Is Scott Simon Angry with us?

Scott Simon, author of Baby We Were Meant for Each Other: In Praise of Adoption is upset over three posts* critiquing his memoirs and media appearances.

The gist of our posts was that while Simon found adoption to be “a miracle, the work of divine agency,” it is catastrophe in someone else’s life that led to the child being available to be adopted, and that this aspect of adoption is once again ignored by pleased-as-punch parents, which he and his wife claim to be.

Lorraine

We also took Simon to task for failing to recognize the pain children suffer when deprived of knowledge about their original families, and discussed how insensitive the title was to all mothers who surrender children under any circumstances. We will say upfront that neither of us have read his memoir, not being inclined to reading paeans to adoption.

Simon, the silver-haired and silken-voiced National Public Radio weekend host and his wife, Caroline Richard, adopted two girls from China, Elsie in 2004 and Lina in 2007. He appeared on various NPR programs promoting his book, including Oregon Public Broadcasting’s Think Out Loud (TOL).

We heard nothing from Simon and assumed our blog, First Mother Forum, did not merit his attention. However, that was not the case. Simon wrote a nearly 2,000-word response to our commentary, and that of those who left comments, containing a lengthy passage from his book. However, it was not sent to us; we only learned about Simon’s letter on May 13, when it was posted on Think Out Loud’s website. According to TOL host, Emily Harris, Simon sent it to her in February, but she chose not to publish it until recently.  She also stated that she asked him if she might publish it, and he agreed.

Jane

According to Simon, neither he nor his assistant was able to post it on FMF. We are surprised that they did not realize that something that long could not have been published, just as something that long could not have been published on the NPR website, or his own website for his book.

We are also somewhat puzzled at Simon's inability to reach us, considering that he has an assistant to do such things for him, as he stated in an email after we reached him through NPR. He added that his assistant was “famously good at finding people.”  Yet many people have located us without the aid of an assistant.

Others who have wished to post long comments at First Mother Forum have done so in stages, after receiving an automated message that their comment was too lengthy. Others have left messages via the comment function at the blog, noting their communication was not for publication, and included their email address. Since nothing is published without being "moderated," i.e., read by one of us, the only logical conclusion can be that we can be reached that way.

Furthermore, apparently neither Simon nor his assistant delved into the matter deeply enough to notice "Networked Blogs" (displayed on our sidebar), which is a function of Facebook, indicating that at least one of us is on Facebook. Also, it prominently states at the blog: “Facebook Friends…and more.” Actually both of us are on Facebook, as well as Simon himself; thus he, or his assistant, could have sent either of us a private message there indicting they wished to respond to our posts. (Oddly enough, Lorraine and Simon have three mutual Facebook "friends.") If Simon had Googled “Jane Edwards adoption” a link to Jane’s Facebook page would have come right up. He states in his email they figured out where Lorraine lived, but “the US mail option just did not occur to us.” As a last resort, Simon, or his trusted assistant, could have looked us up in the telephone directories of our respective cities (listed at the blog), but perhaps that, like using the U.S. Post Office, is too "old" media for Simon and his assistant.

We note all this in such detail because after receiving no communication from Simon, he ends his letter with a pejorative remark impugning our character: “I hope you have the integrity to post this.” He did say in his email that sentiment was written when he made his unsuccessful attempt to reach us. However, it was not removed when it appeared elsewhere and remains there today. His letter appears in total at the end of this post.

Simon accuses us and our readers of vilifying him. "That is your right,” he assures us. “I know you live with a lot of pain, and I won’t pretend that I can assuage that." We certainly did not expect —or even ask— him to assuage our pain. Our purpose in writing was to counter his exultant depiction of adoption with a dose of reality.

Simon tells us that he has “heard from quite a few birth mothers who say that once they read my book, they understood the romance of the title and discovered that I respect the pain, sacrifice, and injustice many birth mothers feel.”

