Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

No, I fine. I put pee-pee in toilet

TRALEE PEARCE

Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 1:17 PM EDT 01/05/08

Writing about your daughter's toilet training could net you $40,000 a month. But some mommy and daddy bloggers fear their digital confessions have become exploitation ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Homer - from Canada writes: these bloggers are nut cases.. why would u want to put your personal stuff for millions to read and watch.. and then you worry about all those sicos out there... how crazy can you be..
  2. Eric the Red from Uzbekistan writes: "Writing about your daughter's toilet-training misadventures could net you $40,000 a month and a legion of fans."

    If you're a parent and have enough time blogging and wanting to capture and chronicle every stage of your child's development for the world to see, your priorities as a caregiver and parent are entirely skewed. Get a life.

    And if you do blog about your kid's life for monetary gain, you are truly a cretin.
  3. Farenheit 451 from Vancouver, Canada writes: She thinks of her daughter as 'her property, her work of art', she sees the child and the blog as being intertwined. Is it just me or is this poor little kid doomed from the get go?

    The surprise is not that these narcissists spend their time entering info into a computer instead of actually getting a life, but that other people want to read it!
  4. Gogh Forit from Canada writes: Isn't this just another form of pimping?
  5. B D from Canada writes: Enough already - children, child-rearing and child birth - are "miracles" that have been happening sans drama for thousands and thousands of years.
  6. Gagandeep Singh Tathgar from TO, Canada writes: Look at these people being jealous that this person generates $40,000/mo from her blog ad revenue. Wake up, she is not the only one. There are millions of people earning good living from blogging just about anything.

    There are many ways you can start a business online. Blogs, websites, paid advertising, etc, etc. You don't have to have a product to sell. Sell other peoples products and earn commission.
  7. Antonio San from Canada writes: At 6 her daughter will likely hire a lawyer and sue her for half.
  8. Ziad Fazel from Calgary, Canada writes: Even the celebrity families that allow "reality" cameras into their homes get to negotiate in advance what is filmed and what is not. And they still end up bitter and divided from the experience. The child has no choice at all.
  9. My eyes are open, Are yours? from Canada writes: It was bad enough that my dad carried a picture of 3-year-old me in the bath in his wallet until I was 25.

    Whatever money these people make from their kids, they should expect to spend it all on lawyers and psychotherapy for their kids later on. What kind of person tells others about this stuff? What kind of person reads it?
  10. No Name Necessary from Canada writes: I don't understand the attraction of blogs. Don't understand the attraction of constantly being on a computer or cell phone or watching a stupid reality show on tv. I just don't get it...
  11. J Hare from Saskatoon, Canada writes: Interesting article. I question somewhat the professionalism of the therapist interviewed in the peice. She seems to be saying that while there may be (ie doesen't know) the long term harm that might occure to children discovering prematurly their primary caregivers feelings vis-a-vie them and the shareing of incredibly personal life details with anyone with a dial up conection, she would love to see this experiment in parenting continue because it is "beyond facinating". I thought if you were a medical professional and you were a party to possible ongoing harm to another individual then you had a lot of tough questions to answer. As for the parents, getting this infomation about your children back off the internet will be expensive, time consuming and difficult. Privacy is something that once given up, is very difficult to retake these days and it may, though there is some question of this, last forever beyond your or your childrens reach to recapture. This is something to consider as states and companies begin to data mine and file build profiles of people based on online activity. Please do not read this a parinoid rantings of online poster. There are enough articles discussing the use of infomation for advertising to begin to ask questions about what all the generated and collected data is doing out there. Could be benign attempts to sell you more jeans or soda, could be something worse. James Hare
  12. Dennis sinneD from Calgary, Canada writes:

    "No, I fine. I put pee-pee in toilet"

    Who would teach their child to speak like this?
  13. Sue W from Canada writes: And I thought being a TTC ticket collector was a lucrative job.
  14. Spencer C from Canada writes: How hard is it to simply not use real names?
    Honestly, am I missing something here because that seems like a simple enough solution.
  15. Nature Lover from Canada writes: There is only one thing more engaging to the "me" generation than themselves--it is the "mini-me's". Problem is parents that sit and blog are actually NOT paying attention to their children. You know the old saying "where are the parents." Well their right here in front of you honey, but they are zombified in front of a screen.
  16. Meng W. from Toronto, Canada writes: The problem is not with having other people know your parenting details, in those days without Internet people share these stories among their neighbors and friends, it was never a big deal.

