Point #1: Very well said. And I think you're right.

Point #2: You've pointed out that there are more than two possible motivations for mommy-blogging. To that I would add that I'm not sure that motivation has a lot of relevance - I think that anyone who starts a blog looking for community is going to become interested in the craft-honing aspect, and anyone who blogs primarily as a writer is going to discover the role of community in producing this particular genre.

Point #3: Like much good writing, blogging is about finding the universal in the nitty gritty of the specific. When you write about Frances and the very specific attributes of her situation, there is something recognizable and elemental about your love for her that I respond to instantly. I suppose there are ways of writing about "special needs" children that don't do this - that become merely a matter of sharing expertise in navigating the underworld of tests and experts - but blogs in general focus less on practical tip-sharing and more on reflection.

And finally - "who are the unconverted, and how do I preach to them?" LOL. That so needs to be made into a tagline.

My take is that your blog is like a way of voicing several journey's and perspectives that involve your family. There has to be at least one of those journey's that attract other bloggers and that's why they read and come back. The journey's that I can see on the surface up to know are:
your's with diabetes
your's with being a mom to a SN child with dwarfism
your's with writing
Frances's with trying to navigate the world through her eyes

I read because of all of these journey's. Each one appeals to me in the human sense. Especially mom to mom.

As for blogging cliques I'm sure they exist out there. As for the unconverted, I say to heck with them, those who matter, matter well and those who don't well you know... they don't matter.

I'm certainly not in any "blogging clique" but I do share links with other bloggers who are WAY more popular than I. That doesn't necessarily bother me, since I like everyone I link to, even if not everyone I know is reading them as well.

I agree that there are some blogs and blog circles that seem exclusionary, but I don't think a lot of that is intended. Each blog has its own target niche. People tend to gravitate toward like. not that that's a bad thing, but most people who are exclusionary in life tend to be that way on blogs as well. It's an interesting point.

I am one of those educator/writers. Well, I don't really feel that I'm a writer, per se, but since I do blog, one could call that writing. I feel, foremost, that I'm a teacher first, and a blogger second. I'm proud to wear both hats, but the education hat comes first.

I think the way to go about preaching to the unconverted is to keep doing what you're doing, and sooner or later, they'll find you. I wouldn't change anything. Beanie Baby can't be summed up in a cute little tagline, because there's so much more. Not many blogs can really be defined by a category, and yours definitely defies any one-word description.

I have met the unconverted, I think. I've thought about taking the name of my daughter's condition out of my profile, so that people wouldn't read it and be turned away, thinking that they'll end up feeling sad to read about the poor crippled kid, but I want others to find it with a search for AMC. I've already been the subject of more than one "pity post", as in "reading this blog made me realize just how blessed I am with my beautiful children", and while I can appreciate what I think they are trying to say, I can't say it doesn't sting a bit.

I can tell by my stats that there are a *lot* of people who come to the blog, click on the links to the posts where I explain what she has and what we went through, and then are done. Apparently my writing isn't scintillating enough on its own to keep them reading--they just want to find out what is wrong with her and move on.

I can deal with my blog being boring. But few people read beyond the explanatory posts to find out. I don't know how to get people to look beyond to see that while my mothering experience is different in some ways from theirs, most of it is more alike than not alike. My blog shows up on the third page of a Google search when you search for "arthrogryposis blog", but if you search for "Bad Mama", it's number one. Really, I am more of a bad mother than a mother-of-disabled-kid. There have to be a few people who can relate to that.

I suppose it might help if I saved my screeds for my own blog instead of going on and on in blog comments.

Can I just start this by saying how appalled I am by the idea that people write to Carrie about how lucky they feel about having children who aren't like hers for whatever reason. That is absolutely beyond my comprehension.

