Strollerderby : James Poniewozik

Slate Slashes "Notes from the Underbelly" and the Hipster Babblers It Represents

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:23:00 GMT

Slate is joining the Notes from the Underbelly pile-on that began a few days ago here at Babble. As predicted by Babble's Lynn Harris, reviewers of the new married! with! children! television show won't be able to pass up yet another hipster parenting bashing opportunity, particularly not those "curmudgeonly newspaper columnists looking for yet another reason to complain about affluent, angsty, thirty-something parents." Slate curmudgeonly? Oh yes. Younger and prettier than David Brooks, but stodgy nonetheless. Watch out, folks, there's a brand-new alphabet in town Did you hear?

"A is for Alterndad. B is for Babble."

Yup that's right. Babble is part of the world represented by "Notes." Nevermind that we skewered the show several days ago.

Apparently, Slate concurs with James Poniewozik's analysis that most Gen X parents (especially those who write about their experiences) are narcissists.

Snark aside, Babble and Slate both find the show ultimately unable to deliver anything but trite, superficial commentaries on the wealthy and privileged few. As if everyone has the ability to choose whether or not to work once their baby is born, or whether to buy a Bugaboo or MacLaren stroller, or bigger car. As if that is what parenting boils down to these days.

Slings and Arrows Finale: Time Mag v. Babble

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 16:03:00 GMT

Our discussion concludes as James Poniewozik responds to Babble's contention that "we are nothing more or less than parents who, in some fashion, defy the traditional image of uptight cardigan-wearing Donna Reed clones who are perpetually alienated from modern culture."

Stroller Derby: How do you respond to Babble / Stroller Derby's claim that we're not "just" about hip urban parenting?

James P: I'll respond in three parts:

A. Yesterday, I visited Babble.com. The number-one story in the homepage box was, "The Hippest Babysitter in America." Babble's tagline is: "A magazine and community for the new urban parent." "New" urban, hip urban. Tomato, tomahto. It probably is a generalization to say that Babble is all about hip urbanites; however, Babble doesn't seem to have a problem creating that impression to market itself. It's only when somebody makes a criticism that "hip" is suddenly reductive. And while I'm not privy to Babble's business plan, I doubt the whole "hip" perception harms it with advertisers.

B. I do understand the charge that "hipster" is a generalization. (Just as "new urban parent" is.) Here's another generalization in my column: "Gen X." In reality, some parent-memoirists, including some of Babble's, I believe, are Baby Boomers; conversely, some are probably young enough to be considered Gen Y. Gen X seems like a fair median, though.

C. Come on, "Donna Reed clones"? How self-serving. (Anyone who criticizes us is a '50s sexist who wants to enslave women!) That's a 60-year-old image. It hasn't been "defiant" to oppose the Donna Reed stereotype since "Maude." I would bet good money that most Babble writers' mothers weren't Donna Reed types, much less any contemporary you could find without calling a casting agency.

Stroller Derby: What do you think about Stroller Derby's statement that "...if there were ever a time to be self-reflective and even a bit angst-ridden, that time is now. As relatively new parents, we learn a great deal by reading the writings of others in similar straits. And if our kids listen to the Ramones and wear Baby Gap, it doesn't mean being cool is our primary objective. On the contrary, any parent with a heart, no matter what they wear, where they live, or what is on their iPod, understands the tectonic shift that must occur when one is the guardian of little innocent people."

James P: Again, I think this is someone believing that I'm telling them they're a bad parent. Sure, you care more about your child than you do about being cool. Of course. Because you're human, and not a monster. But in the writing that I'm responding to, there's this constant sense of the writer assuring him/herself, "Hey, just because I have a kid, I'm not like
all those other horrible robots, right?" Well, yes, in a sense you are, because your priority in life is now the preservation and welfare of another human, and kids' basic needs are more or less universal. In another sense you're not, because you don't stop being who an individual when you have a child. But guess what? That was always true! We didn't invent that! That's not a new concept that just emerged around the time Nirvana released Nevermind! And that refrain--"We're doing it differently; we aren't losing our individuality to parenthood like people used to"--that's so terribly smug and self-congratulatory. But a great way to market to people.

