By Melissa Mc
Gwyneth Paltrow has gone domestic diva on us and started a new website called GOOP (subtitled: Nourish the Inner Aspect). I thought goop was found at the bottom of your garbage can or in your kid’s ears, but I guess Gwyn (now that I’ve been to her website, I feel like I can call her Gwyn) thinks GOOP is an appealing word that will make women across the globe hit her website. A Toronto newpaper wrote of Gwyn’s new website name, “Perhaps, ‘Any Old Load of Rubbish’ and ‘Learn from me, Ungrateful Peasant’ were both taken.”
The site is loaded with recipes (does this woman actually eat?) travel tips (if you need a really expensive hotel in London or NYC, she’s got your back), and de-cleansing and stress-free living tips (not sure if I could spell any of the herbs needed to de-stress or de-cleanse).
She also shares her book club’s favorite selections – Tolstoy, Faulkner, Hemingway. Twilight, Bridget Jones and Shopoholic are noticeably absent. But when your book club members include Madonna and Christie Turlington, what do you expect.
In one of her on-line newsletters, a guest contributor writes about being “spent.” Dr Lipman writes: “‘Spent’ is the word I use to describe people who are overwhelmed, fatigued and feel older than their years.” Welcome to my world! He then proceeds, “Our ancestors lived in harmony with day and night and the seasons. As a result, the cycles and rhythms of nature became imprinted in their genes. We still share this DNA with our ancient ancestors, but we are living at a radically different pace and rhythm.”
I’m not sure about your ancestors Gwyn, but mine were either hauling their belongings in hand carts across the Rockies or forced in a death march from N. Carolina to Indian Territory in the Trail of Tears. Doesn’t sound like the most “harmonious” or “rhythmic” lifestyle, but I guess I would have to blame Pres. Andrew Jackson for that and not their genes, thank you very much.
Finally, Gwyn and Dr. Lipman give us the tools to “rejuvenate” including: eating in your body’s rhythms (I have a chocolate and donut rhythm), have an electronic sundown (any relation to electric shock therapy?), slow down with relaxing music (probably doesn’t include the Jonas Bros or Hannah Montana – but possibly COLDPLAY) ease with restorative yoga (does wrestling your screaming kid out of Target count?), release tension with tennis balls (where are you supposed to put those tennis balls, Dr.?) add an adaptogen (Gwyn’s favorite adaptogens are Panax ginseng, ashwagandha and rhodiola! Whaaa!!!!) and finally, practice ubuntu. “ ‘Ubuntu’ is an African term that means what makes us human is the humanity we show each other. It’s a worldview that sees humanity as a web of family rather than a mass of individuals. When you relate in this way, you feel connected, energized and have a sense of abundance.” (They could have stayed domestic and investigated the American term – “Relief Society,” instead).
At the end her website, Gwyn boldly announces, GOOP goes to Paris! Honestly, this is the only reasonable de-stress technique, herb, remedy, recipe, tonic, offered on her entire GOOPY website!




Native American ancestors don’t count. You have to go farther, to the neanderthal. Although they probably spent a lot of their time trying to not be eaten by lions, so I’m guessing there wasn’t a lot of yoga involved.
Comment #1 by Heather O.February 22nd, 2009 at 7:43 pmone of my friends regularly covers gwyneth’s “goop” emails at www.justnikol.blogspot.com. gotta love gwyneth, if only because she’s oblivious! her valentine’s day email was great:
http://justnikol.blogspot.com/2009/02/sexy-goop.html
Comment #2 by makakonaFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 7:53 pmOh, makakona, that was HILARIOUS. I may have to sign up for Gwyneth’s newsletter.
Comment #3 by Heather O.February 22nd, 2009 at 7:57 pmUbuntu is also a popular Linux distro, though I doubt Gwenyth has ever heard about it.
I don’t really think our Circadian Rhythms are implanted in our genes. Though the electronically simulated sunsets might be pretty cool, I think the simulated sunrise lights are cooler.
Gwen’s Goop…that reminds me, I need to clean off the baby’s high chair tray before I go to sleep tonight…hmmm. I need to do the laundry too. Dangit, I hate being reminded about chores that need doing right before I want to go to sleep.