Okay, now back to the original post. I got here via Dani's blog. I "know" her from when she used to post on IVFConnections. Anyway, I started reading your blog after I read an excellent post of yours about the new Canadian child rebates--it was so well argued that I *had* to see what else you wrote about. And now I have to check back religiously because I really like your writing and reading about your your daughter and anything else you choose to share. I've also started reading some of the other blogs you link to-- I esp. like Emma Sage's mom's blog--what an amazing photographer--and she's a great advocate for her daughter. I don't think I would have ever stumbled on a "SN" related blog like that if it wasn't for you--and I must admit that some of the things I've read here and on the other blogs you link to have made me more aware of how ignorant I am about different issues (eg, what *not* to say to/about a small child--I am an idiot who would have said something like "she's so tiny! How cute!"--ugh! I disgust myself!). Unlike he other poster youy cited above, I've not once felt guilty or out of place here.

This is really rambling, but as to the bloggy clique issues--frankly, it's getting to the point where I can't stand reading some of the more popular infertile mommy blogs anymore. Even when they're well-written, I just find myself scrolling through the 199 sycophantish, ass-kissing responses to each post and wondering why I bothered to look yet again when I knew what awaited me. Worse, there is a tendency for some of the faithful to absolutely eviscerate anyone who has the temerity to disagree with the blogger about something--even when it's done respectfully and politely-you'd be amazed at how ugly and personal it can get. It's not the bloggers' fault, but it does get tiresome (I know, I know, it's my fault for looking!).

I hope this makes sense :)

Have to comment again. I want to add that I don't think blogging is cliquey but I do think it's competitive. Intensely competitive, even. A reader's time is a limited resource, and there's an ever-expanding number of blogs competing for that resource. And it's not fun for anyone to realize that their readership has flatlined and that they'll never be as popular as (fill in the blank). I don't suppose it matters who you are - there's always somebody whose massive readership you can still envy.

That said, it sounds like some of the networking dynamics of BlogHer partook of the high-school clique paradigm. It's not exactly a level playing field for making friends and getting to know people if there is an underlying motivation to get links from popular bloggers who have the power to direct traffic. I don't get the sense that many attenders felt that way about the conference, but I suspect it was still going on. And I've been fighting off this whiny impulse to say "It's not fair!" Because there is a sense that the blogosphere is a meritocracy where good writing floats to the top, and BlogHer exposes some of the limitations of that model.

I think you hit the nail on the head as far as the reason why parents blogging about their 'special needs' kids are separate from parents of typically developing kids. The idea is definitely that normal moms of normal kids represent the universal parenting experience. To read about someone who does not fit this universal description, I think the reader has to either have some curiosity about the aspect which makes the parent or kid 'not normal' OR to be hooked by other topics the author writes about/their way of writing.

For me, I feel like an oustsider with all Mommy Blogs, because I'm not a mommy. So, the only ones that I read are ones in which the Mommy talks about other issues that are of interest to me, or where I really enjoy her writing style, and in particular, humor.

So while I think that sure, probably a lot of people, if they *just* read your entries about Frances' genetics and growth, would assume that you were addressing other people who had similar situations in their own lives. However, I think the reason your readership isn't just people with curiosity about dwarfism is that you tackle a wide variety of topics, and do it well. At the same time, though, the fact that you do write about all sorts of things might make people wonder whether this is something you're doing to educate the public (so to speak) or whether it's more of a mother/writer thing, documenting your life for memories and cameraderie.

The 'is it okay that I'm reading this' questions are probably because people feel like they've stumbled onto this great club and they don't want to leave, but they also know that it's not The Univeral Mommy Blog (normal mom, normal kids) and therefore aren't sure that it's open to everyone.

Anyway, that was really long, and I hope it made sense - my brain is fried after a crazy long commute today!

Hi Andrea! I don't remember now where I first found you-- I think it was through a link on another blog, or from a comment you made-- maybe at jo(e)'s page? Ages ago. But I keep coming back because of your engaging style and variety of topics you tackle.

I have to say that I am a bit oblivious to the whole clique thing. I started my blog as a place to both hone craft and also connect with other moms and keep my family up to date on the boys, but these days I don't spend enough time or effort on it to make it interesting enough to bother to worry about traffic or attracting more readers. I'm happy with what I have, and I think that when I get my writing brain back again, I will look for venues other than blogging to get my "writing for an audience" fix. Which is not to say that I don't enjoy having people read my blog-- of course I do. I guess I just link to the blogs I want to read, and I don't worry about who is or isn't linking to me. (But of course I'd be lying if I said I'm not flattered to be linked to, so there you go.)

