"Lost's" depiction of pregnant girl/POV on adoption

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/6/05 at 10:33pm

I love LOST, let me say up front. So much freshness and daring, and heart. I am reluctant to say a word against it.

(SPOILERS, FOR THOSE WHO TAPE/Tivo)

But I am disappointed in the predictable way they have developed the pregnant girl's story, and not entirely comfortable with the resulting message it sends, especially teens. This teen was en route to turn her baby over to adoptive parents. Yes, the dire circumstances of the show would make her re-think her options. But ... big picture reaction ... I find it "easy" (and a societal romantic fantasy) to watch her give birth, and instantly bond with the child she didn't want. "I have a son!" she says, weepy, loving, the minute she sees him. At the fade out, she's a beautific Swiss Family Robinson madonna with child. It's emotional, it's even understandable. But IF we step back what does it say?

We live in a society that now often ("culture of life" anyone?) demonizes abortion, and is sometimes ambivalent about one of its alternatives: adoption. Women who abort are often treated as Godless hedonists. And women who create adoption plans (please, let's retire "give UP their baby"--a Dickensian phrase that suggests someone snatching infants from loving arms) are seen as cold,heartless. Morally inferior to "maternal" women. If one is pro-choice, as I am, we have to honor ALL the choices. Birth mothers who enter into adoption are more often than not courageous women who make heroic decisions to place the children they carry before their own egos. They dare to have big picture concerns for these children. I am appalled at how often they are dissed as unfeeling. Make no mistake -- there is STILL a sublte stigma against adoption, at least on the birth parent end of the equation.

So LOST didn't make a dramatic mistake, showing this woman bond. But it simplified a situation that is complex and demanding, one that requires complicated decisions.

How compelling it might've been if she had given birth, only to have another of the survivors pick up the baby and bond with it!! Instead, we got a predictable feel-good resolution that to me says "Deep down, women we root for ... not only don't want abortion, but they don't want to 'give up their kids' for adoption either..." It pretty much gives women one otpion -- have the child, fall in love at birth, and raise it yourself -- or you are NOT okay -- and strips them of moments of courage, and moments of great dignity. I had hoped LOST might've been braver.

Updated On: 4/7/05 at 10:33 PM

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 4/6/05 at 10:45pm

Auggie - I believe you're still living in the '60's. Women who place their babies for adoption these days are generally looked upon in our society as unselfish and giving. And abortion is mostly only reviled in the most religious sects - not in general society, where the tone is usually that an expectant mother should not "ruin their lives" when they have another choice.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/6/05 at 10:52pm

Alas, I appreciate your positive admonition, but I'm not in the 60s. (More accurately, the 50s -- since the 60s were pretty cool toward both adoption and opening up about abortion, or we wouldn'thave ROE V WADE...And thank God we still have it!) I have been very involved in various teen issues, especially suicide, and the stigma against adoption -- pronounced in some communities (black and Latino for example) -- has never been stronger. We who live in urban areas, where adopted children are numerous and varied (Chinese girls are visible on all NY playgrounds) must travel beyond the coasts. Teens are not always supported for this decision, trust me. Start in the south.

But you didn't respond to the bigger issue in my reaction to LOST: the sentimentalization of 'bonding,'as though no 'real'woman could fail to, once she simply sees the baby emerge. That's part of the fantasy -- along with birthparent/child reunion. That kids will feel whole only when bonded with 'real parents,'and that those 'real parents' are complete only when bonded with the kids they 'gave up.' The stories aren't so pat. In a world were ROE V. WADE is very much threatened, these discussions remain timely.

Updated On: 4/6/05 at 10:52 PM

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 4/6/05 at 10:53pm

I don't watch Lost, but I absolutely agree with your assessment of the scene you described.

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 4/6/05 at 11:24pm

You know, Auggie, you're right. What just occurred to me is how deeply ingrained the "motherhood" thing is...and not just among conservatives. You are well acquainted with my political views...and for those who aren't, I'm a strong supporter of choice as well as adoption for "alternatively" structured families.

Intellectually, I understand that giving up a child for adoption is more often than not a tremendous act of selflessness and courage. And I am well acquainted with the reality of how many children are less than well cared for after they are born and kept by a birth mother who didn't really want to be raising a child. But I'd be lying if I didn't admit that in my heart, even if not in my head, I subconsciously root for the motherly ideal to triumph every damn time. Which makes having a show like Lost feed into that tendency all the more unfortunate...because if this tendency is true of liberal, left wing ME...it's pretty firmly entrenched in society as a whole.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 4/6/05 at 11:32pm

Auggie - your first post is too long. Edit.

