Hey thanks muchly Ohdeedoh!

Liz Gumbinner /Mom101

What an over-the-top response from Liz. Of COURSE the article doesn't say moms should stay home and not work. It's a trend piece. Sensitive, much?

And, um Liz, your reaction to the image that ran in support of the Times piece was a pretty amusing Rorschach test.

My current (and godwilling ONLY) experience with the "mommy blogger" has been seeing the commercials for Heather Armstrong on HGTV...

What was most revealing to me was her soundbite (and please excuse me, I'm paraphrasing): "This is an incredible next step for me." I'm sure that's true, but it seems pretty mommy-centric to me. Yuck.

I'm so sorry you had to have an experience with a mommy blogger Patrick! That must have been horribly scarring.

We'll be sure to stay away from these nursery design sites so you don't run into us again.

(Bowing low as I walk backwards humbly towards the door.)

Thanks for proving my point.

Patrick, that's some serious contempt for "the mommy blogger," especially from someone who claims not to have anything to do with that world.

A trend piece, fine, but what's the point? There might be one, but it's lost in all of the patronizing snark. Mom-101 actually gave a pretty generous assessment, you should try reading it.

I did read it. *Then* I commented.

Sorry, but her comments there (on her blog), and then here, brought me nowhere closer to seeing her side (which she had the opportunity to do).

I think she grossly overreacted (and so did yourmom, it seems.) Stand by my comments, sorry to offend.

While I'm not crazy about the title of the article, I did think the article was interesting and not at all judgemental. And since the titles are usually written by a copyeditor, I don't think the reporter intended for anything to be taken badly. It's an interesting trend piece. I love reading the Scary Mommy blog.

I'm neither a mother nor a blogger, but I read the entire NY Times article (before seeing this post) and didn't find it condescending. It didn't seem to be passing judgement on anyone's caretaking abilities.

Wow, very interesting spectrum of reaction and over-reaction as a result of the article (which I didn't find judgmental either). I think that the only thing that was negative about the article was the picture included with it actually. Well.. and the letter to the Times in response. Sometimes I think that people need to think about what the *words* say.. and separate that from what they *think* they say.

For the record, I'm a mom, I blog, and I read Heather Armstrong (not because she's a "mommy blogger" but because she's hilarious.)

wow, that article is way over the top. I don't think the article was judgmental - the title is snarky, certainly, but not worthy of "a mildly annoyed letter to the New York Times".

I thought the tone of the article was inconsistent. The middle and ending were fairly solid, as the writer talked about the fact that blogging has become, for some, a valid business proposition that dovetails with some people's (not just women's, I'd like to point out) desire to work at home so they can spend more time with their kids. But the title and opening definitely had condescending overtones. Any time I read "phrases" in "quotation marks", it screams condescension to me. Also, using the word "girly" to describe a gathering of women? Please.

Perhaps that was all the editor's hand – who can say? It would be interesting to hear what the writer has to say.

And I agree with Liz's point: why is a piece about starting/maintaining a home-based business in the "Fashion & Style" section?

Sorry, got to side with patrick here: bland, inoffensive and unmemorable article followed by some big overreactions. Guess I just don't see what the big deal is.

Ugh. I bet ya a dollar that "Dee" has cats.

A lot of 'em.

And Patrick, play nice. You're surrounded. ;)

I think there are a lot of mom's out there who probably do spend a little too much time on the computer. Blogs take a lot of work, writing and designing. And I'm sure that's not all they do. Twitter, facebook etc. I agree with the Times article somewhat because I can only imagine how much time mommybloggers are spending online while their children are being shushed and ignored. I've been a stay at home mother and I know how much time and effort is involved with caring for children and home. I only allow myself an hour or two a day to play on the computer during naps and that is definitely not enough time to do all that blogging and tweeting and whatever else they do. It's no wonder there are so many brats out there in therapy, being medicated, shooting up schools and so on. The kids need attention!