All the news that's fit to piss me off

Lately I have felt trendy. When I was a 30-something singleton in NYC, Sex and the City was all the rage and felt like everywhere I read was a reflection of my life.

When I was getting married, everyone was getting married! I read magazines that talked about me, lots of shows like Bridezilla and Celebrity Weddings and such were on the tube, and I was basically the center of the universe. Again.

Narcissa, thy name is R.

I feel the same way right now, only it feels less good.

There is a glut of recent articles in many local rags like the NY Times and NY Magazine about infertility, adoption and "non-traditional" parenting. Peggy Orenstein is an infertile who got fertile, and Rebecca Walker is a f-cking idiot whose mother's fame got her a book. They represent both sides of the debate around adoption and parenting and infertility. Peggy, regardless of her miracle baby at 43 or something (which is a false hope story if I have ever heard one, tho good for her), is a huge fan of infertiles and writes with care and concern. Rebecca Walker writes with her head up her arse.

In the middle is this chick: http://nymag.com/news/features/35817/. My supercool friend L sent me this and I read it a few times, swinging from the dizzying heights of self-satisfaction to the deepest depths of sadness and then over to my familiar hometown of defensiveness.

On the one hand, she shows the multiple ways people build their families and also talks semi-positively about transracial adoption and people who choose to adopt based on altruism rather than infertility. On the other she definitely makes snarky side comments about Madonna and Angelina Jolie and other celeb adoptive moms, while also seeming to show an utter lack of understanding as to why people adopt. Incredulousness seemed to be the major emotion in this article.

She also asks really broad questions like "Is adoptive parent love the same as biological parent love?", and then never answers it. And that is because it is a stupid question. Every parent's love is different. Every kid is different. And by the way, knock it off about biological children - that is a misnomer - every kid is biological. No one is adopting robots, tho of course that was the theme of last Sunday's NY Times Magazine. But this is not a robot blog. I digress.

The whole article seems to be more provocative than educational; more controversial by design than interesting. She said nothing, took 5 pages to do it, and left us with what I felt (next stop, Defensivenessland!!) was sort of a "I am writing about this but am WAYYYY too fertile to be a part of this" when she mentions offhandedly "when my child was born".

Some, most or none of you may agree with my take on this article. The point is I want someone to write something different. Let's hear some science. Someone do a study. I have been told that stats show that adopted kids score higher and lower on test scores. That adoptive kids are more and less well adjusted. Which is it, people?

Basically, writers, leave my life alone. Stop looking at my choices as being anything but the selfish need and want to parent a child. Stop making me feel bad for my choice to parent a trans-racial child. Stop looking down your nose at people who make different choices than you, either because they want to, or because they have to.

I will now get off my defensive high horse and resume reading entertainment mags that purport that "Stars Are Just Like Us!" Ah, sweet hypocrisy. I know you well.

Editor's Note: A quick wannabere shout out to Mrs Jones - Love you and am sending big happy thoughts your way...