October 17, 2011
I know I’m late joining the conversation about the passing of Steve Jobs. The story of his amazing accomplishments and the numerous quotes from his now famous commencement speech are everywhere.
Also everywhere is the reference to the fact that he was adopted.
Because frankly I just don't see why it matters or what the media is wanting us to do with that tidbit of information.
Why the fixation on him being adopted? Is it supposed to suggest that he was somehow disadvantaged, broken and less than.... that he overcame some sort of "orphan disability”? While they are touting his success are they also suggesting he is exceptional (not just for the ipod) because he wasn't completely screwed up due to being adopted?
Or is it a comment on the parents who relinquished him? Sort of a, “hey can you believe what they gave up....bet they regret that decision”.
Or maybe we’re supposed to think “damn those adoptive parents hit the lottery when they picked him!”
You can not read an article about Steve Jobs that doesn’t make a point of “informing” you of his adoption. Some articles even delving into the details of his adoption and discussing his relationships with first and adopted families. Again I am at a loss to understand why there is a need to frame his incredible life by the fact that he was adopted....why is that (adoption) relevant?
Is that how the world will forever view my daughters...my ADOPTED daughters? Will they always and forever carry the “adopted” qualifier along with the implication that whatever they accomplish (or however they fail) it must be related to the fact that they are adopted.
My daughters are more than just adopted persons. And their adoption is not some disease or disability to be overcome. Adoption is how our girls joined our family. It is neither reason nor excuse for anything else in their lives.
I imagine my own obituary and wonder now if it will it read, “she leaves three sons and three adopted daughters...”?
I hope not.