So the other day, I found myself reading a NYT article about the Brangelina split-- I don't read this kind of stuff, like ever-- I hardly have the time to read the mail these days, but I started reading and got stuck on one line about their wedding: "The couple's six children, three of them adopted, attended the bride and groom."
Why was it important for the writer to highlight that three of their children are adopted? Later in the article the writer describes where each of the adopted children are from, which, ok, that I can wrap my head around I guess, but why in this line about their six children being in their wedding, is it important to separate or distinguish or differentiate the adopted kids from the biological kids? They have six kids, right? Do they go around introducing the adopted ones as such, Royal Tenenbaum style? "This is my adopted daughter, Margot?" NO! Of course they don't. So why the need?
Perhaps there is a certain mentality about traditional families vs. non-traditional families that is in the process of changing but isn't there yet. Even that language I don't like. I have a very traditional family, my child just happens to have come out of my body but not be related to me. Is that what makes us "non-traditional?"
Finding the right words to describe things that are a little different is kind of a newish thing. Birth mothers, egg donors, sperm providers-- I get it. There can be a lot of cooks in the kitchen these days. But the end result is a child. And where that child comes from doesn't need to be an identifier, does it?
By the time Momo is a grown up, I really think a lot of these kinks will be resolved. I think non-traditional will be closer to the norm and the more we can all be aware of how we talk about things the easier it will get. Just a few thoughts on a Saturday morning.
Wishing everyone a beautiful weekend!