What is wrong with ponies and pools and rainbows?

monkeykitty83

There is nothing inherently wrong with those things. The problem is with making luxuries seem like necessities. The problem is confusing what children might WANT with what they NEED.

Children need food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, etc. They don't need to have expensive presents. That doesn't mean expensive presents are always bad, but they shouldn't be mistaken for basic needs. It shouldn't be assumed that a family that can provide more material goods is a "better" family.

Not being wealthy doesn't mean living in poverty. Not having everything they want doesn't mean children don't have everything they need.

Having lots of material goods isn't wrong or evil, but it shouldn't be prioritized over things that are really important, like love and safety. Families that aren't rich can be just as loving and safe.

MamaKate

Ollie,

There is nothing wrong with ponies, pools and rainbows.Many people use it as a sarcastic dig at the promises that are implies in adoption but are rarely the reality. The problem is that many women are lead to believe that this is what their child will receive if they are adopted - and it is rarely the case. Also you need to remember that ponies, pools and rainbows are easily outgrown and are a sorry substitute for rights to knowledge of one's heritage, DNA and the love of the original family which is often kept from the adoptee, even when there is no reason to do so. Which is more important, a childhood of material wealth or a mother's love for her child? (I am not implying that APs do not love their children, but how is their love "better" than that of a "poor" mother?!) When did people decide that wealth was more important than character? Some of the greatest minds, humanitarians, thinkers, philosophers, writers, artists, musicians, etc. came from poverty stricken families.

There is more to parenting than money and character is built through experiences - even (and some would say ESPECIALLY) experiences that are "less than ideal". Families are not interchangeable without consequence and encourage a woman to trade all that is natural about the way a family is created simply for material gain to her child is to say that money overrides nature and love. I cannot think of a less ridiculous reason to place a child. It frightens me to think that there is a segment of society who place such value on money over nature. What sort of model is this to children?! That $$$ is more important than people, feelings and nature?! Surely there are greater lessons to be taught...

Linny G

Why are adoptees mocked for wanting their real Mom? You dont know how people have lived, Oliie.
I didnt want a pony, a pool, or a rainbow. I wanted my real Mom. The Mom who shares my DNA. Money can't buy you happiness, or a Mom, now matter how much they payed for you, or how much they buy you. Its a good substitute, but not as good as the real thing.

kitta

Supposedly, the reason for adoption was to provide a family for orphans.

Now, due to the emphasis on material things, some people think that children cannot do without "riches."

Poverty can be alleviated without destroying families. People do not need a lot of "stuff."

During the BSE, many many pregnant women(often high school or collge students) from middle to upper middle class families were forced to surrender children to less well-off adoptive
families. This was due to the emphasis on married parents, any married couple, as the standard.

Adopted children were often raised in homes by adoptive parents who were less well educated than their natural parents.

Reunited BSE adopted people have often found their natural families to be quite well off.This was a surprise for many people, who had been told their family was "poor."

Children are best served in their natural families. Poverty is a problem, but not a reason for adoption.

Opedial

Nothing wrong with wanting it for THEIR child, but to work to create a system that HOPES to take a child from their mother to further your own gain is no just wanting the good life.

Stealing money will also buy the good life, and I am against that as well.

Gaia Raain II

Absolutely nothing is wrong with pools, ponies, and rainbows. But my kids (adopted) will not have a pool (other than a cheap-o kiddie pool, and the community pool), or a pony (other than the place off the highway that has pony rides on Saturdays). Rainbows are freely available anywhere, regardless of the income of the person seeing the rainbow.

The idea that children given away for adoption will have any more than they would have had in their parents' home is a myth. And as well it should be. Adoptive parents are just as human as anyone else, and the idea that we are "better" or can provide a "better life" needs to go the way of the dinosaurs. Adoption should ONLY exist for children who NEED homes, not for those who want their children to have pools and ponies.

rachelrmf@sbcglobal.net

And some adopties have it worse with their adopted families than with their nmoms. Your question assumes all paps lavish their children in fairytale gifts. They aren't being mocked, but my goodness you can't bribe your right to adopt with lavish gifts! Not to mention from what I have read on these boards many in poverty would have been happy in poverty if it ment staying whole with their N parents. this question does not make sence to me??