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 4/6/05 at 11:57pm

Someone finally contributes a well thought out, complex post, and the best you have to offer is to tell him that it's too long and he should edit? And I used to wonder why he rarely bothers to post here anymore...

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 4/7/05 at 12:39am

iflitifloat Sorry, wow. I have read many of Auggie's posts, and I have found many thoughtful.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/7/05 at 8:21am

I welcome criticism, even of my length. (Though I'm not sure I understand self-apointed arbiters of style/substance.) Ah well,l we live in a sound-byte culture.

Defensively, I will say: This became an extended post because the issue is rather gnarly and complicated. Bigger picture societal concerns than a plot twist on a popular series, as theoretically befits the off-topic board's mission. Sometimes we need to dare to develop our ideas. And hey, you can always skim. I do it daily at this board and others, or I'd never leave my computer!

Updated On: 4/7/05 at 08:21 AM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/7/05 at 8:31am

Iflitfloat: Thank you for your soul-searching honesty.

I think many of us hold romantic notions about the issues of "real family." Soap operas have a pitiful track record with sentimentalizing biological ties. Biological parents show up, and the long-held fantasy of "connection" is usually the norm. (Even though in real life, birth parent searches do not generally result in this Hallmark version.) LOST is in many ways, a superior bit of serial storytelling, i.e. a soap. Though to be fair, they did portray the John Locke character's roots as complicated and dark. No happy ending there with Swoozie Kurtz as his bio mom.

We love the fantasy, but when it's more complicated, frankly, the story is richer. Look at the Scott Peterson case. His biological sister, adopted at birth, shows up, bonds, and turns around and cuts off ties with her "new" family as she writes a tell-all book about how she now sees him as a murderer!

My favorite adoption image surfaced recently on The Animal Planet, and Today. Against all odds, a lion adopted and raised its prey: a gazelle. There is something beyond eloquent in that.

Updated On: 4/7/05 at 08:31 AM

[shameless]

Posted: 4/7/05 at 9:05am

Auggie,

You made some very good points, but that specific character, I think her name is Claire, has had mixed emotions about giving up the baby from the beginning. In fact, one of the main reasons she wanted to give it up was because a psychic told her something terrible would happen if she kept it. My point is that these were unusual circumstances, like everything on "Lost".
But I agree with you that on tv, they take the easy way out. On soaps, they usually make the character miscarry, which is even worse.

[Bluemoon]

Posted: 4/7/05 at 9:30am

I hestitate to step in here - my thoughts on the matter are purely personal and have no intellectual basis. I so admire you, Auggie, for your concern with teen mothers and your work with youth. They are lucky to have you involved.
As for the "romantic fantasy" of mother/child bonding, I can only say that I "bonded" - loved - my daughter even before she was born. Yes, true, she was a very wanted child and born into pretty good circumstances, but you could not believe the overwelming rush of parental love I felt when she was put in my arms for the first time. Romantic? Definitly. Fantasy-produced? Well, perhaps. But I am not a woman who gushes over babies and small children and I was shocked at the strong and enduring feelings toward this new stranger in my life. With absolutely no scientific evidence to back me up, I wonder if we are not hard-wired this way on purpose. The romance goes out of this relationship VERY quickly as the neediness of the baby becomes quite tiring. So it's a good thing we fall in love very early on, because it sees you through the 2:00am sessions of walking the floor with a screaming child. I really think this "love at first sight" is the reason adoption-oriented mothers are all the more heroic - they put their own feelings aside for the betterment of the child they love. And after all, putting someone else's needs and welfare above your own is a good description of true love. Just a thought.......
Updated On: 4/7/05 at 09:30 AM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/7/05 at 10:54am

Shameless, you are right. She was on the fence. I suppose it made the look on her face that much more predictable. Well, we'll have to stick around and see what develops. (My thought: if they were going to have her fall in love with the baby, why not wait until the baby is kidnapped, or dragged off by wild whatevers, and then have her realize the loss? We all know this is LOST, so SOMETHING has to happen to this child! I dunno, there's something a bit by the numbers in the emotional buttons pushed.)

Beautiful, beautiful post, Bluemoon. Very wise. Makes these open-ended question type of threads worth doing. Thank you.

Updated On: 4/7/05 at 10:54 AM

[Rose_MacShane]

Posted: 4/7/05 at 10:54am

I saw the episode last night, and I just wanted to say that I don't think Claire is a teenager. In the episode that dealt with her background, she was living with the man who fathered her child. I placed her in her early 20's myself.

[shameless]

Posted: 4/7/05 at 11:06am

Auggie,

You're right, waiting would've been better, but I also agree that something big will happen involving this baby.

By the way, I fall for you a little more every time I read your posts! :)