Snapshot Chronicles

Susan Getgood's personal blog

  • Home
  • About Snapshot Chronicles
  • Privacy & Disclosure
    • Cookie Policy
  • Getgood.Com

Today show segment on negativity in the blogosphere

04.12.2010 by Susan Getgood //

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Last Friday, I was honored to be on the Today Show talking with Ann Curry and Isabel Kallman about negativity in the parenting blogosphere. Jen Singer of Momma Said was featured in the taped segment that introduced the topic.

I personally was very pleased with the balanced story that emerged during the segment. There have been so many negative stories about blogging and social media in the press, particularly about moms who blog. It was about time for a major media outlet to present a more balanced picture, and I am grateful to the Today Show for the opportunity to share my views.

There was so much to say, and so little time. Three and a half minutes is an eternity in broadcast, but not nearly enough. Here is what I would have said given unlimited time and a bully pulpit.

—

In any community — whenever and wherever people assemble around common interests — you’ll find the whole gamut of human experience. Love, hate, fights and friendships. Blogging is no different. Neither are moms. We’re human.

On any given day, read the comments on a sports or political blog, and you are bound to find more than a few “disagreements.” And then there’s the gossip sites like Perez Hilton. No shortage of trash talk and flame wars there. Even the comment sections of newspapers like the New York Times and the Detroit Free Press have seen their share of “attacks” in the comments.

And, no doubt about it, there is negativity in the parenting blogosphere. I do not know ANYONE who doesn’t have at least one troll story. However, negativity is not what defines the parenting blogosphere, and we rejected that hypothesis outright during the interview.

As Isabel said, the difference between the parenting community and other communities where passions can run high, is that the parenting community is also one of the most supportive online communities.

There are so many amazing stories of what women are doing online. Creating businesses and new ways to work together. Supporting each other through illness and tragedy. Using their own stories to call attention to social problems.  That’s the community I know.

When we started Blog With Integrity,  we were all about taking responsibility for what you say. We call it owning our words — even if we occasionally have to eat them. Part of owning your words is putting your name right next to your comments.

Anonymity has its place, but not when used as a weapon, the way online bullies so often do.

And even when attacks are not anonymous, the distance and immediacy of digital creates situations that probably would never occur in “real life.” We don’t always see the three-dimensional person who might be hurt. Our feelings are real — theirs, not so much. This is why the Blog With Integrity pledge includes a commitment to attack ideas, not people. It’s okay — even healthy — to disagree. But don’t make it personal.

When it comes down to it, it’s not at all surprising that passions and tempers can run high on blogs. People start blogs because they are passionate about something and want to share it with others.  I’m currently writing a For Dummies book about Professional Blogging, and have interviewed a number of successful bloggers for the book. They write about different things, and have different goals for their blogs, but the one thing that they all have in common is a passion for their topic.

The trick is to not take it personally and don’t make it personal. Because once it’s out there, it’s out there. Not forever, but as close to it as matters for practical purposes.

Do people who start or fan flame wars damage their own reputations? I think so. You can’t control what others say about you, but you can own your response to it. The best response to a troll is to ignore it. Let it fester away under its bridge.

This can be hard to do, especially when your blog is part of your business. The blog or person talking trash about you is damaging your ability to make a living. The temptation is strong to respond. Most of the time, you are better off ignoring it, and focusing your attention on your goals. Play your tune, don’t dance to someone else’s.

In fact, I had to take my own advice this morning when I read a comment on the Today Show site that called me a “phony specialist” for suggesting that it is better to attack the idea, not the person. Ah, the irony.

When shouldn’t you ignore it? Threats to your safety. Maybe libel, but tread carefully. It’s hard to prove and while the case lives so too do the libelous statements.

Women are saddled with some pretty potent stereotypes. June Cleaver, the perfect stay-at-home mom. The catty gossip — think “The Women.”