Hmm, apparently I have just hijacked your comment box to blather on about myself-- sorry!
Let me just add that I think you are right on with your points about certain groups determining what is "human experience" and marginalizing the rest. And I tend to spend my treasured blog-reading time to read blogs that engage me and that I find something to identify with in, and I do find that in your blog, even in your posts about Frances, despite the fact that her particular health issues are not ones our family shares.

You are all far too nice.

Carrie, that's ... that's ... shocking. How could people be so oblivious? And see, that's exactly what I'm talking about when I wonder if SNM blogs end up as Oprah or Movie of the Week fodder--cathartic for people who end up feeling grateful they don't have our lives. But how ... I can't believe people came right out and said that!

And those are interesting questions, too. I'm going to have to add them to the stew for that talk.

bubandpie: "Because there is a sense that the blogosphere is a meritocracy where good writing floats to the top, and BlogHer exposes some of the limitations of that model." Yes. The more I flot around the internet, the more I realize that the same dynamics that create hierarchies in 'real life' are in full swing on the internet, recreating the same patterns of racism, sexism, ableism, etc. It's depressing. It should be more democratic in theory, but in reality, I guess it's still run by people, warts and all.

I'm not really disagreeing with you about blog cliques. I'm sure they exist. However, there are some blogs that exist for the purpose of building community among marginalized people. I don't comment at those blogs because I respect the space the author is trying to create. I don't think that's cliquish of them or assholish of me. I'm sure we have common ground, but their blogs aren't the place to sort it out.

Absolutely. But I'm not really talking about that--and not having come across any blogs of that nature myself, I can't comment specifically, but I'll go out on a limb and suppose that it's probably fairly easy to tell when someone is using a blog or web space to build community among a certain group; and yes, the right thing to do would be to leave them alone.

But I think we can probably agree that blog popularity is complicated and it doesn't always reflect writing quality or the importance of the subject matter. (And again, I'm not talking about me--I'm very happy with how well Beanie Baby has done, and while it's upsetting to me to think it might have been more widely read if Frances were six inches taller, I'm not about to propose that I know for a fact it would be, nor is this a plea for links or readers or comments.) I think it's a legitimate question to ask how it is that people decide what to read, and what to link to, and what to comment on, especially when at first glance those decisions seem to reflect traditional societal power structures.

In part (and I've thought this about the internet in general for a while) I think it's probably that folks in marginalized communities get so used to hearing, and perhaps internalizing, that they have nothing interesting to say and no one cares what they think that it might not occur to them to start a blog, or not to the same degree. But I think it's also a fair question to wonder how much prejudice affects a person's decision of what to read, what to link to, what to comment on. Just like it's fair to note that the majority of Pulitzer Prizes are won by white guys, and this probably reflects prejudice on the part of the judges.

I'm probably going on too much, but I want to make it clear that this is NOT about my readers, in either a general or particular sense (I do NOT think you're an asshole, Casey); and it's NOT about Beanie Baby, or about me. It's not about people who are trying to build a community of a specific type. It's about why on earth the internet, which was promoted as this wonderfully democratic medium that would break down walls etc. etc., so closely reflects the power structures of the real world. And specifically, for the talk I'm giving, why in this particular corner of the momosphere it seems that popularity is correlated to conformity with all the usual markers of social status and power--if we are to be completely honest: race, class, sex, orientation, health and ability.

Oh, but I am an asshole.

Really, I get what you're saying. I just wanted to express my discomfort with trying to balance inclusivness with not appropriating the struggles of others. And you're right; it's easy to tell which bloggers are are trying to set up safe places and which are just writing a blog.

But back to the larger issue. I think you're absolutely right that the blogs of moms of special needs kids are read as peculiar. At worst they're completely invisible. There was that big uproar about the BlogHer anti-mommyblogger post. Interestingly enough, although many people slammed the author for being misogynist, I didn't see one person call her out for disparaging women who write about their "retarded kids."