But the first sentence also interests me: "If there were ever a time to be self-reflective and even a bit angst-ridden, that time is now." What does "now" mean? When you've just had a kid? Well, sure. As it has been for 2 million years' worth of humans, who managed to handle the anxiety without quite such a lengthy journey into their navels. Or does it mean, "Now, when parenting is so hard, and the culture is so hostile to parents, and the schools are in such crisis, and the world
is so screwed up, and everything is so expensive, and nothing is as safe or as easy as when I was a kid." *That* is an attitude I hear a lot in the real world, and I confess I am very skeptical of it. We grew up having our parents tell us how much harder they had it when they were kids. We will be the first generation to bore our own kids with stories of how much easier we had it when we were kids.

To read the first part of the interview, go here, and you can also read JP's blog and blog on the topic.

Interview with James Poniewozik, Time Magazine Reporter: "Hipster Parents" WANT Him to Judge Them

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:14:00 GMT

James Poniewozik, author of the much Babbled about "Too Cool for Preschool" piece in this week's Time Magazine, kindly agreed to answer some of our questions about his problem with hip parent bloggers and writers.

Strollerderby: You seem concerned that Gen X parents are so busy being cool and inserting themselves into the story of their kid's lives that they aren't putting their kids first as they should. Is this based only on the books and the blogs or also on your observations of parents in action?

James P: I'm responding to the books and the blogs. In fact, this is the most important point I want to make: my article was about--to use the hated term--"hipster parent" *writing*, not about hipster *parenting*. I'm not trying to judge anyone's parenting.

I feel like the Babble bloggers, et al., kind of want me to be judging their parenting, because that allows them to frame the debate as though they're being socially oppressed: Time magazine is trying to force us conform to their parenting norms! We're just too free-thinking for them! We're too threatening to The Man! I would argue if, anything, there's an implicit tone of judgment that suffuses Babble--if you're not on board with them, you're some kid of brainwashed Stepford robot.

My objections are to the writing. Or specifically, to a set of attitudes I see in the writing (which is not to say this applies equally, or at all, to every parent-blogger-author-etc. in the world). This notion that I have just experienced this thing that a hundred billion people in history have, but because I am so offbeat, because I am so distinctive, because I feel so deeply, my experience of it is different. And terribly interesting. And look what it says about me that I made this and this choice with my child.

The idea of one's child, a distinct, separate person, as proof of one's uniqueness and alterity. It's not about failing to put your child first in private life--I'm sure all these writers take fine care of their kids, feed them well, look out for their interests. (The other knock on Gen X urban parents is that we dote too much and parent obsessively, right?) It's using a child as a sort of third-person vehicle through which to write one's autobiography.

Part 2 of our conversation with James coming soon...

Time Magazine's Hipster Parenting Article: The Blogosphere Reacts

Stefania Pomponi Butler (CityMama) — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:01:00 GMT

First, I know, I used the word "blogosphere." I apologize. Second, in case you haven't heard, James Poniewozick wrote an article for Time Magazine last week essentially saying that so-called "hipster parents" are, as Aidin Vaziri of The Poop puts it: "douche bags."

Because Poniewozick singled out Babble as "part of the problem," as it were, you best believe that we here at Strollerderby had something to say about it. Those of us connected with Babble/Strollerderby also chose to address the article on our personal blogs.

But other bloggers chimed in as well. Mo Comedy called Poniewozick out for failing to see the irony of being a ~~douche bag~~ hipster parent writing about how lame hipster parents are. CrunchyCarpets writes a blog post which I think supports Poniewozick's position, but I couldn't quite tell because she makes a big to-do about her husband bonding with her kid while playing XBox. (Isn't that a hipster parent rite of passage?) She claims that the ripe old age of 37, she's an "old fart Gen Xer/old nerd" who thinks sites like Babble aren't geared for her. (CrunchyCarpets, as a fellow 37-year-old "old fart Gen Xer," please accept my apologies for failing you.) Brian is kinda ambivalent. And, of course, the child free sites are having a field day with such an easy target. "Hardcore!"

If you've read the article and have something to say about it please let us know by commenting and/or linking your posts below. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to take my kids to get new leg warmers right after they get their faux-hawks trimmed. Otherwise they'll look like complete fools at the Franz Ferdinand concert we're going to later. After we stop for sushi and colonics, of course.

The Parenting Conversation: Why Time Magazine Piece on "Hip Parents" Gets It Wrong

thezeroboss — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:09:00 GMT

I know that my fellow Derby-ers have already run roughshod over Time magazine's hit piece on Babble and so-called "hip parenting". Goddess knows that the damn "hip parenting" and "grup" memes perpetuated by monolithic media are wearing thin on my soul. I guess I'm too much of a narcissist to let the story go by without chipping in my own two cents.

