Pride, Parenthood, and Overpopulation

It's not any "ick" factor that bothers me about this. It's the stupidity of pride.

This is what I get for adding Slate to my RSS. I mean, I knew I was going to regret—

Oh, right.

So, a few things stand out here:

• What's wrong with adoption? Oh, right ... it's not "your" kid.
• What are the limits of a mother's love? Who among us would do the same? More to the point, who among us would ask our mothers to do such a thing?
• Triplets? Great. So, you had two kids from your prior marriage. Your curent husband wanted another. That equals population +0. Except you went with IVF and had triplets. And why did you put this burden on your own mother? Oh, right. Pride.​

Colloquially, I would simply say that these are exactly the kind of people who shouldn't be parents.

To the other, what can be said of a mother's love? No, not the stupid one who had her tubes tied and then wanted her mother to have more kids in order to make her new husband happy. I'm talking about the grandmother. Yes, dear, I'll carry triplets for you.

Still, though, it's stupid. Adding to an already overpopulated worldwide economic system (from +0 to +2), leaving children who need homes in the system, and asking your mother to carry a child (in this case, triplets) at fifty-six? And all for pride?

Okay, okay. It's not stupid. It goes beyond stupid. Children are not status symbols. Family is not a competition with the next guy. Seriously, if it's so important to have a kid "of your own" that you would knock up your wife's mother, no, you're not someone who should be a parent.

But that's just how I see it. I'm well aware that some people think pride is the only reason to do anything.
____________________

Notes:

Saletan, William. "Knocked-Up Grandmas". Slate. November 12, 2008. http://www.slate.com/id/2204451/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Seems to be a bit of a tirade T.

Grandma offered this to the couple. Probably after reading about other cases around the world. We have no indication the couple initiated the surrogacy.

It appears the couple were 'waiting to adopt'. We have no idea how long this process was ongoing, how much had already been invested (adoption isnt cheap), and we have no idea what obsticles / options they really had within the adoption system. I might want to adopt a kid, but I would have great hesitation (and likely would decline) someone available who had developmental disabilities, or behavioral issues. It is possible, the adoption agencies were trying to place an older child with them, due to the age of their youngest child.

As far as doing this for my own child? I dont know that I would have offered such a service. But I would have given it a thought. We have no idea whether Joe was/is one of those showcase father figures who other kids wish he was their dad/stepdad. We have no idea how important it was to him to father his own child. We have no idea if he was the only child in his family. I have no idea if he entered into this marriage with a wife who had not faced the medical issue which caused her to lose her ability to carry a child.

Triplets. From the couples blog:

"Okay... The day of the embryo transfer. We have decided to transfer 3 embryos into Mom. They told us it was very unlikely that all would "stick". Hopefully it gives us a better chance of getting one healthy baby to love."

http://cosenotriplets.blogspot.com/2008/03/okay.html

I would disagree with your assessment that the actions taken provide any evidence that these people are unfit parents.

I would also suggest that until the world decides to implement a one child rule, the Coseno's had no extra obligation to anyone when deciding what course of action they took in this matter.

And finally a question for you. If you could have prevented the Coseno's from adding three extra people to the world, by giving them your child, would you take the moral 'high ground' and offer them your child for adoption?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Interesting, Tiassa, there are people who say exactly the same thing about gay sex.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I agree! We should all get to determine who can be parents and who can't. It should be, oh, something like a state-wide election or such. Anyone who wants to be a parent should have to submit to the people of the district for a popular vote. I like it. When can we get that law enacted?

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Right. It's not your biological kid. You can grow to love that kid as much as if it were "yours" but you will always wonder about its geneology when it gets sick or acts in a way that surprises you.

There are NO limits of a mother's (or parent's) love. It's non conditional and self rewarding. Nothing wrong if all parties involve approve.

You've got to be kidding, right? Or have you gone off the deep end Tiassa?

 

It's not about the kids, it's about the parents, and that's the problem

Yet they could have said, "Thanks, mom, but we're going to adopt. All good things are worth waiting for."

Frankly, if a couple of unmarried gay men can manage to adopt an infant, it doesn't seem so hard for a respectable, married hetero couple to do the same. It depends entirely on what route one takes to adoption. My adoption was arranged privately, with only a couple of brief changes to whatever was the standard paperwork. I was home with my family four days after birth.