Edit to add: Also what some concider as poverty others concider it a way of life and their families culture, and frankly are a bit mad that they missed out on it. Funny me and hubby were debateing the same thing this morning on the way to work.

Mei-Ling

Oh, so all countries other than AMERICA are absolute sh*tholes.

Thanks for the memo, OllieO.

And whose standards are we comparing by? Should we eliminate other countries and evacuate entire populations because they aren't "the American dream"?

You're right; I haven't lived in it. And I WOULDN'T HAVE lived in it, either.

SJM

No, everyone doesn't want the 'good life.' Some people would rather adhere to their principles than sell out to the highest bidder. Corporatism, materialism, and human trafficking may be your dream for America. It's not mine.

kateiskate

I actually prefer kool aid over those things.

eta: And Im pretty sure I could have had kool aid in Korea too.

tish_part deux

um.. what about the rich girls who are convinced to relinquish to avoid the "scandal" of an out-of-wedlock baby...

once more: logical fallacy....

stabbyan

You're right, I always wanted a rainbow as a child and never got it. Now I weep silently when the sun meets the rain.

sunny

Even more proof that I got scr@wed.

I missed out on world travel, private schools, and many other "opportunities" that I would have experienced if it had been morally acceptable for my mother to keep an out of wedlock baby.

Instead I lived a lower middle class life with rusty cars, no extracurricular activities (ever!), and no vacations.

Guess the social worker thought the switcheroo would make my adoption experiment more interesting!

Independ"ant"

Many adults that live in poverty would like ponies,pools and rainbows....is adoption the solution for them as well.

Children can't be bought.....how many adoptees have to kill, injure or rejected their adopters before you get it. How many adoptees have to be returned, killed, molested, injured before you accept it.

Sly

Ollie,
How do you know that many in poverty would love to have the opportunities that you had in your cushy adoptee life? Have you quizzed them? Do you have their email addresses, and if so would you post them here so that we, too, can contact them? Who is glamorizing poverty? My son would have been far better off financially if raised by me as were many of the lost children of mothers I know. Why do you assume that women who lost their children are living in poverty? Even the ones who were forced to surrender due to temporary poverty usually do not remain so. Temporary situation....no permanent solutions necessary.

Rowan

Of course there's nothing wrong with it. But again, its just an metaphor used to describe the way some people feel about adoption, and the illusion that all adoptees are happy. They are not.

Of course we all want the best for children. But not all children given up for adoption were given up due to poverty. One posters mothers family was well off, her only crime was being unmarried. Another was seeking help for an eating disorder, only to be stabbed in the back by her caseworker/CPS and her child put up for adoption. My bio mother was fianacially strapped, and emotionally worn out, as well as a drinker. My friend from church was literally forced, a day after the birth of her son, to give up her child. The list goes on
Whos to say you wouldnt have the same oppurtinities yourself Ollie, if you had been kept by your bio parents.

Anha S

Is this the only definition of a good life? And newsflash, not all adoptees were "given" the pools and ponies experience. Stop painting it like we all went to this mythical place where no one ever had to struggle financially, got everything they wanted and every opportunity available in the world.

I feel bad for anyone raised in an environment where the "american dream" is the be all end all. When someone's life is so focused on getting all they can material wise, what kind of enrichment do they have in their lives. Money can't provide love, a shoulder to cry on or comforting arms.

kumar live positively

I grew up in a family below the poverty line. True, I'm sure every parent wants nice things for their kids. I plan to spoil the crap out of mine, because anything is better than being poor. But your money would be much better spent on books and piano lessons than stuff.

myst1998

<Shaking head and laughing as I read this question>

You have lived a very shallow and easy life and have no idea of what life really holds out there. As a child my parents were aid workers and chose to live in countries where poverty is real... more than what developed countries would understand. Do you know what we found? Shock, horror - families were happy. They had each other, they struggled but they were happy. Poverty is not bad, it is what you chose to do with it that makes or breaks you as a person. Many poor people have risen from that and become influential world speakers and leaders - had they not experienced what they did, maybe they would never have had that opportunity?

