According to Sunday’s style section in the New York Times, moms shouldn’t be working. At least if you look at the article called Honey Don’t Bother Mommy. I’m Too Busy Building My Brand.
I guess it could also have been titled Honey Don’t Bother Mommy. I’m Making Ends Meet for Our Family in a Tough Economy but that doesn’t seem as enticingly condescending. Also, then it would have to go in the business section and not fashion + style and that would just mess up everything!
Author Jennifer Mendelsohn also writes a blog called Clever Title TK which I actually mentioned here in my post about 50 lesser known mom bloggers, which she references in the piece. And I like her. I bet you would too. She’s funny and smart and is great on twitter, and I’d imagine we’d love each other in person. But I don’t love this article. I’m kind of praying that her editor wrote the headline and not her.
In the piece, she describes a conference called Bloggy Boot Camp that I don’t know much about:
The topics on that day’s agenda included search-engine optimization, building a “comment tribe” and how to create an effective media kit. There would be much talk of defining your “brand” and driving up page views.
I know I wasn’t there and all, but here I’m wondering – how is the agenda here any different than that at any tech conference anywhere, and why does that warrant a mention in the Times?
Oh wait..because moms were there.
And we’re supposed to be home with our younguns suckling at our teats while we try in earnest to get our whites whiter, our pancakes fluffier, and our menfolk happier.
The best guess I have is that the conference was so marketing focused–and not content focused– that it would inspire a journalist who values writing to jot down a quip like: Heed the speaker’s advice, and you, too, might get 28,549 views of your tutu-making tutorial! Even I’ve been known to eyeroll about bloggers who utilize the medium solely for freebies, or blogs that put SEO ahead of good writing. So if the point of the article was to illuminate that this particular conference wasn’t emblematic of the best of the momblogosphere, maybe that’s fair.
But I’m not sure that that’s what comes across.
I can’t imagine Jennifer was intending to slight the entire community of moms who blog, she being one. In fact, once you get past the first half of the article, there’s actually some solid information in there, including a good quote from Amy Lupold Blair about blogging as valuable flex-time work, a hilarious analogy from Ciaran Blumenfeld (worth a read for that alone!) and some analysis from my author services rep at Cool Mom Picks, Pamela Parker of Federated Media. But I wish all that had been the focus of an article about my favorite blogging community that just made the front page of my favorite section of my favorite Sunday paper. I wish it had opened with the yearning of bloggers for the community to return to good writing, and the evidence that in the end, that’s mostly what pays off, and not this SEO bullshit or obsession with stats.
However I’m afraid that in our ADD world, most readers won’t get much past the opening snark, which continues to affirm all the negativity surrounding the word mommyblog. In other words, more silly mommies and their silly “expensive hobby.”
See also: Comment #18 at Lisa Belkin’s Motherlode Blog at the NYT about the article, from “Dee” who has it alllll figured out:
Nature abhors a vacuum, so these people fill up their lives with each other- telling each other how special their everyday thoughts and actions – and kids – are. And they are lonely at home with the kiddies…There is something pathetic about the clingy, needy plea for attention and affirmation. God help the teachers when the offspring of these bloggers get to school.
(I always love those anonymous blog commenters who imply bloggers should get a life while uh, commenting anonymously on blogs.)
Who knows, maybe I’m being hypocritical. Maybe I don’t mind us dissecting our own thang here, but seeing it in black and white in the Paper of Record is uncomfortable. It’s possible. It’s likely even.
For Dee, and the rest of you who missed the point (or didn’t?) and are wondering what else mom blogging leads to besides conference boondoggles, needy pleas for attention, and raving reviews of self-cleaning ovens in exchange for free product, I’ll tell you.
We are:
Raising money for and awareness of childhood diseases
Traveling to Rwanda on Microsoft’s dime to gather photos of hope
Visiting the White House to discuss health care
Supporting parents who have lost children
Writing best-selling cookbooks
Supporting small businesses in a recession
Consulting for Steven Spielberg
Giving comedy pros a run for their money
Giving back to our communities
Putting our colons on display for the benefit of others
Standing up for social justice
Raising money for families in crisis
Supporting our families sometimes single-handedly
I’m sure there’s more, but my children are naked, dirty, and cold and I need to give them their daily bread and water now.
—–
EDITED TO ADD: I’d like to include the accompanying visual to the article, because it’s been referenced several times in comments. It occupied nearly the entire above the fold section of the paper save for one column. It clearly depicts mothers neglecting their angry children in favor of blogging. But hey – at least they didn’t show us wearing housedresses and aprons.
294 shards of brilliance… read them below or add one
Next Comments →
Have I told you lately that I love/adore you!!! Especially when you write things like;
“And we're supposed to be home with our younguns suckling at our teats while we try in earnest to get our whites whiter, our pancakes fluffier, and our menfolk happier.” Which so succinctly sums up just how condescending this article was to moms who blog as a business and as a means to um I don't know just throwing it out there- pay for their kid's school tuition.
Thank you!
YOU should have been tapped to write the article for the Times Style Section. In fact, they should just print your post as a follow up. Every last word. Great response, Liz. Thank you!
Bravo!
Wonderful.
Now I'm going to find my kid some pajamas so I can put him to bed. There might be kissing involved. Alert the media
So glad I read your post before I read the article! In fact, now I don't need to read the article at all and can just save myself the irritation and skip to the wedding announcements.
Trenchant and funny. Too bad your kids are suffering because of it.
Oh, I love your response, (and alternate title) as usual!
Steph
I didn't read the article because I couldn't bear to know what they'd say.
I am quite happy to know what YOU had to say, however. Bravo, Liz.
I'm not a mom, but even I, as a blogger, find it insulting. Come on already! When is the Times in particular going to stop perpetuating the stereotypes of the women in the blogosphere?
As someone else said, you should have been assigned to write the article.
I already feel lonely commenting on this post. Because I really liked the title.
I've actually said something similar to my children. Give me a minute, honey, I'm working, I'm blogging, I'm talking to a friend, I'm on a conference call, I'm making dinner, I'm watching Oprah, I'm being a human being with needs and dreams that extend beyond you.
I don't see neglect in it, I see wisdom.
I see wisdom in your comment Marinka.
Liz, I'm with you. There was solid info buried on page 2. The header was sensational. But what would you expect…all the NYT readers are busy reading mommy blogs. They need to do something to get #s up
Yes, let's poke more fun at these stupid mommies who get together at conferences and act like what they are doing matters! Aren't they pathetic getting all dressed up and trying to talk all business-y and stuff when they really should be home disappearing under the weight of their children.
Fuck that article. Your response is wonderful. May we all keep writing and sharing and telling our stories.
There's also nothing wrong with being lonely or lookingfor attention. You think a bunch of guys going to play their weekly golf game and talking about different swings is rocket science? People like to connect and be creative, too. Blogging can be both about saving the whales AND going whale-watching with the kids, and they are both equally valid. I don't think that Moms have to prove anything to the New York Times.
Nicole, that just cracked me up. Awesome.
Love that Neil. I agree. My reference to Jenny the Bloggess's hilarity in the above list is no less important than the proverbial saving of whales.
So cute, all these ladies trying to earn a living!
Grrrrrr.
Evidently, society hasn't let go of the “Leave it to Beaver” image of a mom. We are people too: We are women, daughters, mothers, sisters, lovers, wives. We have dreams and ambitions for ourselves as well as our families. Having that doesn't mean they receive less from us. In fact, our dreams and ambitions only lead to more.
Liz, I am so annoyed by the Times' condescending attitude, thanks for your response. We moms who blog (among other things) are lucky to have you as a spokesperson!
Astute (and funny) as always Liz. I'd leave a long, self involved comment but I need to go write a long, self involved blog post.
I've been struggling with this a lot lately — I'm a young mom of a one-year-old with another on the way and I find myself getting caught up in the stress of comments and stats and everything. But I was blogging before I was a mommy … and I have to remember to get back to that, to be more than what society wants to see me as. Just because I have an active uterus doesn't mean I can't have an active imagination that spawns my desires and dreams.
Thanks for writing this. It makes me feel a little less … like a bad mom, I guess, for wanting something for myself beyond motherhood, even if that something is totally built around the fact that I've given birth.
Fabulous response to that article! I personally wasn't sure what to make of that piece and I did read the whole thing. As soon as I thought “Is she slamming mom bloggers?” I'd read the next statement, which defended us, but then be faced with another slam. If felt like a roller coaster ride reading that thing!
And even if I spent 7 days a week trying to, I still couldn't get my pancakes fluffier!
Tamara
http://www.theunexperiencedmom.com
http://www.blogconferencenewbie.com
Thank you. I thought they totally missed the boat on this one…I blog, I work, I am a mom, and I don't do it for the dang freebies!
this. is. fantastic.
thank you.
I can't imagine a piece running with the title “Not now honey, Mommy is leading a board meeting,” you know?
The thing is, an outside-looking-in piece is never going to get it. I don't think anyone can get it unless he or she is in it.
Still, I think it's cheap to go the route of mockery, even gentle and playful mockery.
Ugh.
Anyway, the only good thing about that article was this response. LOVE it. Thank you.
The best guess I have is that the conference was so marketing focused–and not content focused– that it would inspire a journalist who values writing to jot down a quip like: Heed the speaker’s advice, and you, too, might get 28,549 views of your tutu-making tutorial!
That's not the case at all. Bloggy Boot Camp was focused primarily on helping new bloggers to improve their craft. Was there talk of marketing, working with PR, getting paid for product reviews? Yes. Was there talk of building a community, making a meaningful contribution to the blogosphere, and reaching out to form real frienships? Yes. But Bloggy Boot Camp was so much more than that.
I am “the speaker” about whom Jennifer quipped. I was speaking about SEO. I gave 10 tips to help bloggers to improve their SEO while still maintaining the quality and integrity of their blogs… but Jennifer couldn't be bothered to mention that.
During my presentation, I mentioned over and over and over that good SEO can't ever come before good writing, that some (really valuable and important) posts aren't worth working on in terms of SEO, that SEO is most appropriate for niche blogs that have widely useful content (for which people will be searching – like how to make a no-sew tutu). I implored the participants to read over their posts after they've added keywords to make sure that the writing is natural. I told them that they can't sound forced, that keywords can't dominate the writing.
Yes, I shared that my tutu tutorial had been visited 28,459 times from Google searches. Out of context, the number looks silly. In context, it made the point that useful, how-to content sees significant success if written with SEO in mind.
What irked me more than Jennifer's offhanded remark about my presentation and more than her offensively condescending tone was her insincerity. She found a community of warmth and friendship and validation. The bloggers at this conference welcomed Jennifer into their circle. She asked for their time, their thoughts, and their trust. She requested explanation and follow up by email. In return, she chided, sneered, and marginalized.
I do feel slighted. We all should.
Sigh. The longer I blog, the more I realize that people either get it, or they don't. And I've never been very good at trying to appease either group.
Great response. More diplomatic than I could ever be.
Excellent post, as usual. Love the links at the end.
I would be willing to bet that the writer didn't dream up the article title – the editor usually does that. I've had articles skewed by bad titles in the past, and it makes me crazy. But if the NYT wanted to publish me, I'd let them call my article any ole thing at all.
I really really appreciate your pov, Tara. Thank you so much for the clarity and the other side of the story.
I've actually been surprised at the number of tweets in the #bloggybootcamp that seem excited by an article that was clearly maligning the event.
PS I'm all for crafting tutorials – heck, my mom made a no sew tutu for our own kids. I wonder if she found the instructions on your blog!
Great post! It makes it so much worse that a mom blogger wrote it. Why should a tech/blogging conference even discuss what she suggests in her lead:
“ON a brisk Saturday morning this month, a dedicated crew of about 90 women, most in their 30s or thereabouts, arrived at a waterfront hotel here, prepared for a daylong conference that offered to school them in the latest must-have skill set for the minivan crowd.
Teaching your baby to read? Please. How to hide vegetables in your children’s food? Oh, that’s so 2008.”
Why is it moms are only supposed to talk about wiping butts? This is incredibly insulting. I also don't understand why New York Times constantly insists on publishing articles demeaning to mom bloggers. I was a newspaper reporter for 15 years, and we used to call it bias. Or, I don't know, an editorial. Not news content.
Pardon me for having a brain AND having children. Oh, the horror. I guess I will return to my appropriate state of barefootedness and go fix my husband a turkey pot pie before he slaps me around.