Mrs. Coseno writes:

One wonders how they were going about their attempts to adopt. It shouldn't take years, given the bumper crop of kids out there, and, in the end, Mrs. Coseno implies that the period was about two years. There are plenty of fertile couples that try to have children who don't manage to properly connect sperm and egg in that period.

It wasn't family they were after, though. It was a status symbol. Babies are cute. Parenthood, however, isn't.

Don't expect me to object to you having an opinion.

I will, however, take a moment to chuckle at that.

While my daughter was unplanned, she was wanted. So I'm not sure what good it would do to send away a wanted child when there are over 100,000 kids in the United States in need of homes and families.

See, that's what bothers me. It wasn't about family, but status and pride. This wasn't about the children, but the parents. And while I accept the fact that such outlooks are just fine with you, I really do believe that such selfishness is, while not hereditary, taught from one generation to the next.
____________________

Notes:

Coseno, Kim. "Sat, Oct 25, 2008". AboutMyBaby.com. October 25, 2008. http://cosenotriplets.aboutmybaby.com/journal/216543

See Also:

Savage, Dan. The Kid. New York: Plume, 2000. http://books.google.com/books?id=q_QMdueEEpAC

 

How many children has Tiassa adopted, I wonder.

 

Reproduction is a powerful urge. From a purely biological perspective, it's why we're here. So you should never be surprised by the lengths people will go to to have children. Two of my cousins dumped their girlfriend/wife when they found out she couldn't have kids.

I must say, for a guy so militantly in favor of gay rights to judge these people so harshly for living their lives the way they want and doing something that has absolutely no effect on you whatsoever is absurd. As to the "overpopulation" issue, is this couple from Africa? Because the first world has, if anything, an underpopulation problem with fertility levels below replacement in most first world countries.

So why are you giving these people so much crap? If they want to have more kids, so long as they're not on welfare or anything, it's their business and their business alone.

 

Why would you prescribe a child as a status symbol?

None, which is for the better. Unless, of course, you think I should adopt a child I can't afford in order to make petty a moral statement in an attempt to bolster my pride.

Your point being?

• • •​

Madanthonywayne

A simple question, sir. Do you agree with the following statement:

• Children are status symbols for the parents.​

 

In one post you undermine your own argument. Chidren don't need money, they need love. If you can afford a computer, internet service and a place to set it, you can make at least one childs life better than the one they're living.

So the question goes back to you..Are children (or how they are provided for)a status symbol?

 

No. To me, children are the fulfillment of our natural urge for immortality. You want a status symbol? Buy an expensive car, pick up a hot chick, buy a boat, or a big house. Children, if anything, make the aquisition of these things much more difficult because they take a lot of our time and money. I find, for that reason, that people concerned with status symbols don't have children.

 

You may wonder, but what you were told of your experience does not mean that is everyones experience with adoption. Ms. Coseno could not carry a child so there was no reason to wait 2-4-10 years to 'properly' connect sperm and egg.

Your saying your daughter was unplanned, fine. Fact is there were many options you discarded that would have prevented the proper connection of sperm and egg.

So I have to take your answer as a NO. I would not give my kid up for adoption to prevent the births of three children in this over-populated world. It is definitely easier to inflict our ethics and morality on others, as long as it doesnt impact our lives..

And as far as wanted children, there is no doubt this particular family wanted their children, and that this was planned.

Status symbol? Pride? So why didnt you get a vasectomy and assure yourself fully that you would not bring another mouth to feed into this already crowded planet filled with children just waiting to be adopted?

EDIT: The above question does not require a response, and was posted just to point out the double standard in the outrage against these people compared with our own actions. They used the tools of science to achieve their goals, and many of us did not use the tools of science and fall back on the the excuse of 'it wasnt planned' to justify our own positions that may run contrary to our actual real life happenings.

 

Notes Around

Yes, love feeds a child. It also cures cancer. But we'll get back to that in a minute. In fact, I'll ask our friend Madanthonywayne about it.

Well, let's think about that for a minute. The computer on which I type these words is the second in a relevant sequence. My first iMac was purchased two years before my daughter was born. It's sitting nearby on the floor. If I'm so inclined, I can put a couple of memory sticks in it (they're around here somewhere), and it will run again.

The present machine, its replacement, isn't that much newer. A friend of mine worked for a software company that was about to trash it when he said, "Yes, but does it work?" The bosses nodded. So my friend asked, "Does it matter where it goes? I mean, as long as it's not to me?" His bosses shrugged and said, "Go for it." So I got a slightly-faster iMac for free.

