child is like litle cute blob they sleep all the time almost ant that why angi are whit her adopted child but now when shiloh is grown up she is beginig to have a personality and angi is spending as mutch time as she can whit her and her adopted children
you know in a interwiev angelina sad this about shiloh : she´s full of light and love she´s just a little honey , and very, very funny … i´m recognizing some of myself in her.
DO you people realy think that a mother who hate her child would say that about her.
and you know just becuse she is famous is does not mean she is not a regular person , she is the only one i hollywood that really cares about the world and the people in it. she is wonderful and god person.
its hard to be a adopted child that why you need to make them feel a part of the family
but shiloh is a part of brad and angi but the adopted isnt they family left them becuse they had to and angi is trying to make them all feel like sisters and brothers .
Posted 27 Jul 2008 at 11:57 am ¶
donna wrote:
donna
I agree with baggage; I have an adopted daughter who is 4 1/2 years. I have lived with her for 2years now but i feel bad that i feel nothing towards her as yet. She has a inhibitive reactive attachment disorder and am finding difficult to cope with her.
Posted 25 Nov 2008 at 9:38 am ¶