- Share This Post
- Pin It
- 4
-
Sparkle (0)
Something happens when you begin writing about business and personal finance. You start noticing things that previously went unnoticed and frankly uncared about. The nuances of career life become more appealing because there’s some overarching theme that comes with it. And money actually becomes entertaining and a source of fodder as opposed to Emily Post’s top thing to never discuss. Ever. Lest risk a stern slap to the wrist with a ruler as that is how I would imagine Emily Post disciplining those who dare commit societal faux pas.
I find myself to also be a little more open, in the quest for being accountable. I’m 23 but not a child. Which means that I may or may not have drunkenly divulged exact figures while out to dinner. A dinner wherein the bill included a comma. So first financial tid bit from BlogHer 2007: Going out to dinner at Fogo de Chao with perfectly aged $20 scotch and $50 meals, means that your bill will have a COMMA. Try not to pass out or hyperventilate or want to lurch across the table and strangle who ever thought that Fogo de Chao was McDonlad’s and that the alcohol was FREE, when you come up $600 short during the initial money count. Moving on.
The other financial aspect that I came away with was beat like a horse that had been dead since 1975 and lo we were still beating it for the subsequent 32 years, or at least what felt like such: The subject of ads on blogs. It came up during the State of the Momosphere session, where frankly things have been known to get quite heated. I was sitting next to Susan when discussion turned to ads on parenting blogs and the exploitation of the panelists respective children – Catherine Connors, Lena Lotsey, and Chris Jordan – and why should someone just ‘sitting around all day’ (as it is often seen of stay at home mothers) should be writing on their blogs and not watching their children. Lena brought up a good point by saying that they’re being paid for their craft. And honestly, having ads on blogs doesn’t mean the writer is rolling in dough. It usually goes to hosting fees, or that extra shot of tequila.
All said, I turned to Susan and with furrowed brow said “I make enough for a family of 4, in Upstate NY standards. I have no children. I also have ads on my blog and freelance and my extra income that I SO DESPERATELY NEED, funds Kate Spade’s home in the Hamptons and a sickening grocery shopping habit and really nothing of importance. Oh and lots of alcohol and planning of lavish weekend getaways. That’s it. And yet not one person EVER has said anything to me about my use of ads. Possibly because they’re not large and obtrusive? Or perhaps no one has the audacity to say it to my face; but as far as I know, it’s ok for me and my ridiculous income supporting ONE person and very little writing talent, to have ads. But not for a woman with incredible writing ability who happens to have children. I just don’t get it. I’m often completely vexed but this one totally threw me for a loop. Susan had to slowly say to me “because you don’t have children.” Like Duh, Heather, maybe you should do something about the loss of those brain cells. Point blank: I don’t care if anyone, mother or not has ads as long as there is no music or seizure inducing music and lights. So go for it. And have any of these critics ever heard of a thing called ‘nap time’? Or minding their own business? Just a thought.
Like I said, I just don’t understand and the above leaves me feeling oddly confused that it’s ok to be childless with income for days and gladly use ads, but to have children and do so deserves a call from Child Protection Services or something for not staring at your children all day long and sitting down to knock out a post, your craft about your experiences of motherhood; the good, the bad and the ugly.
Can you sense my confusion? Anyone care to chime in? Or am I the only one perplexed? Because that happens a lot.