The internet connection is paid by my brother.

Cost of computer and internet services that could otherwise be diverted to another child in the household: $0.00.

Children are human beings. My daughter only becomes a status symbol if some act of mine grossly harms her. Of course, that's not what most people think about when they think of status symbols.

Or is it? Again, we'll come back to that in a moment. See my subsequent remarks to Madanthonywayne.

• • •​

So the reason for having kids is still self-centered? I accept that, argumentatively.

Ah, yes, the trophy wife. Since Max brought up homosexuals and politics, I'll merely chuckle at the "sanctity" of marriage heterosupremacists are always clucking about.

Rhetorically, at least, I would wonder at your opinion of "Generation X". After all, there is a generation that has been widely reviled for being self-obsessed, unrealistic, demanding, and generally screwed in its collective and individual heads.

Two phrases very familiar to Generation Xers:

• "What will the neighbors think?"
• "If you keep acting like this, people will think I'm a bad parent."​

It's a curiously subtle difference, in a way. Instead of tangible symbols of status and success, many seek the virtue of public acceptance, or even praise.

Consider a simple ritual: two fathers becoming acquainted with one another, say at work. So they show each other pictures of their kids. In and of itself, this is not only harmless, but also beneficial in the context of social bonding. Yet there is also a dark side to this. Surely you cannot be unaware of a certain comedy bit, in which two fathers try to one-up each other. You know, "My kid is nine, but she reads at a twelfth-grade level." "That's great. Mine is ten, and he already speaks Latin." "Well, you should see the twins race to finish their calculus problems. We're thinking of skipping high school and sending them straight to college."

I know for a fact this phenomenon is not limited to parents of GenX children. It was a punch line when most of us were still in diapers. Some would even suggest that GenX got lucky insofar as we didn't have as many such pressures on us as the generations that preceded us.

One way to look at it is a conversation I had with my daughter's teacher the other day. It started because I wanted to know about a toy Emma brought out of the classroom with her. The teacher explained that it was hers to keep, that she had earned it through exemplary behavior at the Veterans' Day assembly.

My confusion at that sort of reward system—not the principle, but the fact that it is in place—notwithstanding, she went on to explain that my daughter is doing very well on all fronts. Her cognitive, social, and motor skills are apparently notable to some degree. I confess I'm pleased by this on a number of levels. After all, there was a time just over a year ago when we were worried about her development. So I talked with the teacher about that, explaining a couple of things about our parental theories, and the concerns that had raised. "Keep doing what you're doing," the teacher advised.

Now, I would be lying if I said that didn't warm my sense of pride, but at the same time, I'm well aware that self-love is about the last thing about the situation that is important. Even though my parents used to talk about achievement for my sake, it is not simple coincidence that, among the many transformations of our relationships, a major one occurred when their philosophy shifted from "happiness through material success" to "happiness". The point being that while I can certainly pat myself on the back for doing alright so far, the reality is that I should keep doing what I'm doing for my daughter's sake. We have, somehow, produced a sociable, inquisitive, ambitious, and nearly fearless child who seems to understand boundaries not for the sake of authority, but rather for the purpose of function. No, she does not read as my brother and I did when we were her age, but hopefully she won't spend the next ten years terrified of transgressing abstractions. She demonstrates an inherent understanding of rules and obedience that it took me until my twenties to recognize as an abstract concept.

Do you understand? My only view of the quality of my parenting is that I'm an inadequate father, and I have it from my own parents that this is natural. No matter what I do, I'll never feel it's enough. Those that would assert otherwise—especially in practice—are merely exercising ego defense mechanisms against their own internal criticisms. Shit, it's not like people haven't criticized my parenting here, especially the amount of drugs I've done in the past, and would do if I had the money. But proving assholes wrong should be the last of my list of parental priorities if I should even allow that point onto the list at all.

People who can't have the big houses, the fast cars, trophy wives, yachts, buildings named after them, private islands, professional sports teams, or whatever, will often seek other assertions of status. And many of them will find that assertion in their children.

Perhaps it is a "middle America" thing, or an urban-cosmopolitan thing. Maybe it's only in New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Los Angeles, and other such cities, that you hear parents talking about the connection between a "reputable" pre-school and whether their kid gets into Harvard. Maybe in ... where is it, Indiana? ... parents don't have their kids enrolled in so many extracurricular activities at once that a nine year-old starts to sound like a professional, pausing to consult a PDA before telling you what she's doing after school tomorrow.