Have I mentioned how glad I am that I never saw that post? Very glad.

Yes, that makes sense--the inclusiveness vs. appropriate debate is a good point.

I just read a post over on Blogging Baby that really epitomizes the whole fetishization thing, but I'm not sure if I want to invite the kind of traffic that would result if I linked to it.

No insult whatsoever - I'm DELIGHTED to find another perspective that helps me shape my thoughts on this. I think you make excellent points here (as have others) on there being more than two groups. I suppose my intent was to look at two groups, those being those who liked the title mommyblogger, and those who felt limited by it, and to try and explain why. I was not implying (my fault--imprecise writing is a pitfall of publishing daily and without editors) that there are only two reasons that mothers write or worse, only one kind of mother.

I suppose then my question to you is what category do you see yourself in? Is there a separate category, so to speak, for special needs parenting bloggers? In other words, would one go to technorati and search "special needs" instead of "parents" since the information is so specific to a particular subset of parenting?

If so--and perhaps I'm wrong--I think that title already implies really positive things about your intent and content. I doubt the special needs parent bloggers would be attacked the way general "mommybloggers" are, who are perceived as having not a care in the world, not a functioning brain cell in their heads, and way too much time on their hands.

And Casey, FYI, the first thing I said when I saw that evil post was that to call a child retarded as a general insult just proved that she was not a woman worth responding to. I heard that from others too. I love discussions and debates but I won't fight with morons and she proved herself one in spades.

PS I'm sorry for using "special needs" as a phrase. I couldn't come up with a more suitable one but am open to suggestions!

Mom101, trust me, if I knew a better phrase, I wouldn't use special needs either.

No, I think your post did a great job of explaining why some moms might feel limited by the term mommyblogger, and others might embrace it. But I think maybe for the educator/moms, it might also be the case that they really want to take on the label of mommyblogger, and have a hard time doing so b/c others automatically slot them into a category based on their difference. It takes the whole labelling headache one step further; for some bloggers, instead of being limited by the term mommyblogger, they're limited by "special needs mommyblogger," which ultimately I think is limiting of their/our full humanity, as if the difference is the most important characteristic. I'm not sure if that makes sense. I'm getting a headache. Maybe there is a third group of people who aspire to the term mommyblogger and find it a locked door they don't have the key to because they or their child has a particular difference. Is that any clearer? And, because they want to take on the role of educator, that locked door is keeping them from the audience they most want to reach.

There is a special category. I'm really not sure how I feel about it, either; I think if it were possible to belong to more than one category, for instance, on the blog search engines or directories, it would be fine. It would be just another identifying characteeristic, whereas instead, you're asked to decide if you think it is the most important thing about you or your writing or your family, or not. And it's not the most important thing, but it's a thing, and sometimes it's important, and you might want people to be able to find you on that basis, so you don't want to leave it out, but at the same time, you don't necessarily want to be pigeon-holed in the minds of other people as a "mom to a child who has x." If you think of the women who find "mommyblogger" limiting because a potential audience will assume that all you write about are kids and snot and diapers and fisher price, imagine how much more frustrated they would be if they couldn't even be acknowledged as a mommyblogger, if instead the world thought of them as a "mom who has a child with DS/dwarfism/skeletal dysplasia/whatever," and ignored them.

Also, I'm not so sure it's great to get a free pass on criticism. I don't want a free pass. I don't want people to handle me with kid gloves because I have diabetes or because my daughter has a form of dwarfism. That, too, can be a form of isolation and invisibility. It can also feel like pity, which no one wants.

And this probably does sound like critcism, which again, it's not meant to be.

Awesome response Andrea and I'm happy for the dialogue. This is a really interesting perspective and one I admittedly hadn't considered. I tip my hat to you for the enlightenment.

Glad you have found you. You're one smart lady!

Now if you want to have another discussion about the clique thing sometime...say the word. ;)

And thank you. I've enjoyed this.

And I'm always up for a discussion about cliques. ;)