We are sadly aware that there are mothers who believe that giving their children to strangers is somehow ordained--or at least blessed--by God. We’ve found, however, that many of these mothers lose their zeal for adoption once they find that the pain does not abate and that their child struggles with feelings of abandonment. Many of these women question whether a just God would have caused them so much suffering when He could simply have allowed the adoptive couple to have their own children. Hence our objection to the title, which we continue to find offensive.

Simon criticizes us for posting a comment by “one of our members,” Torrejon. (We don’t have "members" and only rarely know the identities of those who post comments; nor are we responsible for fact-checking their comments, as neither are the folks who run other websites or blogs.)

Torrejon wrote that she was not allowed to ask Simon at a book signing at a Washington, DC bookstore about whether Simon would be “willing to dedicate as much time and effort to helping his daughters find their first families … as he and his wife dedicated to securing their adoptions.” Torrejon said that the bookstore owner began the question and answer period by stating that “she did not want the conversation to degenerate into an argument about open versus closed records.”

Simon, backed by the bookstore owner, says this did not occur. Torrejon, if you’re out there, please shed some light on this. ( Update 6/3: Torrejon did respond to his charge in a detailed comment; she stands by what she said about the event; Se also Simon's reaction in Comments.) 

To his credit, Simon is in favor of open records. He states that he and his wife “will move heaven and earth to find the mothers who gave them [his daughters’] life.” However, even he must be aware that the reality of this occurring is miniscule, and we wonder what they are doing in this regard, as he has not enlightened us on that score.

His follow-up statement leaves us cold, however:

 “We want to know and thank their birth mothers, too, for giving us our lives. I want to thank them for the sacrifice they made. So we want them to know how much we admire the young Chinese mothers who chose to bear their babies, even as they knew they couldn’t keep them. My wife and I hope to give our daughters lives that are worthy of that sacrifice.”

Thanking the girls’ birth mothers may make Simon and his wife feel better. In our experience, and that of many of our readers, however, thank yous from adoptive parents are patronizing and offensive. Thank you for all your grief and misery that allows us to raise a child? Thank you for being unable to raise your own child? Thank you for this “gift” of a baby, instead of crystal candlesticks? Thank you for not aborting?  As for sacrifice ….

Most women who give up children do not do so out of some demented sense of making a "sacrifice" so that another with a greater claim might benefit from obtaining that child. The concept of making a "sacrifice" indicates the forfeiture of some valued object or friendship because someone else has a greater claim. A parent "sacrifices" a trip to Europe in order to save for a college education for her child; a mother does not leave her child by the roadside out of a sense of sacrificial obligation to those who will benefit from gaining that child.

We see this word crop up in much language from the adoption industry, and we understand he probably meant it in good faith. However, as we do not see giving up children as a "sacrifice" but instead as a last resort, and wish the public could be more mindful about what they are actually saying when they throw around high-minded language in a misguided effort to assuage us. A realistic appraisal of what adoption means to a first mother would be a good starting point. 

One last note about sacrifice: if Simon were somehow able to find his daughters' mothers, and discover that they had been coerced into relinquishing their children, or that they had been stolen, and then decided to return them to their families, that would be a true "sacrifice" on Simon's part. Or if their mothers then decided to let Simon and his wife keep the children because it would be best for them, that also would be a real "sacrifice." Sacrifice implies choice; most women in China do not have choices. They become pregnant; the possibility of a sonogram and a selective abortion is not within their grasp; they have a baby; it's a girl; the culture does not honor females and the official state policy is one-child-only per family. Is it a choice they make? It is an act of desperation to abandon a child.  

Although Simon has “vowed to live in cosmopolitan communities where our girls can see Chinese people as part of their everyday lives [and] they will be able to learn the language,” he does not seem to grasp that his daughters’ needs for a connection to their culture go far beyond interaction with neighbors who look like them and language instruction. As we presume they already live in a cosmopolitan community, Simon and his wife will not be making any sacrifice to continue to do so.

Simon ignores the very real possibility that his daughters’ mothers carried them to term because they wanted to nurture them. Furthermore, their children may not have been abandoned, but kidnapped and sold to meet the voracious demand by westerners for healthy infants. Demand for infants has indeed led to abuses of this vile sort. (For recent media reports on corruption in Chinese adoptions, see Parents for Ethical Adoption Reform.)