Also, as another poster pointed out, being adopted doesn't automatically mean you have it better than what you could have had with your natural family. Many natural mothers came from wealthy families where they had no choice to relinquish due to family pressure.

The other thing is, I think it is really, really sad you have no concept of how important blood family can be. You think pools, rainbows and ponies can outweigh the love of a family and that is tragic. You see, what you get with a natural family cannot be bought no matter how hard one tries and so ponies and pools are only weak consolation prizes in comparison. There is no way to give a child a rainbow unless you live in a fantasy world.

Half God Half Ape

Ponies and pools and rainbows are for the weak.
Buy the kid a handgun and teach him to survive.

The_Sharpest_Lives

I never wanted ponys and pools or rainbows when I was a kid.

BLW_KAM

There's nothing wrong with ponies and pools. It's the rainbows that can cause the problems.

Life is not all ROYGBIV. There will be grey, brown, and black mixed in with the orange, yellow, and violet. There will be times of great pain and despair interspersed with joy and love.

Children need a solid foundation to prepare them for what life might throw at them. Protect them, love them, teach them how to dream, but prepare them for the storms before the rainbows.

almost human

The American Dream is probably what caused my parents to give me up. Not because they didn't love me, but because they were sold this bill of goods that I could have everything they could not provide.

What I got instead was an insider's view of privilege. And privilege dismisses and marginalizes everything that it does not understand because it is irrelevant to someone who has everything. Privilege fails to see the value in anything that does not directly benefit privilege.

What privilege fails to understand is these common struggles of poverty bring people together. I've visited dictatorships and seen poor families and seen the kind of struggle where it takes an entire day just to gather one evening's meal, where there is no running water and no sewer system. In these lands of poverty, people talk to each other, watch each other's back, share burdens, celebrate and cry TOGETHER. Way more than here in this land of plenty.

There is no glamorizing their life, but there IS glamorizing the American dream. The main reason those in poverty are miserable is because they compare their lives to this dream. I know many who have lived both poverty and excess and prefer the former - not because they don't want a good life - but because their lives were good, rich and full of love, but they didn't know it at the time - because they were too preoccupied with all we have and they don't have. All the opportunity here doesn't mean much when it comes at the price of severing ties to family and culture. It is an isolating experience.

The diaspora that is the international adoptee is no different. The cost of opportunity and the American dream was a loss of deep roots, many generational history, shared common culture, and a sense of belonging to a people that reflected themselves.

You can value your ponies and pools and rainbows and excess. For myself and many adoptees given up for the American dream, the price was too high.

Heather B

Huh My natural mother could've given me ponies pools and rainbows too.

Not all adoptees would grow up on poverty with no opportunities; what a ludicrous generalization,

This question is in direct contradiction to your answer in a previous question where you stated money doesn't matter (scratching head; rolling eyes)

ShanLee(:

youre exactly right; theres nothing wrong with that.

Wundt

I hate the "Ponies" argument, it is completely rediculous and has no basis in fact.

What wealth provides is better schools, doctors, special therapy, nutrition, experiences, etc. And, I don't just mean private schools and fancy presents. Just going from the 'poorer' side of town to more middle class neighborhoods makes a huge difference (for example, a friend's daughter was an A student when going to school in poor neighborhood, and almost failing when she moved to a better district).

Also, this idea that the kids of 'rich' people are all screwed up brats while the kids of poor, hard working parents have 'character' is a total myth. I went to a high school that had everything from dirt poor kids to millionaire kids, and there was no consistent difference in character between them. And, if you look at the statistics, the best predictor of your Socio Economic Status as an adult is your parent's SES.

When we adopted our sons, both were severly delayed developmentally because their mother was homeless and neglected them while she did drugs. They are now both almost caught up with their peers. We are NOT rich, but live in a good neighborhood and have the resources to make sure they get the care they need.

sexikittie

sounds all bright and positive to me.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: