Hmmm. I think I disagree with the gist of this post. I post pix of my boys on a fairly regular basis, maybe a couple of times a month, depending on how adorable they happen to be or whether I remembered to bring the camera along.
The idea of posting pictures in itself isn't bad, and if someone posts in lieu of having anything better to day and people still visit, I can't really see how that's a problem either.
I do admit that bathtub pix of little girls make me cringe. It's a double standard, I guess, cuz I don't feel so worried about my boys. But, I wouldn't expose their bits, either.
I think text can be even more revealing than pix. That's the part that worries me. When do I stop owning the right to tell their stories?
Well, I would start by asking "when did you ever acquire the right to tell their stories?" I find this idea that they're young so it's all okay, which I've seen put forth by many Mummy bloggers including Dooce, rather wrong headed to say the least.
I think the question you need to ask is: who am I doing this for? If you're doing it for you or even partly for you, fine, but BE HONEST about it and be prepared that your children might not appreciate it.
After all, how would you feel if someone posted several pictures of you a month without your permission? If it was great art, I might be okay with it, but if it was someone trying to get a book deal on the back of my pics, I would, at the very least, want a cut of the proceeds.
I agree with you that text can be just as invasive as photos, which is why there are a lot of things and people I don't write about. Of course none of this is to say that family members or others should have the right to veto everything displeasing that is written about them. In may cases, there is indeed a public "right to know" and, of course, a lot of the great characters in literature are based on real people who were, no doubt, very unhappy with their fictional representations. If the writers can live with that and deal with the consequences then I'm certainly okay with it too.
In the case of many Mummy blogs though I'm not sure the product created is worth the violation of privacy although for all I know, the kids may grow up not to care in the slightest. That's the part that remains to be seen.
And just one more point for the week when Britney shaved her head in her latest episode of self destruction, perhaps it's not a bad idea to reflect on what the glare of publicity can do to young children.
6 comments:
Does this mean I can no longer post about my marital breakup for fear of violating his privacy? Because I realllllyyy have some venting to do. And he's no innocent baby. A baby, yes, but not innocent.
Jacy,
There's supposedly some Spanish writer who when asked why he wrote, replied, "Revenge."
Well, I'm cool with that.
In the case of your revenge blogging/venting about your husband, I assume that you know what you're doing and have weighed the possible consequences.
Should you be unmasked, some will no doubt sympathize with you and others with your husband for having his dirty laundry aired in public.
I think when Nora Ephrom wrote Heatburn, the general feeling was "you go girl." However, I do seem to remember that Bernstein threatened a lawsuit having to do with the book's impact on their kids.
Of course had I been in Ephron's shoes, I would have just said, " Hey kids, the earnings from that book paid for your university education and le tout Washington already knew about your dad's affair so I wasn't telling anyone anything new."
Like, I said, there are many good reasons to dish dirt and they often override privacy.
I just don't see the good reasons to post a million photos of your kiddies on the net, but maybe that's just me.
I'm open to valid arguments. Bring 'em on.
Oh hey, lookit that, a reply and a link and everything!
I have to admit, I laughed a little bit at the question of when I acquired the right to tell the boys' stories. Call me old skool, but IMHO I own those boys, and those stories. I think I bought the rights with the $7K it cost for the IVF to conceive Tristan.
Seriously, they're three and five, and not old enough to recognize or keep or tell their own stories, which is exactly why I do it. I've always said that when I started the blog it's because I suck at scrapbooking and I saw myself as the family historian. And then it became a habit and I started looking to the rest of the world for content and inspiration.
So, to address your next point, it is *so* all about me. (I'm a Leo, after all.) And so far, they're good with it. I show them their photostream on Flickr and their videos on YouTube and they love it. Some day I hope they feel the same way about their stories. But as they get older, sure, there are boundaries I'll need to put in place. If my husband, who is a grownup, and our friends, who are marginally grownups on a good day, and my adult sibling and my own parents all don't mind me telling our stories, I imagine the boys will be okay with it, too.
And if I get a book deal out of it in the end, something I've occasionally joked that I'm aspiring to (really, a cheque for a 300 word article in the local paper would be more than enough), then the first thing I'd do is cut the boys in on the profits. Maybe new Lightning McQueen t-shirts all around.
Quite honestly, without having read any of the posts, I'd see Jacy's revenge blogging as a lot more dangerous. At least the boys and I are biased toward each other in a positive light. I'm pretty careful about what I say about my ex, even though he was a first class dink, just because he's the kind of dink who would love to sue me.
Having said all that, someone who really wanted to make me happy could do worse than getting me a Fussy t-shirt that says 'Blogging well is the best revenge.'
I dunno. I find it's pretty lame to argue that your three and five year-old-kids like it when you show them the flickr and youtube accounts.
That's not really the question. It's what they'll think when they're old enough to really understand and consider the situation.
Of course, WHEN THEY GROW UP, they may find all the photos and blogging perfectly okay and may even be happy Mummy did it.
There's just something about the whole post-a-gazillion-pictures-of -your-kid enterprise that really rubs me the wrong way and strikes me as a little creepy -- and not because of any threat from on-line kiddie porn-lovers either. It's more the whole TMI factor but, like I said, maybe its just me and I'm too totally uptight for the Facebook era.
But then again, I'm not wild about parents who post "Support Kyoto" or "Vote Harper" buttons on their kids either.
Or who push their kids to become doctors and mousketeers and pop singers synchro swim champions.
I think we should let our kids decide and not make them supporting actors in our lives -- on-line or otherwise.
This has been an interesting conversation. I responded very much about me and my blog, but I have to admit that there are a few blogs I've seen that rely a little too heavily on the kid anecdotes and photos, most of which (to be brutally honest) are not that interesting in the first place. Maybe that's what you mean? I find them less troubling and more boring, I guess.
Your last line, about kids being supporting actors, I think has everything to do with the nature of blogs and how we tell our stories. On the blog, the kids are very much in that role, perhaps even the stars of the show with me and their father as the supporting actors. But that's a function of the lens that is the blog, and not representative of real life.
Like I said, interesting discussion. THanks for opening it up!
Jacy hasn't revealed the identity of her Ex so she's not violating his privacy.
And as for posting photos, I'm with TearFree. Besides, why do these kid-picture-posting bloggers think people care? Sorry, but the only kid pix I want ot see are those of my own.
Post a Comment