home

I’m so vain, I probably think this blog is about me.

Last night, I eagerly sat down at my computer and pulled up the New York Times story about blogging parents.

A few paragraphs into the story, I started to feel a little down. By the end of the story, I felt downright depressed. I wondered why I felt that way from reading a stupid newspaper story, when it hit me: The way this story is written, it is made to make blogging parents look dumb.

This reporter decided to pick and choose which aspects of the blogs to write about. Instead of saying how it keeps a lot of us sane, keeping us “in touch” with others who are going through the same thing, it made blogging parents look like a bunch of self absorbed people who overly coddle their children.

For example, there are hundreds upon hundreds of pages over at Suburban Bliss yet the reporter only chooses to write that Melissa “thinks her son is gay.”

Maybe she does, maybe she doesn’t. That isn’t the point. The point is that he looked past all the Melissa writes about, all the humor, all the day to day things that make parenthood F-U-N and chooses to make her look like some odd woman that talks about a 2-year-old’s sexuality.

Get with the program. I’m pretty sure he’s not two anymore. Didn’t you bother to ask her that during the interview?

As a former reporter, I know that this guy did his research. He probably silently stalked these sites for a few days before contacting them. He probably referred to them while writing the story. He knows the subject matter, yet he still chooses to point out one small detail and make it all that Melissa is.

And don’t get me started on the typos! One typo? It happens. Several typos, where you spell the name wrong? Unacceptable. As a reporter, it is YOUR JOB to make sure that you have the spelling of the names correct. You should go so far as to ask the person to spell out his or her name for the record. Why? Because then you don’t have some hack of a reporter for the NY Times making typos because he is too lazy to get the names right.

Anyway, this guy made it sound like everyone who blogs while being a parent only does so about the children. I definitely did not have a blog before my baby was born. No way. No siree! Actually, as I lay on the birthing table, legs spread, random people sticking their hands “up there,” I thought to myself “I should get a blog. People are going to want to hear about this baby. Actually, they’ll want to hear about me! Me! It’s all about me!”

Look! It is all about me! Every day, I rate my self-absorption while looking in the mirror!

Self absorption looking pretty good today.

I’m so self absorbed, I ignore my child. Look! She’s not wearing pants! And look how small the picture of her is! Mine is so much bigger!

Speaking of the child, how upset will Ellie be when her prom date googles her in 2020 and finds out that MY CHILD BATHES WITH HER FATHER! NAKED! Or what if he learns that ELLIE POOPS HER DIAPER? Even better, ELLIE SOMETIMES TOUCHES HER VAGINA!

Ellie has a vagina! Ellie has a vagina! Everyone point and laugh!

And her mother? Her mother who will be old and wrinkly in 2020? She used to use words like “douchebag” and “cooter!” What kind of Mom uses that language? I’m a Mom! I have no real meaning in life, right?

We all know I’m just here to breed.

28 Responses to “I’m so vain, I probably think this blog is about me.”

  1. Dylan
    January 30th, 2005 16:50
    1

    Wait… wait…. I get it… you are being sarcastic.

  2. Lessa
    January 30th, 2005 17:00
    2

    *LOL* I felt the same way when I read the article - I’m a mom too, though I feel slightly guilty that I don’t write about my kids more, but bitch about myself, my parents, my sibling, my Asshole and THEN my kids and their pornstar habits. *L*

    Now see? Me? I’m self-absorbed.

  3. Crystal
    January 30th, 2005 17:06
    3

    I totally agree. The only good thing about that article is the hits it will bring to the mentioned blogs. It was fairly condescending, and I agree that the comment taken from Melissa’s site is just unfair. Those of us who read SB know the context, but a person who hasn’t prob thinks “What an idiot!” Though I’ve honestly wondered the same thing about my 2 year old boy… he has some feminine tendencies!

  4. y
    January 30th, 2005 17:30
    4

    REALY? people who blog are self absorbed???? WHAT? so, THAT explains why, since 2002, I’ve posted at LEAST 300 pictures of MYSELF, my boobs, my ass and my kids on MY blog that has ALWAYS been about me!!!!!