Thanks for responding formally. Because, the sad part is that I'm just unfazed by these articles now.
The NY and DC publications are notorious for stoking mommy war flames.
The irony is that the NYT is poking fun at mommy blogs and their focus on business under the auspice of discussing their families when in fact they are using editorial and snark under the guise of journalism.
Sorry NYT, I will not let you ruin my day. Or my hour. Or my moment.
Thanks for this.
Thank you a thousand times over for writing this!
I could have never said it this well, but I was certainly thinking along these EXACT same lines.
I read this out loud to my husband (who is super thankful that I supplement our income via blogging), and we were both rolling over the fluffy pancakes and dirty children bits.
Thank you so much for acknowledging that what mom bloggers are doing matters, and that they are helping to feed their families in the process.
: )
This is basically what I've been saying: condescending title and opening, some good info and quotes after that. And I've also said that I suspect an editorial hatchet job…or maybe I'm just hopeful…or naive. I've been accused of that before.
You pretty much said what I think about the situation, with your usual panache.
So…ditto.
I do think there is something to be said about Internet addiction and how it affects the parenting of both moms and dads, and not by any means just those who blog… but that is not what this article was about.
thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for writing this!
There are so many positive things that mommybloggers are doing — so much that totally outweighs any negative, condescending press — that make me PROUD to be a mommyblogger. Thanks for highlighting all of that as well. It was the perfect response to that snarky headline!
The people blogging because it is a place to write our stories never seem to get the attention. I would say I am shocked, but nope, I've come to expect it.
Men have conferences for hunting, fishing, RV's, sports, etc. There are home and garden shows, women's shows, food & wine shows, scrap booking, stamping, etc. All of these have multiple incarnations in cities around the country. They get 6 PM evening news coverage.
However, women use technology to write, connect, and yes, even make money, and this is how it gets treated.
PS. Anyone want to join my tribe?
Count me in Amelia!
I caught the article before I had my morning coffee. Not the wisest reading choice before I'm fully caffeinated, I suppose.
I am beyond weary of traditional media outlets mocking women blogging. I am disappointed with the Times for this tripe and slightly disgusted that a blogger herself would write it.
Thank you for the thoughtful rebuttal. You know, on behalf of all us child-neglecting silly women bloggers.
I actually think I've become a better mom through blogging. Because motherhood is tough, and having an outlet soothes the anxieties that go with it. And writing, I think, gives me an opportunity to process what I'm feeling, and see the beauty + humor in it.
I too attended boot camp and was thoroughly depressed by the article. I was interviewed by Jennifer for a LONG time. She sat next to me at lunch and then interviewed me for atleast 20 minutes afterward to discuss the fundraising I do on my blog for Pediatric Cancer Research (I host the Tuesday Blog Party in honor of Tuesday Whitt who died from Neuroblastoma in Jan '08). We talked about it in great detail and there was NO mention of me, my blog or the fundraising.
Instead, it poked fun.
Jennifer just turned out to be another “typical” NY Times writer….
“marketing focused–and not content focused” this is exactly the concern I have for a lot of daddy-bloggers intent on closing in on the mommies (of course, I don't think a concerted effort aimed specifically at closing the gap is necessarily a good idea, but I digress).
My fear is that dads view these marketing-focused, freebie, QVC mom blogs as what mommy blogging is all about, and as such, they are pattering their own blogs after this misperception with the idea that they will make “millions” too. (I've had a number of dads share with me their frustration at not being able to generate money from their blogs.)
With either mom or dads, this type of blogging misrepresent what blogging can truly accomplish (as you've pointed out in your list of examples). Taken to an extreme, such a mentality could potentially create a general impression that parent blogging is synonymous with consumerism.
…ehh, whadda ya gonna do? [shrug]
It's clear how serious the NY Tines does NOT take female bloggers or mothers because this was in the style section. Style? Really? This is a trend like ankle booties?
They are such linkbaiters it's not even funny.
And they wonder why their circulation and profits are down. Sounds like they chose to spin the article to appeal to non-mom bloggers (and mom-blog haters). The bottom line is, after all, the bottom line. Objective reporting optional.