Some other phrases you may have heard over time.

"No kid of mine ...."

• ... is going to marry a Mexican.
• ... is going to be in a union.
• ... is going to be a fag.
• ... is going to turn his back on God.
• ad nauseam, ad infinitum​

Or, more simply, I think you're wrongly limiting the ways in which people assess and assert status.

Oh, hey, one last thing—Our friend Clusteringflux has suggested that I should adopt another child. Now, the thing is that at present, I don't receive public money. But if I had another child, I would inevitably require food stamps and other public assistance in order to fulfill their needs. So what do you think, sir? Should I adopt another kid and go on welfare?

You feel like paying in for that? (Pretending, of course, that anyone in their right mind would hand another kid to someone of my financial standing.)

• • •​

I admit, every time I read that, I keep hanging on the phrase, "grow to love".

Oh, come now. I've gotten more from my mother in these last few years than I can reasonably count. And it must necessarily come to an end soon. The current phase is out of hand, and it is this recognition that is spurring the movement toward changing the state of things. We already recognize something's amiss, and we keep trying to figure out what to do about it. Most likely, though, we'll never actually answer the question. At some point, I'll up and do something stupid for the sake of doing something, and we'll deal with the consequences of that.

There's only so much one can reasonably ask or accept.

Not in the slightest. Madanthonywayne alluded to one of the things I find absurd about the international economic arrangement when he asked, "is this couple from Africa?" The most comfortable leadership I can conceive of is a situation in which everyone else is told to do what is too much to ask of the leaders.

If the American fertility rate was below the replacement rate, his point would carry more weight in the abstract. At present, though, the fertility rate is 2.1 bpw (U.S. Census Bureau), which is right on target when accounting for childhood mortality, and only slightly below the global TFR of 2.33 (Wikipedia). Additionally, however, I recognize the entirety of the human species, and am not simply satisfied that conditions are relatively good within my own abstract boundaries—e.g. the United States. Our worldwide resource-distribution system is presently inadequate to accommodate all the people in the world, but if what happens in Africa is only a problem for Africans (at least until someone using African resources bombs something in the United States), it should be enough to point out that over 35 million people live in households classified as "food insecure" (including 12.6 million children, approximately 17.2% of all children in the nation), and food insecurity is on the rise (Food Research and Action Center).

Reproductive responsibility isn't tyranny. After all, this isn't China. To the other, though, if the point of having children invested in some perverse sense of self-gratification, I can see how the suggestion of responsibility—especially among those who ought, by education, to know better—might seem intrusive.
____________________

Notes:

Day, Jennifer Cheeseman. "Population Profile of the United States: National Population Projections". U.S. Census Bureau. Updated July 8, 2008. http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/natproj.html

"Total fertility rate". Wikipedia. Updated October 29, 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate

Food Research and Action Center. "Hunger and Food Insecurity in the United States". FRAC.org. Updated January 17, 2007. http://www.frac.org/html/hunger_in_the_us/hunger_index.html

 

Which children of which parents, though?
Is this a universal you are claiming?
Or for this particular case?
Because I don't see pride:

• a feeling of self-respect and personal worth
• satisfaction with your (or another's) achievements; "he takes pride in his son's success"
• the trait of being spurred on by a dislike of falling below your standards
• a group of lions
•unreasonable and inordinate self-esteem (personified as one of the deadly sins)
• be proud of; "He prides himself on making it into law school

as being a factor in reproducing. Nor is there evidence in pride being a factor here. It just looks like grandma really wanted some grandkids.

Not to say that this isn't all really fucking weird, but don't you think you're being a little judgmental?

[edit]
Taking pride in your offspring's achievements:
It makes sense that you would feel good when your child does well, doesn't it? In a biological way, anyway. Taking pride in your child's success isn't a bad thing; it's the mechanism that let's you emotionally handle a demanding, resource intensive, 18 year (or 22 if you put 'em through college) long endeavor!

I can't quite remember the term for it though. Ego-something. It's a similar mechanism when you identify your ego with a group, such that your personal success is contingent on their success. Of course it can be bad- soccer hooliganism and nationalism function on basically the same mechanism. But that doesn't make it always bad.

 

Notes Around

Not especially. There's a possibility that, had I seen the blog first, I might have lightened up a little. But then again, when she wrote, "The second and last point I would like to make and I can't believe I have to is that the children are biologically mine and my husband Joe's" (emphasis added), I can't say I was impressed.

