The Politics of Mommy Blogging

I've read several ultra-brilliant responses to the already infamous New York Times article on Moms who blog.  If you missed it, here's an excerpt:

Today's parents - older, more established and socialized to voicing their emotions - may be uniquely equipped to document their children's' lives, but what they seem most likely to complain and marvel about is their own. The baby blog in many cases is an online shrine to parental self-absorption.

Has somebody missed the point here or what?

I'm a proud if not card-carrying member of the DotMoms group, who got mentioned, by the way, and the group's discussion of the NYT article has been smart and passionate.  We rarely communicate with one another except through the group blog--until now.  The conversation may be leading to an e-forum in the near future.  I'll keep you posted.

If you haven't seen the articulate rebuttals across the blogosphere, check out what Shannon, Andrea, and MUBAR have to say on the matter.  And thanks to Amy S. for sending me the article.

Comments

[Gary M.]

I blog for the adoration.
But in my opinion, what David Hochman was writing was JUST his opinion, and not news, NOT facts.
The point that he missed is that there are some really good writers out there. It doesn't matter if they are self absorbed, narcissistic, or even boorish, if they write well, they are worth reading. His article, with all of its mistakes, was, in my opinion, not good writing.

[kat]

I blog because I can type much faster than I can write. I blog because I like the sound of the keyboard. I blog because technology is just so hip and cool. I blog because it's easy to work with digital pictures, etc than spend hours doing scrapbooking. :)

[alice, uptown]

The Times has a tendency to be late-with-a-trend story by eons. They also pay their copy editors union wages to do not much of anything work-wise. I freelanced at the op-ed page years ago. Not a good work experience, at best. Plus, I know too many people there to think any reporter is going to get the story facts correct, much less do anything more than spell names correctly. The reporter and knowledge of a given issue have nothing in common with each other -- take that as a given, and run with it. It's been my local paper for life, and it does scare me to think that if the Times is considered good, what exactly constitutes bad.