Friday, October 20, 2006

Baby Madonna

I'm not a strongly opinionated person about many things. It usually takes me a while to ponder on the facts and rumours and stories about anything before I decide which side of the fence looks good to me. Even then, I'll often jump to the other side if I discover something new or different to all the facts that I had heard in the first place.

But, even by my low standards, this Madonna baby thing is going to keep me in arse splinters for a long time.

I understand that there must be some very negative psychological implications to many of the orphaned children left behind in Malawi. It's beyond the scope of my mind to think what it must be like to see one of your friends "chosen" by a billionaire superstar for a life of luxury while you get left behind. Presumably there are some personality types who would actually be positively motivated by this but I'm sure most would feel crushed and beaten by it.

On another level I have little doubt that Madonna and Guy will be able to give the child a far better standard of life and much better prospects than he would have faced had he not been adopted. That's a good thing. Some will say that the life won't be better, but they'll be people with beards and engines under 2 litres, possibly even diesels.

But that has got to be good for the child. The other kids in the orphanage will eventually get on with their lives and all will be happy?

It's entirely feasible that the Ritchies have wholly good intentions in this episode. They already have kids and look to have a normal family life. As normal as possible when your parents are those two.

I was talking about this with someone the other day and she pointed out that, if it was all so genuine, then why on earth did Madonna not bring the child back to London herself? Wouldn't most people wouldn't have left the child in the hands of their staff and gone home. Again I don't know. Most people wouldn't have done that I agree. But most people live a "normal" life and don't have an army of servants and staff anyway. I would imagine that a large part of the upbringing of her children has been done by staff and nannies anyway. It's not wrong, it's just different.

Surely with all her money, power and resources the Madonna organisation would have ensured that all the paperwork was done and correct to facilitate a quick and fuss free passage for everyone out of Malawi. Probably, but maybe the paperwork could only be done once she had "chosen" the child, which seems fundamentally wrong anyway doesn't it?

If the intentions were so genuine then why did it all appear to be done in a blaze of publicity?
Perhaps the publicity was always going to happen and they felt it best to get some of it out of the way. Perhaps they tried to keep it quiet and failed. Maybe they misunderestimated (as George Dubya would say) the negative publicity they would get. Angelina Jolie has adopted a few underprivileged kids and doesn't seem to have got a load of bad stuff said about her for it.

Some will say that Madonna (or Guy) will have done this for the publicity. I can't see this. I don't think she needs the column inches that much and, call me naive here but, I just don't think she would do something like that.

There are plethoras of people who do oodles of work for charity and less fortunate children yet get no credit or publicity, not that they actually want it. But, if you're a global superstar, doesn't the public crave your every move anyway?

I'm none the wiser really. I'd like to give the Ritchies the benefit of the doubt and wish them well. I hope it all works out and their intentions are good.

If the average person in the street adopts a child no one questions their motives and wonders if they've done it to be trendy.

What do you think?


Darwin said...

I somehow feel that Mads did it to keep up with Angelina/Nicole/Calista etc. I also picture her swooping into the destitute orphanage in furs and pointing a finger and uttering a haughty "I'll take that one" and then sweeping out and letting the other minions take care of the unsavoury things such as visas and the like.

Rhythmic Diaspora said...

Darwin - This is exactly what I mean. I can picture it as you have described it but also I can see her doing it for genuinely compassionate reasons. I just don't know what the truth is.

Curious Yellow said...

You're missing the point, at the end of the day all that matters is "the chosen kid" gets a better shot at life. It doesn't matter that she's doing this to keep up with the rest of the gang, because for whatever reason she'll have done something that will benefit that kid.

Maybe that kid will one day grow up to go back to Malawi and help kids like him?

I guess what I'm saying is that the truth is subjective and we'll never know the real reason, but she's doing something that has a commendable end result which is "good" (tm).

Rhythmic Diaspora said...

CY - I half agree. I think she is doing something that should have a good result but, if her motives are selfish, then I'm not in agreement with you that it's a good thing. There are many who would argue that the kid's better shot at life is a contentious issue too.