    The Internet however makes it problematic because, unfortunately on the Internet, everyone are seen as equals more or less, that guy you would never consider ever approaching in real life, or would never have any respect for, becomes just another name on the bulletin board. The Internet's availability removed that social filter and its that filter that make Internet problematic

    I don't see any problem with these blogs so long as they are made availiable only to family and friends.
  17. Kay Ay from Canada writes: All children deserve privacy.
    Exploiting them for money can't possibly end well.
    It's true: someone will find the posts and torment them with it later in life and they will lose all trust in their parents.

    My children are endlessly entertaining and enlightening and frustrating and hopefully I won't forget all the fabulous little things that happen day to day but I perfer to share them only with family and friends.

    And Dennis sinneD,
    "No, I fine. I put pee-pee in toilet"

    This is a pretty darn good two-part sentence for a two year old.
  18. Down Town from Canada writes: Catherine Connors sees her daughter and her blog Her Bad Mother as intimately intertwined. "In a way I think of her as my property, my work of art," she says from her home in Bowmanville, Ont. "She's a work in progress that I'm involved in. To that extent, I have some licence to be public about having her as my muse."

    What a disgusting statement. Children are no more so property than women are the property of men. If this is the way this woman views her child, I hope she saves up whatever money she's earning from her pathetic blog to pay for her kid's therapy later in life.
  19. Dan Shortt from Toronto, Canada writes: Would the G & M please drop their new-found fondness for scatalogical headlines?

    They've got a headline in the Life sections about 'the problem with poo,' and now this article with a headline about 'pee-pee.'

    I sincerely hope this is not a trend, but if so, what comes next?
  20. The City Gal from Canada writes: I read Ms. Connors blog every day. Her articles are very well written, witty and engaging. She writes about what all of us have to deal with on a daily basis. The difference between us is that she thinks more and she writes more.

    She is an artist and her art has helped her and many others deal with the challenges of new parenthood. In no way, shape or form, she is exploiting her child.

    Blogging is a new form of art, documentaries. Please open your eyes, ears and your minds.
  21. Placido Durango from Here to Eternity, Canada writes: How does worthless pap like this article find its way onto the Globe website?
  22. Placido Durango from Here to Eternity, Canada writes: Dan Shortt from Toronto, Canada writes: Would the G & M please drop their new-found fondness for scatalogical headlines?

    They've got a headline in the Life sections about 'the problem with poo,' and now this article with a headline about 'pee-pee.'

    I sincerely hope this is not a trend, but if so, what comes next?

    ====================

    My prediction: menstrual topics.
  23. smartygirl _ from toronto, Canada writes: to call another person "property" is just vile. when i first got pregnant, i looked into the baby blogs while looking for info on this and that. and then i ran away from "soulful descriptions of the pain of colic" and nasty comments about spouses and whatnot. talk about boring narcissists! feh.

    the problem with blogging is that now everybody on the planet thinks that his or her boring life is full of universal insights that must be shared with the world, spelling and grammar be damned.

    i have a baby blog. it is as "private" as it can be on the internet, basically for grandma's eyes only, since she lives at the other end of the province. there are meta-tags to try to hold the googlers at bay. but still, i make sure there is nothing personal or embarrassing on it - no naked photos, no tantrum videos.

    years ago i remember reading a regular column in the toronto star that featured the daily doings of one man's family. he talked about how his son couldn't go to sleepovers because he still wet the bed at 8. horrifying! it is so wrong to expose your children like that.

    in the past, we just had to live with our parents dragging out the embarassing photos when visitors came. now they will be online forever. ugh.
  24. David Guy from Canada writes: How much do you want to bet The City Gal from Canada is actually Catherine Connors, the only poster defending this exploitation?
  25. The City Gal from Canada writes: The City Gal is not Catherine Connors! I have my own blog and am not the only reader of hers. She has thousands of readers on a daily basis, if you take the time to check the blog. Ms. Connors is a well-respected published author.
  26. blogger's husband from bowmanville, Canada writes: As Catherine's husband I find many of the comments above to be somewhat like Ms. Pearce's article; biased, sensational and slightly misinformed.
    I will presume that very few of the commenters have read my wife's blog. In fact, she is really a terrific writer.
    I'm also confident that we provide a healthy, loving, safe home and life for our daughter. There is always lots of laughter and fun in this house.
    I knew there would be plenty of flack relating to the "muse" quote. But I know, too, that everyone is always looking for apparent injustice in the world. Sorry, I just don't think you are going to find it here.
    By the way, Catherine doesn't earn $40k a month. I can only hope
  27. wisconsin mama from United States writes: Wow.

    Hey, Smartygirl? "spelling and grammar be damned" indeed. The blogging world must really offend your superior English sensibilities, what with your propensity toward non-capitalization and all. Your comment made my eyes bleed.