And my personal favorite: the double standard. Similar behavior from men and women is often described very differently. A strong woman is aggressive, a man, assertive. A man is opinionated. A woman, shrill. A man, driven. A woman, bitchy.

This is one of the reasons I think we see so many reality-TV type stories about women and women bloggers.

Women,  and especially moms, are STILL held to a subconscious societal standard for normative behavior. Stay at home. Don’t rock the boat. Work…but only if you have to. Be nice at all costs. Nurture nurture nurture.

How else to explain the continued discrepancy between male and female wages in this country. Or that Massachusetts could elect a lightweight like Scott Brown largely because voters didn’t “like” Martha Coakley.

When women do step out of the normative behavior — however they do it — society tries to apply old stereotypes to explain it. Women criticize each other online?  Ooh, that means all women bloggers are “mean girls.” Forget about the cesspool of negativity on political blogs. Or some of the infamous tech blogger flare-ups of the past few years. As my friend Elisa Camahort Page recently commented on BlogHer, if you want to see a real (tom) cat fight, just google “Loren Shel Puppet.”

And when that fails, the mainstream media  fosters new, largely negative stereotypes. For example, the entrepreneurial success of many mom bloggers was turned into a negative by the New York Times last month in its article Honey, Don’t Bother Mommy, I’m Too Busy Building My Brand. I can’t imagine someone writing a headline chastising a father for the same thing — finding new ways to support the family while developing a professional reputation or personal brand (whichever term you prefer).

Women don’t turn in our human credentials when we become mothers, and it is well past time to say goodbye to June.

But let’s not perpetuate old myths and replace her with a new monolithic stereotype of mothers, and especially mothers engaged online, as some sort of cross between Joan Crawford, Paris Hilton and Gwyneth Paltrow.

Women are doing amazing things with their blogs. Starting new businesses that never would have existed without the long tail of the Internet. Sharing their experiences, opinions and passions with others across the globe.

And raising families at the same time.

Imagine that.

Categories // Blogging, Gender, Interviews, Parent bloggers, TV/Film

Some suggestions for getting the New York Times to listen

03.16.2010 by Susan Getgood //

Frustrated by Sunday’s mom blog article in the New York Times (notice, no link)? Want to take action but aren’t quite sure what to do?

Here’s the thing. What matters to the New York Times is its pocketbook. Boycotts and Facebook pages aren’t going to do it, because the Times knows that many, many of those signers don’t spend a dime on the paper.

If you are a subscriber, you’ve got some power. Not much, but a little. So here’s what I suggest, and will be doing myself later today. Write your post about the article. Then print it out and MAIL IT to the paper. In your cover note, make sure you identify yourself as a paying reader, and request that the paper do a better, more balanced job of covering women, mothers and gender issues.

Don’t email it. Mountains of email don’t make an impression. And the guys at the modern-day Tammany Hall don’t read emails anyway, unless an admin prints them out. So we’re just saving her the time.

If you don’t have your own blog, or don’t have time to write a post, attach your cover note to Liz’s or Joanne’s or Kelby’s.

The address is:
Letters to the Editor
The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018

Now, if you are not a subscriber, you still have some power. Because you shop, right?  Every once in a while anyway. So here’s my other idea.

Tell the New York Times advertisers that you patronize about the mom blogs you read. Tell them that those blogs would be a better way to reach your eyeballs than very expensive ads in the New York Times style section. On Sunday.

Now I realize that most of us aren’t buying Gucci or Tiffany these days, but if you are, wield the power of  your pocketbook. Because I would just love to see an ad for Saks on Attack of the Redneck Mommy. Wouldn’t you?

Here’s who advertised in SundayStyles on the 14th, in the order they appeared in the section: Gucci, David Yurman, Bottega Veneta, Neiman Marcus, Macy’s, Hastens, Tiffany, Dior, Saks Fifth Avenue, Bulgari, Berdorf Goodman (twice), Ralph Lauren, Harrys Shoes, Architectural Digest, Crewcuts (J. Crew), Eileen Fisher, Barney’s, Wempe, AKA Flexible Stay Residences, Roc and Calvin Klein.

