(And I’m a mom and a blogger, as well as someone who deals with serious issues on their blog as well as the usual silliness).

But I don’t really understand how anyone (and you’re not alone) can think the NYT is obligated to acknowledge the importance of moms blogging, or any other media channel at all. I mean, don’t we all publish our own blogs because we can post whatever we want, whenever we want? And aren’t we, as online media, part of a major force working to destroy the mainstream and print media? Why should we expect their respect?

If they want to do a series of light pieces, that’s their prerogative.

Second, they did point out a number of negative impressions of mommy bloggers, but those ideas are reinforced and MAJORLY publicized by mommy bloggers themselves. At BlogHer I groaned every time I heard another alcohol-related blog title or Twitter handle. There were DOZENS. It’s embarrassing. Yes, you’re allowed to have fun, and define professionalism for yourselves, but don’t act surprised when people listen. All the things people have complained about as the author’s “opinions” were actually observations of real behavior and yes, brands.

I wouldn’t have expected the Times to provide a link to your Disney/dystrophy project. That is blogger etiquette and they are not a blog. The Times DID provide the full name of the disease, and honestly, between sporadic reading of your blog and tweets, it wasn’t quite clear to me how Tanner, Disney, Ford, Tiarathon, and dystrophy fit together nor did I know the full name of Tanner’s disease.

If you want the Times to be more bloggy, I might want your blog to be more Times-y. I mean, I’m pretty smart, but a sidebar that summarizes an ongoing important project would be helpful.

Full respect for what you do in all ways — but I think this is a framing issue. You do what you do excellently, and the Times does what they do, and perhaps the twain are not yet meeting. Perhaps they never should.

I adore you for what you do, and I think the Times is still relevant, even if they aren’t kowtowing to us and our power appropriately. May they never do so. There’s room for your voice and their authority (and they get to have a voice too, and you get to have some authority, too).

Long live constructive, vivid, personal dialog between opposites, and friends.

Best,

Supa
.-= Supa Dupa Fresh´s last blog ..Wordless Wednesday: (I have no idea) =-.

I may not agree with you on some issues, ever go to conferences, or even want the same things out of blogging that you do. But as a mother and a blogger, the NYT article still makes my head explode. I am happy to join you in protesting its publication. Thanks for this post.
.-= Juli Ryan´s last blog ..I’m overwhelmed. =-.

P.S. In my last comment I absolutely DID NOT mean to give you any type of shit whatsoever for the Tanner comment. I think that the article-writer should have touched more on the subject as well as how bloggers are using their platform to help spread awareness of things such as dying children who have uncurable diseases that some of us have never heard of. I am so so sorry if anything I said about Tanner came off in a negative light.

This is entirely the problem. The NYT keeps publishing pieces on women blogging that do exactly this, and they keep putting them in the Style section, and by doing so keep implying that women working online is a charming thing that earns us all a pat on the head. You will never, ever see an article about male bloggers that points out what they wear or what they drink or how they party or who’s looking after their kids, and you will never see ‘men blogging’ singled out as a trend. Because, duh. It’s not – any more than is WOMEN blogging.

http://www.jenmen.com/2010/03/about-that-new-york-times-piece.html?showComment=1268838349100#c4539976646988174282