    You people, and this incredibly predictable article, are the reason so many thinking people are fleeing print journalism for the higher plane of the Internet. If you doubt, for a second, that I speak the truth, consider that this article wouldn't have seen the light of day without its online version, and that Catherine's blog has multitudes more (insightful) comments than this piece could ever hope to garner.

    Thanks for solidifying everything I already suspected about the non-connected world.
  28. s m from Ottawa, Canada writes: I am endlessly amused by the huffing and puffing of people whose favourite pastime is to judge other people.

    Catherine Connors not only is a talented writer, she is a real individual, a human being who does far more good in this world than any of you who choose to try to tear her down are even aware of.

    Since when is writing about life experience "narcissistic"?

    Baffling. If you don't like it, why do you bother reading it, first of all, and then spending your own valuable time (that could be better spent raising your own children as you see fit) bashing her for it?
  29. Belinda Miller from Central Arkansas, United States writes: Having met Catherine in person on more than one occasion, in addition to having followed her writing on her personal blog and other places for quite some time, I can attest that the very reason she commands such a large and loyal following is that she is a thoughtful, caring person and parent. She is a THINKING mother, and for some reason those two traits combined seem to threaten or frighten certain people.

    I also do not understand the idea, that so many people seem to have, that the typical blogger spends "hours staring at the computer screen," to the neglect and detriment of their family! Those of you who are throwing that accusation around--do you really never have so much as an hour to yourself a few times a week, in which you can read a book, weed a garden, knit a sweater, watch a movie, or, (gasp) write in a journal? Give me a break. At the very least, do your kids not go to bed at least an hour or two before you do? I know that's when I do the bulk of my writing.

    If you're going to get all puffed up and incensed about something, make it a more worthwhile target than Catherine and her blogging, like, say, the dustbunnies underneath your sofa. I guarantee you that's a more worrisome topic than the welfare of Catherine's children (who are fortunate to have such a "bad" mother).
  30. Izzy Dean from United States writes: I don't understand all the vitriol towards Ms. Connors. People have been writing about their children in print forever. Ever heard of Erma Bombeck?

    How is writing in an electronic medium any different? It is because no publisher is there to deem one's writing worthy for public viewing?

    Jumping all over this woman for documenting her child's early years is absurd when you stop to consider that there is REAL abuse happening to children every day, all over the world.

    And if you think she's making $40,000 a year off her personal blog and thusly, off her child, you need a reality check. That kind of money is made by a very select few in the blogging world. But even if Ms. Connors DID make that kind of money, does it suddenly constitute pimping out her kid, whereas if she made not a dime, it would be all fine and well and virtuous and honorable? That's completely illogical.

    Think a little before you post such nonsensical comments and realize there is a real person behind that photo and I seriously doubt she's the horrible mother you make her out to be.
  31. Down Town from Canada writes: I've read the blog, and it is nothing but narcissistic drivel. So the blogger can spell and use grammar properly - big deal. It's amazing what some people mistake for good writing these days.

    Believe me, I have no problem with parents being proud of their children, encouraging and supporting them as parents should. What I do have a problem with is when parents use (not to mention embarrass) their children in order to make themselves feel better. Some women really seem to lose all sense of perspective and decency after they have a child.
  32. smartygirl _ from Canada writes: >consider that this article wouldn't have seen the light of day without its online version

    not true at all - those of us who weren't sent here to defend the subjects of the article read it in an actual newspaper.
  33. blogger's husband from bowmanville, Canada writes: I find it quite interesting watching the "conversation" develop in this comments section. People are actually reading each other's comments and responding to them.
    Anyway, Downtown, I would certainly admit that my wife's blog does not hold universal appeal; no writing does. Clearly, you are not her intended audience. However, I also think the suggestion her blog is "narcissistic drivel" to be a bit over the top.
    My honest question to you; what is "good writing" these days.
  34. canuckedup mama from Calgary, Canada writes: My eyes are open, Are yours? writes: "What kind of person reads it?"

    I do. I regularly read Ms. Connors' blog and a number of other mommy bloggers. And I read them for the sense of community and a feeling of connection. But mostly, I read them to know that I'm not alone in this wonderful, frustrating, terrifying and incredible journey of motherhood.

    Perhaps I'm one of those women that Down Town feels has lost "...all sense of perspective and decency after they have a child." In my view, I just need some support for the difficult days.

    Ms. Connors is eloquent and thought-provoking, and I'd suggest to those who have made snap judgment based on a two-line quote read her blog before making a final decision. Unless you feel comfortable that your parenting skills and/or lives should be judged based solely on the comments made in response to this article.