Comment #4 by kaduseyFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 8:43 pmI have yet to understand the desire to eat oysters. Is it me or doesn’t it seem that we eat God entended us to eat, and elite eat food that God is wondering “why do you eat the yucky stuff??”
And I actually like to clean the high chair before bed. the only time because then it stays clean for 10 hours or so, unlike when I actually clean it during the day, and it lasts only a few hours, before it gets messy again.
While I was mopping with my non organic clorox mop yesterday night, I decided that the only time I want to mop is after 10 because again it stays clean for 10 hours or so, and I don’t get totally depressed that I put the effort into it.
Of course, I’m a night owl,so I don’t mind doing stuff at night (literally I was mending till 4 am, last night) just don’t ask me to function at 8 am. It won’t happen.
Comment #5 by SarahFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 8:57 pmSounds like a bunch of liberal feel good wanna be real but you’re really not…..ummm…..crap. But I guess that’s really what you were saying anyway.
Comment #6 by SharlaFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 8:57 pm(Edit: this is a particularly nasty and snitty comment by a reader who doesn’t really like us or get our sense of humor. For now, we’re leaving it up, but it may disappear into the Bermuda Triangle at any time, subject to my whim and my quirky, unstable hormone levels. I also feel compelled to defend and protect our newborn blogger, Mel Mc- a tender newbie should get at least a week before a troll jumps on her back and starts stabbing her with a bic pen, right? Read at your own peril…)
What the heck is the matter with you? The snark here is such a stretch. “Does this woman actually eat?” Because she’s THIN? Do all people with weight issues think the only way to be thin is to not eat food? The woman works out for hours a day and eats healthfully. Ya, what a b*tch. Her recipes are quite simple, actually. More people do need to figure out that delicious food can be made healthfully and simply if they just close their “Casseroles and Jello” cookbooks.
Here’s a newsflash for you: Gwyneth Paltrow IS NOT MORMON. GASP! I know. That ANYONE could not be Mormon, eh? Her take on positivity is going to be different than Thomas S. Monson’s but both contribute to the world. I’d bet a million dollars that you were born into the church, that you cannot see a need in the world for leadership that’s not LDS. It takes steps to get there. There’s a place in this world for truth spoken in different languages.
You just provided the perfect example of the kind of nasty arrogance that Mormons are commanded to avoid. “They could have stayed domestic and investigated the American term – “Relief Society,” instead.” This is so embarrassing to me as a Mormon. It’s a perfect example of American arrogance, too.
Gwyneth Paltrow is not “oblivious”. She’s targeting a NICHE. Google that.
And OH MY– did you just criticize her for recommending TOLSTOY (my favourite author) over *choke* TWILIGHT??! THERE ARE JUST NO WORDS.
Yes, the name is dumb and the tagline is even worse. I can only agree with you there. But can you really not find anything else to write about that need not centre around being judgmental, critical, and bi*chy in a personal way about someone you’ve never met?
Comment #7 by NatashaFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 9:01 pmBwaaahahahahaha!! Yes, it’s so easy when you have three nannies and all the freakin’ money in the world.
Oh sure, I can have my private trainer give me my birka hot yoga session while my personal chef fixes me a macrobiotic lunch and nanny dos watches Apple and Fritter, and the domestique cleans the kitchen and my personal assistant picks up the dry cleaning, because laundry? So passe.
Yes, Gwinnie, do give me more advice! I’m waiting on tenderhooks…
BWA-HAHAHAHAHA! HA!
Comment #8 by Tracy MFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 9:01 pmNatasha, I’m sure YOU couldn’t find anything else to write, either. Lighten up and back off. I’m not above deleting and banning.
Comment #9 by The WizFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 9:06 pmNatasha, babe? Chill out. It’s tongue-in-cheek. You’re name-calling and not doing so in the spirit of good-humor. Knock it off or you can just go hang out at GOOP with all the other Niche wannabes. Capiche?
Comment #10 by Tracy MFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 9:07 pmAnd I’d be willing to bet any money that if your take on GOOP would have been complimentary all your commenters would have found something to say to agree with you. I’m so sick of women commenter sycophants! ARGH! I love that my commenters feel comfortable disagreeing with me. It’s FLATTERING. It creates a discussion instead of a monologue.
Comment #11 by NatashaFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 9:14 pmI enjoyed this post (but please fix Gwyneth’s name spelling!).