Near the middle of his piece, author James Poniewozik states: "The Howl of this movement is Neal Pollack's new memoir Alternadad." That comment is so fallacious as to border on dishonesty. Is Poniewozik unaware that Pollack's book sparked something of a mini-riot among Babble's readers and editorial staff? Or is he aware of it, but fears that pointing it up will spoil his narrative about the hipper-than-thou parent?

In branding his piece "Too Cool for Pre-school," Poniewozik wants his readers to believe that all "hip parents" are cut from the same cloth. And that's the problem with that absurd label. Few of us are trying to be "hip." What we are is "offbeat". Nontraditional. Postmodern. We are urban parents. We are crunchy granola parents, attachment parenting parents, environmentalist parents. We are rock 'n roll parents. We are stay at home or work at home parents. We are gay, lesbian, bi and transgendered parents. We are nothing more or less than parents who, in some fashion, defy the traditional image of uptight cardigan-wearing Donna Reed clones who are perpetually alienated from modern culture.

And you wanna know something? We all - gasp! - like to talk to each other.

We enjoy sharing our experiences online. Why? Simple: because big media properties like Poniewozik's employer have ignored us for years. With the explosion of the Internet and the blogosphere, we found a way to bypass the sugary sweetness and commercial plasticity of crap publications like Parents magazine, and directly connect with one another. For the first time, we were part of the parenting conversation; we had an outlet; we were no longer marginalized.

Does that make parental blogging "about us," and not about our kids? Of course. But all narrative writing is about the author, and his or her unique window on the world. The same can be said about the work of David Sedaris. Or Augusten Burroughs. (And I would hope that the irony of Poniewozik writing an opinion piece dissing on other people's narcissism is not lost on him.)

Poniewozik is right on one score: some of the worst writing and blogging in this genre is so much navel-gazing. I've decried that trend myself. But therein lies the value of community. We all keep one another in check. The best parenting bloggers don't simply tell stories about their kids: like this recent posting by Dooce, they tell stories that serve as flash-points for conversation. And damn, do we conversate. We bicker; we debate; we call each other on our bullshit. We do more - much more - than marvel at the precious miracle of our little Boopsie's first steps. We debate hot-topic issues like cervical cancer vaccines for teens, whether vaccinations cause autism, sex education, the grief of parents with stillborn children, and the merits and demerits of the family bed. We share tips on how to save money, spend more time together, and be better parents in general.

Pollack's book was a noticeable flash-point in our recent history. But such debates happen on Babble and around the blogosphere every week, if not every day. And that's what gets lost in one-dimensional, buzzword-heavy pieces like the Time article. Offbeat parenting on the Internet isn't a monologue, as Poniewozik depicts it. It's a conversation - a conversation that bequeaths upon us an embarrassment of riches. Move over, Dr. Spock: we have more information about good parenting at our fingertips than our own parents ever hoped to possess.

Why so many in the mainstream news media are so het up about that is beyond me. Then again, people react in bizarre ways when you threaten their monopoly on dialogue.

Shut Up & Parent: Why Time Magazine Hates Babble

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 18:31:00 GMT

Hip Generation X parents have once again come under heavy fire for doing things differently than our predecessors and peers. Time Magazine reporter James Poniewozik writes a gentlemanly but scathing piece about the depths of narcissism to which our craven parenting souls have fallen.

Like someone straight from a 1950s parenting book he gently reminds us, "Once, it was understood that raising kids was about subordinating yourself, recognizing that, at least as far as Darwin and the gene pool were concerned, you were no longer the star."

He assumes that the raft of parenting memoirs and blogs, as well as on-line magazines like Babble prove our unwillingness to put our kids first. By turning parenting into an intellectual, social, and critical exercise we fail to see that we are no longer the center of the universe. In this analysis, parents are to be seen and not heard.

But if there were ever a time to be self-reflective and even a bit angst-ridden, that time is now. As relatively new parents, we learn a great deal by reading the writings of others in similar straits. And if our kids listen to the Ramones and wear Baby Gap, it doesn't mean being cool is our primary objective. On the contrary, any parent with a heart, no matter what they wear, where they live, or what is on their iPod, understands the tectonic shift that must occur when one is the guardian of little innocent people.

Parents no longer look only toward the experts for advice and direction. We look within and to each other. Through our parenting magazines, blogs, books, and podcasts, we are providing more support and real information than Dr. Spock ever could. The democratization of parenting information is at hand. Move over Dr. Sears, we are the new experts.