Although Simon acknowledges that there have been “solid reports of corruption,” he discounts any cause and effect relationship between the demand for babies and that very corruption. “It is ludicrous to suppose that the small … number of foreign adoptions creates some kind of market incentive to abandon children when there are 15 million children already languishing in orphanages….” (emphasis added)

We do not know where Simon gets this number, but let us just talk about China. According to a study sponsored by the Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs, there are about 573,000 orphaned children under the age of 18 in China. Seventy-nine percent of these children, about 450,000, are living with relatives and 69,000 are living in orphanages. Of these fifty percent have medical needs. The balance of the children, about 54,000, are considered abandoned.

Simon notes that the waiting list for adoptions from China is at least six years long. However, because abandoned and orphaned children from any country are generally older or have special needs, they are not desired by most adopters. 

In the interview, Simon said that he and Richard adopted from China because they fell in love in New York City’s Chinatown. We remarked that “it’s a real shame he and his wife hadn’t fallen in love in Harlem. An American child languishing in foster care might have found a home.”

Simon responds that as an “’over-the-hill white guy’ … our odds of receiving a child through the foster care system in our area were small.” It’s unimaginable that with over 100,000 American children waiting for families, most of them white, that Simon would not have been allowed to adopt a child in foster care. Simon and his wife are solid citizens with ample financial resources. At the time they adopted their first child, Simon was in his early fifties, and his wife was still in her thirties. The rights of the mothers of children in foster care available for adoption have been terminated through a court process. Unlike the Chinese mothers, these mothers had some opportunity to nurture their children.

Simon adds disingenuously, "besides, don't children in foster care have First Mothers too? Do your members think the rights of First Mothers in Harlem are less vital than First Mothers in Portland?" We had trouble understanding what he meant, as we have never said that we are against all adoptions. We have explained What We Think About Adoption, which is clearly posted on our sidebar. Perhaps Simon is not being entirely forthcoming about his reasons for wanting to adopt an infant in China, rather than a four-year-old from foster care. We cannot help but recognize that most white parents in America want infants, and the United States is no longer a good source of them.

Finally Simon takes us to task for stating that his wife is “probably now well into her 40s.” Simon writes “My wife is still not in her 40’s.” According to the New York Times, Simon married his wife in 2000 when she was 33 which would make her 42 or 43 when Simon wrote his letter to us. Perhaps the paper of record had the facts wrong.

Simon concludes by stating:

“Our daughters were left by roadsides and were living in orphanages. Their mothers could not keep them. Even an over-the-hill ass douche of a father (which is how I’ve been assailed on your website), and a wonderful mother, has to be better than growing up in an orphanage without the love of parents.”

Setting aside the question of whether the daughters were abandoned on a roadside, or kidnapped and sold to an adoption agency for profit--and it  is truly impossible to know which is true, despite any "official" documents--we agree that growing up with good adoptive parents is better than growing up in orphanages. The best home environment for children, however, is with their birth families if possible. As long as Simon and other adopters glorify adoption, casting it as a divine event, others will seek to adopt and mothers and children will continue to be separated needlessly.

Despite Simon's disclaimers in the letter that follows, which we find to be self-righteous and condescending, his title, and the letter itself, encapsulates the essence of his message: somebody else's baby was meant for him. His book is a perfect example of the American sense of entitlement. Can't have a child by natural means? Get somebody else's, wrap it in romantic language, and you're morally home free.

___________________________

* Baby, We Were Meant for Each Other and other fallacies of adopting internationally

Scott Simon: Adoption Pimp

 Simple Simon

Scott Simon's letter:

Dear Jane Edwards and Lorraine Dusky

Every now and then, I receive a link from someone that reminds me how vilified I am on your website, and other places that you have suggested your members to post. That is your right. I know that you live with a lot of pain, and I won’t pretend that I can assuage that. I am glad that I have heard from quite a few birth mothers who say that once they read my book, they understood the romance of the title, and discovered that I respect the pain, sacrifice, and injustice many birth mothers feel. But reading my book would entail buying it. I understand why you might not want to do that. So please let me correct a few things.

