You know what drives me crazy? Besides bald men who think they can trick us into believing they have hair by growing soul patches?
When magazines differentiate between celebrities adopted and biological children. And that happens in almost every single article ever written about Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman’s two children, Isabella and Connor. Ever since Suri Cruise entered the scene, magazines felt the need to remind us that she’s Tom Cruise’s biological daughter — and Isabella and Connor are adopted. ADOPTED. As in not genetically related to Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. The problem only got worse when Nicole Kidman gave birth to two children with her current husband Keith Urban. Then the adopted vs. biological story could be told even more often, from even more angles.
As someone with an adopted sister who never refers to her as adopted except when I’m up on my soapbox writing articles like this, I take lots of offense to these articles. So when I saw a People article this morning titled, “Tom Cruise: I’m Happy with Three Kids,” I prepared to get super angry. I started huffing and puffing before the article even had a chance to load.
And then in a surprising twist that filled me with delight and hope, the article simply stated, “ The Rock of Ages star, who is dad to Suri, 6, with wife Katie Holmes, and Conner, 17, and Bella, 19, with ex-wife Nicole Kidman, says he’s not planning to add to his family anytime soon.”
No mention of the dreaded A-word. (And no mention of Tom Cruise reproducing. Double win!) Could this be the beginning of the end of constantly throwing the word “adopted” into these types of stories. I hope so.
Especially when it comes to Tom Cruise. There’s just so much that needs to be said about him and all of his life choices, that it seems foolish to waste precious page space on a trivial word like adopted.