    (And smartygirl - I read the G&M daily, though online rather than an "actual newspaper".)
  35. Stooge Pie from New York, United States writes: I am surprised at how judgmental these responses to the article are. I don't read mommy (or daddy) blogs because I am frankly not interested. My response is not to visit those blogs. You sling accusations at these authors. They are narcissistic and are exploiting their children for profit. They neglect the children, as evidenced only by the fact that they write about them. These children will be emotionally scarred. You base these accusations on nothing but your own biased conjecture. Yes, some part of blogging is attention-seeking. Just like any performance art and any writing — and any extroversion at all — a hunger for attention and a belief that you have something important to contribute fuels blogging. Do you believe that all actors, all talk-show hosts, all journalists, all authors, who use their art to explore their home lives are bad parents? I am right now in the middle of Kurt Vonnegut’s “Armageddon in Retrospect” (a wonderful book, by the way). The introduction was written by his son, Mark. Mark writes of his father, “It was routine for him to write and say provocative, not always kind things about people in the family. We learned to get over it. It was Kurt.” Mark grew up to be a well-adjusted pediatrician (and a writer and painter as well). Was Kurt Vonnegut a poor parent? I don’t know, but his writings drawn from his life had little if anything to do with his love for his children. Why haven’t you all been ranting about Kurt Vonnegut for fifty years? Why don’t you scream at David Sheff for writing “Beautiful Boy?” Hey, why don’t we start a petition to have the “Winnie-the-Pooh” books, written by A. A. Milne about his son, Christopher Robin Milne (and using his son’s real name!), banned? Yes, authors write because they want people to read it. Yes, that is extroverted behavior. That has nothing whatsoever to do with parenting skills.
  36. Stooge Pie from New York, United States writes: (continued) You comment that bloggers can’t pay attention to their children, so engaged are they in writing about their children. I haven’t heard anything so laughably subversive of logic in a long time (US political speech excluded). Would you prefer that mommy bloggers took conventional jobs that took them away from the home for ten hours at a stretch? Would that make you feel that the children were somehow getting more attention? How about a quick thought experiment? Let’s say you took two children and treated them identically, but one of those children you wrote about and shared your writings with the world at large. Do you have any rational reason to believe that the latter child will be anything other than as well-adjusted as the first? If so, please express the basis for those fears. Plenty of writers’ children have grown up well-adjusted and well-loved. I’ve named a few. Someone earlier mentioned Erma Bombeck. Her children are doing fine as well. Now you name a few authors’ children who, thanks to their exposure, are terribly maladjusted. Before you answer, consider for a moment the children of presidents whose lives are tirelessly watched and audited and biographed. Consider the children of English and other royalty, who receive similar treatment. Are they all terribly maladjusted? I think not. I popped over to the websites mentioned in the article. Not my cup of tea, but I see their skill. Ms. Graham-Scherer's and Ms. Connors's are particularly well crafted. I’m no expert, but I see no signs of abuse of their children. But at least I’m not pretending to be an expert. These blogs appear to me to be celebrations of their families and children. I think that, having been the recipient of such adoration and having those writings to look back upon as an adult, I would be grateful to my parents. I also think I might also better understand the trials and sacrifices they made on my behalf. Maybe I’m dead wrong, but that doesn’t feel like neglect to me.
  37. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: For $40,000 a month, I say go to 'er. Exploitation my a$$. The kid isn't being asked to do anything he wouldn't do anyway.
  38. S Cvach from United States writes: Please consider the implications of talking about your child(ren) as if they are objects to own and manipulate for your own ends. Children are humans in their own right and are deserving of privacy in support of their growth and learning. Privacy is necessary for the growth of knowledge. Parents revealing personal details in a public setting are betraying their children's trust and the parental obligation to protect and support their children. Parents wanting to connect with each other and learn about common parenting problems and situations can do so without revealing personal details. Sure, changing names can help to protect the innocent (though tell-tale trails are apparent to those who know where to look) but that won't prevent the problems in the parent-child relationship that are a likely outgrowth of parents treating their children like property - something to live up to parental expecations and assumptions, or else it needs manipulating/teaching/punishing until it lines up with parental agenda. Parents gotta learn. They are not necessarily right, nor do they necessarily know best. They gotta learn to see children as real people from day one, and to listen to them, and to recognize their own fallibility, and tapping into the joy of connecting with their child in honest relationship. Learning all that can take some time and effort and probably internet time, cuz not many of us have people in physical proximity who have created such knowledge about the importance of privacy and respecting each others' autonomy including children's rights to same. Blog away! share and criticize ideas! that's how people learn! Just don't do it at your children's expense, which is ultimately at your own expense as well in our parent-child relationship (the most important relationship of life, and so worth time and effort invested in knowledge growth there).

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top