And I recognize they had been trying to adopt for "years" (about two years, inasmuch as I can tell, although I won't stand on that). But as the fact that a couple of gay men adopting a baby reminds, it's sort of a matter of what line you're standing in. A loose analogy: At a concert, the beer line is huge. People are grumbling and scowling as they wait probably ten minutes to buy a beer. One of us weaves through the crowd, notes the selection, nods to the other. We both leave the line. A hundred yards away, we arrive at another beer vendor. There is a short line, and a minute later, we have our beer.

Should I feel sorry for the people still standing in the long beer line?

At any rate, I looked up waiting times for adoptions. The first website I found:

• • •​

In other words, she wants it and she wants it now, damn it! It's still about the parents, and not about the child.

Indeed. Your point being?

It's a pretty strange bargain you propose. After all, think of it this way: There are X children in need of homes and families in the United States today. Presently, X>100,000. Adding one child to the exchange in order to move one child out of the exchange leaves that number exactly where it started.

Your point being?

There are myriad reasons, so it's no wonder to me that you don't actually want an answer. That you would look at the fact of an unplanned pregnancy as an excuse tips your hand, though. I invite you to establish the relevance of that context.

• • •​

Almost every day—and today is one of those days, and, indeed, you're it—I get more and more hints of just how fucking cool my daughter is.

And, yes, I've had to clean shit off the walls and furniture, and no, I didn't have to go through pregnancy and labor, but still ... thank you.

 

I would argue that the reason for any and everything is self centered. Even Bells assertion that she would give her life for her children is true only because she values their lives more than her own. So sacrificing herself for them is, while heroic and commendable, still a self centered act. She is simply acting to protect that which she values most.

Well, as a member of generation X (one of the older ones), I'd say the qualities you listed would apply even more to the much revered baby boomers.

One disturbing aspect of being a member of generation X is that children were, for the first time, often portrayed as something evil. Something to be avoided. Consider the popular movies about children from our childhood: Rosemarie's baby, It's Alive, Damien (The Omen), Children of the Corn, The Exorcist, The Brood. Was this, perhaps, a manifestation of the concept that we were overpopulated and that children were no longer a good thing?

Good job.

We're human. We never have perfect knowledge of any situation and are often pulled in opposite directions by what seem to be equally legitimate concerns. All we can do is use our best judgement and hope for the best.

I must confess that I"ve just enrolled my younger children in the most exclusive private school in our area. Up to this point, my kids always went to public schools. But my wife and I were concerned that one of my children, who tests in the top 99% on aptitude, wasn't performing at anywhere near that level because (we assumed) he was bored. So we put him and his sister in the private school, and the difference is incredible.

But I wouldn't say this is because I'm using my children as a status symbol, I'm simply doing all I can to prepare them to succeed in what may be a tough future.

No, I wouldn't suggest you adopt a child if that's going to put you on welfare. You might consider, however, a foster child. I'm pretty sure you get paid to take care of them.

Since fertility varies so much by region, I think that where the couple is located is important. How does the fact that this couple had 2 or 3 more kids somehow take food out of the mouths of children in Africa? Conversely, would this couple abstaining from having children by this extraordinary method have somehow increased the supply of food in Africa? Of course not. And, who knows, maybe one of these children will be the one to make fusion a practicle source of power or bring peace to the middle east.

 

The point being...

These children are not unwanted, unplanned or unloved, and there is no reason to think they will not be as well cared for as your own addition to the global population explosion. Regardless of whether your number of one vs three, all of these kids will be competing with each other for survival in the future. Your equally as guilty of adding to the burden, maybe more so, because you've spent time thinking about the population and scarcity of resources. And you are not stupid. So what was it that prevented you from insuring that your seed did not connect with that egg? Pride? Selfishness?

You have no basis for your position that these people are lesser parents than you are.

Though I have not met your mother-in-law (not sure if you married the mother of your kid), so maybe this tirade has a deeper psychological basis.

 

Parenthood is not about the parents

In the first place, I'm still -1 on the replacement rate. The Cosenos are +2.

However, whether or not they will be properly cared for, at some point, becomes an abstraction. The issue at hand is that for the Cosenos, this isn't about the children. It's about the parents.

And I call bullshit.