~One of your members, Torrejon, says:

“I attended Mr. Simon's reading and book signing at Politics and Prose Bookstore in Washington, DC on October 2. I intended to ask him if he will be willing to dedicate as much time and effort to helping his daughters find their first families if they choose to do so as he and his wife dedicated to securing their adoptions. However, the bookstore owner closed questions after a mere 5 questions (mine would have been question #6)...having opened the q/a by stating that she did not want the conversation to degenerate into an argument about open versus closed records. With that sort of supportive censorship, I fear that Mr. Simon will continue to publicize his one-sided version of adoption.

Lorraine Dusky added:

“The fact that the q&a was introduced by saying "she did not want the conversation to degenerate into an argument about open versus closed records" means that at other readings, it had! My guess is that Simon is not getting off "scott" free on this one and while his book is doing well among the adopting class, other voices are being heard and he is asking the book store owners to derail that discussion.”

That did not happen. It is either a fantasy or a lie. Barbara Meade, the owner of Politics and Prose, said no such thing (she didn’t even open the Q &A—I did). The time for questions was limited (though I thought there were more than five) because another author was appearing shortly thereafter.

I have asked five people who were at the reading for their recollection. They all attest that Barbara did not say what Torrejon says she did.

Besides: I am in favor of open records. And I say in the book that you haven’t read that as our daughters “ . . . grow older, and scientific advances might make it possible, we will move heaven and earth to find the mothers who gave them life.” I answer those kind of questions all the time, and have never asked anyone to spare me any kind of question.

Torrejon’s story is demonstrably false. I wonder why it is on your website.

~Someone who heard me on Emily Harris’ show said:

"Then Harris asked more directly if he wanted to find the girls' birth mothers. "Oh, yes," he said. "I want to thank them!"
How noble of him..."hey ladies, thanks for being trapped in a life of utter despair and desperation such that your only option was to give up your children."

What a douche.”

This imprecise recollection leaves out a critically important part of my response. “I want to thank them for the sacrifice they made.” In China—as I should not have to tell people who consider themselves so well informed—young women often have to defy officials to bear their babies in secret.

Please let me quote a section from my book:

“ . . it is impossible—it is irresponsible—to forget that our daughters are blessings that began with a crime when frightened mothers gave up the babies they loved because of Chinese policies that cause young girls to be cast away.

“It is hard for us not to imagine young mothers who, in what should be a moment of sublime delight, sneak out to leave their infants (clean, warm, and well-fed) someplace where they know they will be quickly found. They hide across the street to inconspicuously wait and watch for strangers to take their child. When their baby cries, they must hold themselves back from rushing to them. Imagine the torture—really, no other word applies--of mothers who must watch their babies being swept out of their lives.

“When you adopt a child from China, you face the fact that “a woman’s right to choose” means abortion rights in North America and Western Europe. For a billion and a half people in China, there is no right for a woman to choose to have her baby. My wife and I didn’t adopt daughters from China to make any kind of point. But the two people we cherish most are survivors of China’s mass crime. That obliges us to speak out . . .

“Yet I don’t want mere hopefulness to let me neglect our daughters’ need for identity. My wife and know that we have responsibilities. Wherever we land in the world, we have vowed to live in cosmopolitan communities where our girls can see Chinese people as part of their everyday lives. They will be able to learn the language. They will know that they are girls from the Jiangxi province (famous for delicate porcelain and beautiful women), and as they grow older, and scientific advances might make it possible, we will move heaven and earth to find the mothers who gave them life. We want to know and thank their birth mothers, too, for giving us our lives.

                 “So we want them to know how much we admire the young Chinese mothers who chose to bear their babies, even as they knew the couldn’t keep them. My wife and I hope to give our daughters lives that are worthy of that sacrifice.”