  5. Emily
    January 30th, 2005 18:11
    5

    That idiot journalist totally missed the point of blogging. And the one liner for Suburban bliss…what a horrible description of her site! And I will tell you this…just reading YOUR site has opened topics of discussion for me on what to expect when I get prego! Things my 2 sisters never told me and now have freely admitted. What a crock this guy is! I must really be self centered b/c my site is nothing about me me me!! Obviously it isn’t visited as much as yours or Melissa’s..but thank God or else I really would have been called self centered if mine was mentioned in his ridiculous article!!

  6. MollieBee
    January 30th, 2005 18:22
    6

    Ohhhhhh. I hadn’t read that one. Poop on the NYT.

  7. Tish
    January 30th, 2005 18:23
    7

    Like the new look - and love this post. When my daughter is old enough, I will gladly shame her with the running naked int he hallway photo
    As for the suburban bliss issue, I am not up on that but I can say that anyone that pigeon holes a child is wrong.
    So there.
    Come see me
    Tish
    PS Hows the pumping going?

  8. Psycho Kitty
    January 30th, 2005 19:20
    8

    Ok, it’s official, I heart you, Sarcastic Journalist.

    Actually, the part that I found offensive was the quote from the psychologist, about how we’re all overly obsessed with our children’s whatever. No kidding, ya think? Betty.

  9. LX Robotnik
    January 30th, 2005 19:53
    9

    A few things about the Times. While I do love it, and read it every day–especially the Editorials (I LOVE MAUREEN DOWD)–I have some problems with The Times.

    1. They frequently misuse the possesive and the plural (Example: They’ll write: “The 1990’s were the Clinton years during which…” WRONG. It should be: The 1990s. 1990’s is a possesive. As in: 1990’s top song was… It’s the fucking Times; they should be able to distinguish.

    2. One name: Jayson Blair

    And, 3…unrelated….SJ, as a former journalist you should know it’s “definitely” not “definately.”

    Ha! Gotcha! Aren’t you glad I’m not your editor? I’d bust your bollix every day.

    Auf auf!

  10. Heatheranne
    January 30th, 2005 20:06
    10

    I love the new look.

    I read it too and I agree with you. The entire article really should have focused on how helpful it is to write. Not only that, but when you read some one’e blog who posted about something you can totally relate to, it helps to know you’re not alone. Maybe they’re just jealous because some of the mentioned bloggers write better.

  11. MelissaS
    January 30th, 2005 20:53
    11

    Tish, I was joking. Mr Hochman took that one sentence from my horribly outdated ‘About’ page (my son is nearly 4 now) and put it up there as an example of how humorous it is to watch mothers be anxious and uncertain about their children. Ha ha!

    I was neither anxious or uncertain about the fact that my son loves tutus and trucks with equal passion. I do think he might be gay, but he might be straight too and I’ve never felt any anxiety about either of those options.

    i’m just waiting for someone from the Times article to read my site and tell me I’m pigeon holing my son at 2 years old.

    The article was poorly written an missed the essence of what blogging is about. I’m sorry it depressed you, it left me feeling uneasy also. But I can barely even think about it because that would involve not thinking about ME for a few minutes.

  12. debutaunt
    January 30th, 2005 21:04
    12

    I’m too lazy to log in to read the article. But they can bite my butt. Everyone after 911 was all… life is too short, priorities, etc., etc.

    Well you know what? I’d rather be self-absorbed about my child than my job. Because most companies could give a crap about people. And when I screw up with my kid, she still loves me and hopefully won’t fire me.

    I blog because it’s cheaper and less time consuming than therapy.

  13. Ninotchka
    January 30th, 2005 21:18
    13

    What got me about the article was the so-called expert talking about how pretty soon EVERYONE will have a blog and no-one will read it because WE WILL ALL HAVE BLOGS. I mean, COME ON. We all DO have blogs. DUH! If that’s not missing the point, I don’t know what is. Why don’t you just go ahead and devalue the connections that are formed via this medium? Because, you know, those of us who read each other regularly and post to each other are going to drop each other like hot potatoes once the next “cool” thing comes along. Yeah. Right.

    In fact, what am I doing here? I have my own blog to tend to! The one that I will eventually only read because all my readers will be keeping their own (they already do, again: DUH!) and will abandon me to go be self-absorbed. We’ll all be alone together. Because that’s really the point. Not venting. Not commiseration. Not plain assed silliness. Just pure self-absorbition and humiliation of our children.