You know, I was so happy for Ciaran (a good friend of mine) being quoted in the NYT I didn't even read the article at first – just her quote when it first came out. But I went back and read it again soon, and I was appalled for all the reasons you so eloquently suggested.
I didn't enjoy the “look at what these mommies are doing NOW” tone of the article. And I'm wondering if the editors would've asked for a rewrite had a MAN written the exact same story.
As a former newspaper journalist, I always like to give the writer the benefit of the doubt. I have written critical stories even though the people have been nice to me. It happens. You have to report what you see. Maybe she was too close to the story, being a mom blogger herself?
Anyway. I ramble. I guess I'd like to see what she would say in response.
Oh – you probably know this, but usually editors write the headlines, tho writers can suggest one.
I had the exact same take on the article as many of you – snarky in the beginning, then good information in the second half. It was as if this woman prepared the second half first and then remembered that she wrote for the Times style section, and therefore couldn't actually present an article only based on fact.
This article also smacked me in the face about the fear the mainstream media has of bloggers, particularly female bloggers, who are challenging them every day for readership and advertising dollars.
I don't have kids or a blog, nor am I a regular reader of this community’s offerings. I am a full-time journalist (not for the NYT) who comes here as a friend of Jennifer Mendelsohn who is neither a mommy nor a blogger, and found her article a revelatory look at a world I knew nothing about.
This story is written for people who aren't mommybloggers. Most of us readers have never even read an article about mommybloggers. If you're a mommyblogger (is that word cool or not?), well, then you're already pretty deep into the subculture, and you already know its ways and habits and in-house debates. This story is probably not for you. For the rest of us, frankly, it's news that your subculture exists. We're not reading the story and concluding “ooh, some bloggers who are mothers are taking swag, this is terrible!” We're reading it and thinking, “huh, an interesting world, who knew?” And seriously, we'd be equally amused/enlightened if this were a story about teenage bloggers or senior-citizen bloggers or Civil War-reenactor bloggers or yes, even daddybloggers learning about brand promotion or search-engine optimization — because the vast majority of us DON'T have blogs and are surprised by the effort and professionalism that go into them.
Er, what was my point? Oh, just that every subculture is crazy-sensitive about what gets written about them. It's too close to home. If you take, like, 15 steps back, you'll realize this story is fine, and fair. So chill.
I'm torn about what to think. If I'd been reading it on her blog I probably would have trusted it more and assumed that I was reading her actual opinion. But she's getting paid by the Times (I hope), and they might have had very definite ideas about how they wanted the article to sound. And turning down a paycheck can be hard.
The same post on her own blog? I would have had some choice words for her condescension.
Hahahahaa, people didn't know mommybloggers existed!
That's rich!
I've known about “mommybloggers” since before I was a mommy. It's been all I've ever read.
If you've heard of Dooce, you've heard of mommybloggers.
Such a disappointing piece in so many ways. Most of all? That I, too, like Jennifer. Could be friends with her. In a second.
The article wasn't bad. It could have been much, much worse. But the fact that it was written by ONE OF US feels like a betrayal. And a giant step backwards. For what?
I'll keep it short and real-sugar sweet: First-class post. I especially appreciate the list/links of mommy bloggers who are doing the damn thing. As a brand new mommy blogger, I thank you, Liz, for setting folks straight on what it is we're doing in this here fine, fine “subculture” (Yeah, what up, anonymous? Have I taken the suggested 15 steps back?)
Just wanted to share a tidbit, particularly for Anonymous. In fact, blogging and social media *are* now mainstream activities. More than half of American women online participate in social media weekly…Facebook, Twitter and yes, reading writing and commenting on blogs.
I just think it's disconcerting for media sources, who know this data, to continue to marginalize it. Wonder why they do?
So, I like Marinka am feeling lonely…I liked the article. I also liked your post – as opposite as they are. Tara said, “She found a community of warmth and friendship and validation” and quite honestly that's what I got from the article. I let the title slide by me because trying to sensationalize an article to get readers isn't anything new and I ignored the fact that it was in the Style section because I read the NYT online so it didn't even occur to me…I went right to the community of women. The wonder of women coming together to help each other build better businesses. That is what I love about this community and so, I guess that's what I chose to hear when I read it.
Next Comments →