Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

A New Definition Of Child Abuse
Child abuse, according to 67 "rights groups," means being the child of extremely wealthy and famous parents, and living in extreme privilege in the U.K., complete with a stable of horses. What would be better? Living in probably semi-starvation, with substandard medical care, in an African orphanage, of course!

Madonna adopted some poor Malawian subsistence farmer's child, and now he says he's worried the media hailstorm will cause her to drop her efforts. Sure, perhaps he equivocated to the media at first -- perhaps because he was lead to equivocate? From the Associate Press story:

"These so-called human rights activists are harassing me every day, threatening me that I am not aware of what I am doing," Banda said Thursday. "I'm afraid David may be sent back and the orphanage may not even accept him back. So where will he end up? Here? He will certainly die."

The Human Rights Consultative Committee, a group of human rights groups in Malawi, has asked Judge Andrew Nyirenda to review the adoption process to make sure all the laws have been followed. A hearing is scheduled Friday.

Banda said activists tried to visit him Wednesday.

"I hid from them. I didn't want to see them. They want me to support their court case, a thing I cannot do for I know what I agreed with Madonna and her husband," said Banda.

Banda was reacting to Madonna's appearance on "The
Oprah Winfrey Show" on Wednesday, in which the 48-year-old singer said she had done nothing wrong, had not used her celebrity to influence Malawian officials and wanted to give David, who had been in an orphanage, a better life.

...Justin Dzonzi, chairman of the human rights group, said the coalition of 67 groups would go ahead with its court petition Friday to protect the rights of any child up for adoption in Malawi.

"It's not like we are blocking the adoption but we want laws followed to the letter," he said.

Dzonzi said under current laws, David, who was taken to Madonna's home in London last week, was not entitled to inherit any of the wealth of the singer and her husband, director Guy Ritchie. He said the child also could suffer psychologically if there is a divorce by the celebrity couple.

Oh, please. Sorry, but there's a whole different measure of what "suffering" is when you're a hungry little African orphan. How much of this is about a RICH, FAMOUS, WHITE, AMERICAN adopting a baby? Sorry, but the kid could do worse -- like by being left in Malawi at the orphanage, for starters.

If you give money to these idiot groups wasting their time protesting this, please stop, or stop payment on your check if it isn't too late.

Posted by aalkon at October 27, 2006 11:36 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/1795

Comments

A couple of weeks ago "Skynews" in London did a poll of their TV viewers about whether Madonna should be able to adopt this boy -- as though it was their business if she did (and as if their opinions really mattered, anyway). The overwhelming majority responded "no." If Madonna weren't such a cold-hearted bitch, she'd be a basket case right now.

Posted by: Lena at October 27, 2006 5:43 AM

I dont get it. Maybe theres somethign ive missed, but, whats wrong with madonna, and whatrs wrong with her adopting a child?

Posted by: scott at October 27, 2006 7:32 AM

I dont get it. Maybe theres somethign ive missed, but, whats wrong with madonna, and whatrs wrong with her adopting a child?

Posted by: scott at October 27, 2006 7:34 AM

Oh my god - what could be worse than being the potentially adopted child of two divorced millionaires? Well, I guess a close second would be the son of a poor share-cropper abandoned at a make-shift orphanage in the backwoods of Africa.

Posted by: Abby at October 27, 2006 8:24 AM

It smacks of patronizing colonialism, for one thing, that's what's wrong with it.

I also remember seeing "Mommie Dearest" again on TV the other day (always good for a chuckle) and I remember the exchange where daughter asks mom why she adopted her; Faye Dunaway (as Joan Crawford) admits it was in some big part a publicity stunt.

And that's what this smacks of, too.

As I read in comments elsewhere: If Madonna really wanted to make a difference, she could just decide to support the father and the child as he grew up in his homeland, pay to send the child to college once he's old enough, and see if the child can't make a positive difference where it will actually have some effect. Instead, he becomes another badge on Madge's chest. He gets to be her project.

There are reasons for laws which state the adoptive parents should reside in the country from which they are adopting for a set period of time. Cultural sensitivity being not the least of them. Madonna didn't have the time for such nonsense. She had to tour.

It strikes me that someone who won't make that kind of investment in the child pre-adoption probably won't do so much after adoption.

Materially, the child will probably be better off. In all other areas, we'll have to wait for his memoir in about 18-20 years time. And after all, it is a material world.

Posted by: Kitt at October 27, 2006 1:19 PM

I don't care what it smacks of. It's still better than being a hungry orphan, or worse, a dead orphan, in Africa.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 27, 2006 2:18 PM

> It smacks of patronizing colonialism,
> for one thing

Love you, Kitt. Impoverished babies from the continent of madness are now a fashion accessory. In these years, feminine nature never, ever gets bad press, and this is a wretched example of what comes from this thoughtlessness.

Posted by: Crid at October 27, 2006 2:48 PM

Also, if you can handle handle the venue, read this article and tell me about her righteous maternal instincts:

http://tinyurl.com/b2a3

And also, if you think Madonna's not worth getting concerned about, you're right and I'm wrong. See the list at the end of this piece from ALD:

http://tinyurl.com/y44amn

Posted by: Crid at October 27, 2006 2:58 PM

Patronizing colonialism, economic self-interest, liberal guilt, a penchant for all things soft and furry -- this is the shit that makes the world go round. Has it ever been any different? Give the bitch a fucking break already.

Posted by: Lena at October 28, 2006 4:03 AM

Leave a comment