I call bullshit again. If every reproducing female only had one child, the world's population would decline drastically. And before you go throwing a self-righteous fit about the preceding sentence, recognize that it is merely an observation.

I split the quote that way because the reason actually is stupidity. My girlfriend didn't want to take the pill, didn't like condoms, and eventually told me she couldn't have a baby by me. Hell, I never bothered to verify her logic on that last. It would have taken me two minutes on the internet to figure out what she meant and what was wrong with her explanation.

Life goes on.

Frankly, it's one of those matters of one's criteria.

And no, I didn't marry the woman. That, at least, I managed to avoid. To the other, she did lie to me for years on end—and still does in matters relating to our daughter—and I let her get away with it until the end of our time together. I continue to endure it because I don't expect anything good would come out of a legal fight; best to wait until such measures become necessary, and hope they never do.

But she makes for an excellent example. She was raised in a nice house, fed healthy food, and treated with what her parents considered love. Sounds great, right? And yet, she's fucking crazy. They raised her by a combination of fear and bribery, sent her away to boarding schools, and twisted her mind with the kind of paranoid religion that had her believing at some point that the UN would someday sentence her to death in the electric chair for going to church on Saturday instead of Sunday. Ironically, I happened to be having dinner with my mother a couple weeks ago, talking with a neighbor who, unless I'm mistaken, is or was for years a Mennonite. We were talking about my daughter, and the subject of her mother came up, and while my family is sympathetic to the fact of my former partner's psychological troubles, I can't say relations aren't strained. Someone said something about her parents and religion, and the neighbor asked me to explain that. I just looked at her and said, "Well, I usually just tell people they're Seventh-Day Adventists, because that explains a lot as far as I'm concerned." She nodded and said, "In fact, it does."

Even today, her value to them as a status symbol is apparent. Her father denies her alcoholism and mental health issues—he knows damn well she's a chronic liar—and as far as I can tell, because his faith in her always comes back to the way he raised her, it's because he feels he would be in some way morally diminished if he ever admitted the extent of her troubles.

And this is dangerous, Milkweed. He would prefer to enable psychological dysfunction because acknowledging it might tarnish his self-image.

I've seen this in varying forms, to differing degrees, all over my generation. I mean, I did go to a Jesuit high school, although I'm not sure that statement means the same thing to you in this context.

What it equals is that I'm staunchly opposed to the proposition that kids should be status symbols for the parent.

 

What?

What's wrong with having your own kid? Oh, right...it's "not adoption"? Why not just let people make their own choices on this?

In case you hadn't noticed, this lovely capitalist system that everyone enjoys so much relies inherently on at least replacement, and moreso on expansion.

Colloquially, how about a divorced father living on his own? Should he be a parent? How about anyone in bizarre circumstances not of their choosing, like some general infertility? Agreed, she tied her tubes, but was this actually part of a plot to get the mother involved?

A) You don't know it's pride. B) Your economic system requires more people to keep it afloat.

And what's wrong with wanting your own? Your argument seems to be based around some kind of resentment at being adopted, or some resentment that other people dared not to prefer adoption. Should I rage at adoptive couples because they just didn't try hard enough to do it the natural way?

I'm sorry, but your implication seems kind of like "how dare you breed". Is this it?

I'll answer in the same line as Bells: no. Not as a general rule. You seem to have this festering resentment against the breeding population.

Then children aren't status symbols in your family or anyone else's, one hopes.

And?

First, your scenario is another construct. Yet let's address it. This is your progeny you're representing. You have an obligation to present his or her case as strongly as possible. Should you back down and admit that your kid isn't outperforming his or her peers, or, worse still, is subperforming? You might as well pack your bags and hit the road, because you clearly don't have this kid's back. Pride might enter into it, but this has fuck all to do with adoption so far as I can tell. The adoptive parents I know are no less braggart for their adoptive children; if they were, it would be a matter for heredity, not heraldry. I can appreciate your internalized self-doubt, but while it's commendable in a way that you recognize this issue, it's not central to the well-being of your child. Or in short: you're in a competitive system, so watch your kid's back and give them the best leg up you can - and that also means competing with his peers, and the family of those peers.

In fairness, there probably are those who do use their children as markers of pride - but I expect they're in the marginal minority.

Who is asking you to?

This is so. Is anyone else doing it? Why exactly should I inhibit my own genetic drive, if no one else is?

Fine. You only have to prove that your position is related to the case above. Or you could discuss it as a general proposition.

Best regards,

Geoff