Words motivate. Actions create change. Use whatever power you have in your pocketbook to make change.  Pun intended.

Whatever paper you read, or TV station you watch — ask it to do a better job at covering women, mothers and gender issues. And if it doesn’t, tell its advertisers where they can really find you.

Over here. Reading blogs.

Don’t count on them to figure it out. Tell them.

Categories // Gender, Journalism, Parent bloggers Tags // mom blog, mommy blog, New York Times

MommyTech, CES and the great porn debate

01.14.2010 by Susan Getgood //

Last week I was at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas to speak on a panel at Mommy Tech, a day long conference and exhibit area within CES focused on moms’ use of technology. If you are so inclined, you can read more about my trip on my travel blog.

CES is a trade show about consumer electronics, not a consumer show. The principal audience is the buyers at stores (online and off) that sell consumer electronics. Plus all the assorted hangers-on, including industry analysts and the media (mainstream and social). Exhibitors come to CES introduce their new wares to the buyers; most of the big new products announced last week won’t be available until Spring at the earliest, and some are probably vaporware. In other words, the products at last week’s show are the coming year’s Hanukkah and Christmas presents.

Mommy Tech and other sub-conferences focused on kids, seniors and higher education were created to give the buyers visibility into demographic segments within the consumer population. CES is a ginormous show, and smaller niche products with real potential are easily lost in the whiz-bang announcements. For example, last week, the big buzz on the floor was 3D TV, tablets and e-books, with a small side dish of the in-dash GPS offerings from the car companies (and that was just a preview to this week’s Auto Show anyway.) Off the floor, there were the usual “sooper sekrit” demonstrations of even newer technologies like Microsoft’s Project Natal that lets users control electronics with hand gestures.

It’s a real circus, with no ringmaster. Easy to imagine how more mundane products — the things we might actually buy this year or you know, even today — might get lost in the shuffle. The format of MommyTech conference was designed to educate the buyers about the mom consumer and showcase products and technologies that would appeal to her. Never confuse CES with an educational conference — it is ALL about selling.

In my digital parenting post on BlogHer this month, I wrote about MommyTech through the lens of how moms are perceived as technology buyers.

Here, I want to tell you about one of the last sessions of the day, a “debate” between porn star Ron Jeremy and anti-porn crusader Craig Gross about (I think) whether porn should exist.

More entertainment than substantive commentary, it ultimately felt more like an advertisement for the Internet safety company whose CEO moderated the session. Each mentioned that kids could be protected by Internet safety products like (name of product) and others once or twice in the approximately 10 minute debate. However, it was the only SRO session of the day and hopefully put the idea of Mom as a consumer electronics buyer more firmly in the minds of many who might never have given it a thought.

Now, I did not know who Ron Jeremy was before this session (I lead a sheltered life, what can I say) and for the life of me could NOT understand how anyone could find him appealing. During the “debate,” I glanced around the mostly male audience, most of whom came just for this session, and the penny dropped.

Duh. The audience of his films isn’t watching HIM. They are watching his female partners. It doesn’t matter what he looks like.

Apparently, though, his appeal is more than that. According to some of the women at the conference with whom I spoke afterwards, Mr. Jeremy is well-known to be well endowed.

I’m still a bit puzzled though. Serious question: what’s the benefit of super-size when watching?

Seems to me it’s not the size of the ship that matters. It’s the motion of the ocean.

Categories // Conferences, Gender, Travel

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Next Page »

Search

Posts

  • Paris: Panoramas, Gardens and … Catacombs?
  • Five Must See Museums in Paris
  • Paris: When to go, where to stay, what to eat
  • Reykjavik Restaurants Worth the Trip
  • Reykjavik: Favorite Museums

Archive

Copyright © 2025 · Modern Studio Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in