    Yeah. Right.

    My favorite part of the whole damn article was the picture of Heather’s Leta. I pretty much wipe my ass with the other content.

  14. Corrie
    January 30th, 2005 21:52
    14

    NY Times blows monkeys ass. That said, new look is cute.

  15. Cristin
    January 30th, 2005 22:31
    15

    I don’t have a blog ninotchka. Um, am I doing this whole mommyhood thing wrong?

    j/k, really, heh heh

    LOVED this post s.j.

  16. mindy
    January 30th, 2005 23:12
    16

    Oh, yes, everyone knows I had THREE kids so I would have more to write about in my BLOG when then got around to creating internet blog software. I just KNEW it was coming, and when it it, I was prepared. (Camera? Check. Children? Check. Ego the size of Wyoming? Check. Utter disregard for anyone but myself? Check. Did I mention camera? Better get two.)

  17. Wendi
    January 30th, 2005 23:47
    17

    Hmmmm…Self absorbed people who overly coddle their children?

    Interesting!

    I wonder? I should ask those…Um…you know…those people…the young ones…who hang out around here….eat my food…ask for money….Crap…what are they called again?….

    Oh well….I wonder if they think they are coddled?

    Eh? Doesn’t matter….I need to paint my nails, eat some bon bons and watch my programs…I don’t time to worry about such trivial things!

    *HA!*

  18. zeno
    January 31st, 2005 03:55
    18

    I followed a link from themommyblog simply because I am amused and bemused by internet mommies (ask Mindy, she’ll tell you what a stalker I am). Excellent post and, as I am all for ego, I will be returning regularly for more of your self obsession (I will be the one hiding behind the plants in the corner).

  19. bluepoppy
    January 31st, 2005 09:43
    19

    First, your new “look” rocks!

    Second, I read that article and wanted to smack him upside the head. He totally missed the fucking point, set about his own fucking agenda, AND he misspelled people’s names wrong– but you’ve already said all this far better and I just wanted to say, WORD, chica– word.

    Personally? I think print journalists fear the powerful voices they find in women’s blogs–

  20. bluepoppy
    January 31st, 2005 09:44
    20

    uh, don’t you just love that “misspelled people’s names wrong?” yeah, me too

  21. kristine
    January 31st, 2005 10:37
    21

    I’m a blogging mom that CPS would have a hayday with.
    if there is a CPS person reading this: I swear, only the good stuff is real. I make up all the bad stuff. *rolling eyes*

  22. Texas T-bone
    January 31st, 2005 10:46
    22

    I bet the NY Times reporter was a good buddy of Jason Blair and they traded notes on good reporting habits. Sheesh, if I make an inadvertent error of any type at my small newspaper, I get called on it and run a correction in the next issue. I am also easily accessible to our readership.

    Just consider a mention in a story as “an honor to be nominated” and then do what you do best. Most blogs I read are self-absorbent (like a paper towel), and that’s what is fun about them. They are personal, they can be honest, sarcastic, enlightening, entertaining or a total waste of time. But that’s the name of the game.

  23. Gary M.
    January 31st, 2005 11:05
    23

    In my opinion, what he 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 worth reading.

  24. Curly Girl
    January 31st, 2005 11:38
    24

    i love your new blog!!!

  25. Shylah
    February 1st, 2005 03:53
    25

    That is SUCH a great picture of you!

  26. LX Robotnik
    February 1st, 2005 12:31
    26

    Ok, Ok…we all absolutely ADORE Ellie–that’s a given. Any photograph will make us melt: “oh…those cheeks.”
    But…
    No one’s commented on SJ’s picture in this post.
    “Hott”

    ’nuff said. Before The Hubs gets his way with me.

  27. Tina
    February 1st, 2005 18:56
    27

    LOVE your hair!

  28. vintage backgammon
    April 4th, 2005 22:35
    28

    vintage backgammon
    There is nothing funny about Halloween. This sarcastic festival reflects, rather, an infernal demand for revenge by children on the adult world. by

  • Etc.



    • www.flickr.com