There are a lot of other bits of misinformation posted in your comments. For example:

~“Mr. Simon conveniently overlooks . . . (that) China is not a Third World country with primitive recordkeeping; rather, the Chinese invented bureaucracy, public records and even the paper to keep them on! His daughters have records; the important thing is to start the search now, not when the trail is decades old!”

People who adopt in China know what accomplished bureaucrats the Chinese are. But our daughters were most likely born to women at home, in secret, because they were in defiance of China’s state family planning laws. They don’t have true birth certificates. Then, the mothers left their babies (again, against the law) in places where they would be found.

The first record of our daughters’ lives is the police reports filed when they were picked up from the streets. We have copies and someday, they might provide some kind of clue. But part of the delay in Chinese adoptions is because police and investigators try to find members of the baby’s extended family who might take them. Young mothers often travel a long distance so they can leave their children in a place that they will not be recognized and arrested. People should remember that China is a police state, not Portland. Young mothers leave no trail to protect themselves.    

~ “. . . China has vast corruption especially in international adoptions. There is a good possibility that the Simons' fees went to reward officials for kidnapping infants. Like controlling the 'blood diamond' trade, boycot is the only effective way to shutting down the abuses.”

I do not go easy on Chinas adoption machinery. There have certainly been solid reports of many kinds of corruption. But it is ludicrous to suppose that the small (and getting smaller) number of foreign adoptions creates some kind of market incentive to abandon children when there are 15 million children already languishing in orphanages, and new babies are brought in every day. It certainly seems especially ridiculous now, when the waiting list for adoptions from China is at least 6 years long. 

~"It’s a real shame he and wife hadn’t fallen in love in Harlem. An American child languishing in foster care might have found a home."

As an “over-the-hill white guy” (as I was described in a post), our odds of receiving a child through the foster care system in our area were small. Preference is understandably given to younger couples of the same ethnicity. We would have been at the back of the list, with a long and uncertain wait. Besides, don’t children in foster care have First Mothers too? Do your members think the rights of First Mothers in Harlem are less vital than First Mothers in Portland?

~“Adoption is a natural order of things. Adoption is not a trauma; it's a blessing.

I thought it has been pretty obvious when I say this that I am trying to get people to realize that people who are adopted do not have to be damaged for life because of it, but can be stronger and wiser.

As Jeff Sellers, the Broadway producer, who was adopted and has now adopted two children with his partner, says in my book:

“We know that our children came to us out of a loss. Their birth mothers lost them. They lost their biological mothers. But, they gained two parents who have the love and the inclination and psychological means to take care of them and help them grow up. It’s loss and gain.

“And you know what?” he continues. “That’s life. We lose our teeth. We step out of our diapers. Our hearts get broken. We lose things all the time, and we gain things all the time. The first loss we suffer is one more to add to the pile. There will be more. But there will also be gains. If you never want to get over the first one, I guess you’ll never recover. Whether or not it’s a wound or not depends on the person. But why deny life?”

~And finally, a correction that I cannot resist:

“Simon, gray-haired and with a receding hairline, and his wife, who is probably now well into her 40s--most likely did not try to have children until they were past the age when it came easy.”

Well I prefer to say “silver” to gray. My wife is still not in her 40’s. I do wish that I had met her earlier. But who knows that we would be able to conceive a child even if we had? (We have met plenty of couples in their 20’s who have not been able to conceive.) We do know that we are blessed to have the daughters we do, and that our four lives have intersected.

Our daughters were left by roadsides and were living in orphanages. Their mothers could not keep them. Even an over-the-hill ass douche of a father (which is how I’ve been assailed on your website), and a wonderful mother, has to be better than growing up in an orphanage without the love of parents.

I’ve never suffered the kind of pain that you have. But I doubt that insulting me or my wife will make your members feel better, help others, or promote understanding of your loss.     

I think that people should be able to see the errors of fact on your website, and judge from my own words if I respect the pain and sacrifice of birth mothers. I hope that you have the integrity to post this.

With thanks,

Scott Simon