I hadn’t seen the goop site before, and frankly it’s pretty appalling. I thought Gwyneth was a bit more classy, and, I dunno, aloof, than that.
Comment #12 by JaneFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 9:18 pmOK Natasha, you are making blanket statement and being mean. We have plenty of disagreements and points of view that are not the party line- as a matter of fact, I don’t think we have a party line.
Buh-bye.
Comment #13 by Tracy MFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 9:19 pmThank you Jane, I’m going to fix it right now…
Comment #14 by Tracy MFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 9:26 pmNatasha, it’s called Satire, honey. That’s why we love it here.
I really don’t think Melissa has deep harboring hatred for Gweneth. I think she, like many of us, have a hard time when someone with a obscene amount of money and privilage and the ability to pay people to do anything you want them to do, so that you don’t actually have to do it yourself, try and relate to regular people who have no such luxuries. We often find it ignorant and demeaning. Is that her intent, probably not, but lets face it, Gweneth has lived a privlaged life all her life and has no idea what it is like to live my life. My life of 3 kids, an unemployed husband and $50 bucks in the bank.
Comment #15 by SarahFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 9:29 pmOkay, okay. I’ve calmed down.
Listen, if it’s satire, then it suddenly makes sense. And I’m no stranger to satire: http://www.becomingsomething.com/2008/12/awesome-christmas-letter.html
I don’t think it was the best use of satire. Satire should be OBVIOUS. Very obvious. I did get the humor here: “eating in your body’s rhythms (I have a chocolate and donut rhythm), have an electronic sundown (any relation to electric shock therapy?), slow down with relaxing music (probably doesn’t include the Jonas Bros or Hannah Montana – but possibly COLDPLAY)” and the chocolate and donut rhythm thing was cute. But it wasn’t satire. I think if you’re going to write satirically, it needs to be consistent, otherwise, it looks like the “satirical” parts are really critical.
Now, I did not know that this was her third post. Now, I understand. I think the writing needs some work.
And you may think that’s horrible of me to say but I’m assuming that the contributors to this blog want to be writers. If a person wants to be a writer, they should want honest feedback. I am an aspiring writer and I love honest feedback. Even if it’s “harsh”, it’s very enlightening, if it’s intelligent and not from say, a YouTube commenter.
If it was meant to be satire (not tongue-in-cheek– the two are different), then I get it. I’ve let out a resounding PHEWF!!
But again, satire should be soooo ridiculous that it’s obvious to everyone but those YouTube commenters, ESPECIALLY when written and not spoken.
To say, “does this woman even eat” doesn’t sound like a gross exaggeration. It sounds like an honest, petty criticism. Re-read the whole thing with the viewpoint of someone who’s never read this blog before, who can’t hear any intonation, and who, by the opening bit, thinks it’s a critical piece.
I’m far more understanding now that I know it was a new writer’s effort at satire.
The part about Relief Society still really bothers me, though. It’s not over-the-top enough to be satirical. It sounds like an honest opinion sneaking in.
I’m calmed down now, I swear.
Comment #16 by NatashaFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 9:47 pmSarah, I could see what that would bother you, I do. But Gwyneth is not writing to you in every post. Like I said, she’s targeting a niche. I can’t afford to stay at the hotels she mentions either. But I can try my hand at her recipes, easily. I do appreciate some of the recent parenting advice that was very wise. I do think that Dr. Whatshisname made a very good point about how pioneers lived vs. how we live.
The comments here were NOT satirical, though, were they? And that helped skew my interpretation of the post. The comments are snotty but I guess that’s okay around here as long as it’s directed towards a famous person and not one of y’all?? See my point? Come on. I DO have a point there.
Comment #17 by NatashaFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 9:52 pm“I’m far more understanding now that I know it was a new writer’s effort at satire.”
Natasha, perhaps you could be more understanding and charitible as a rule. The core of us here at MMW have been blogging for, literally, years. We are not new at this, and part of me wants to laugh at your (tiny) boast of writing your own blog for 7 months. Combined, we have more than ten years of blogging under our belts. No joke.
Mel Mc is a new blogger. We love her. We are going to protect and defend her- and I cannot speak to her desires to be or not to be a writer. This is not a “writing tutorial” blog. This is a mama blog, and sometimes we vent, sometimes we are eloquent and poignant, and sometimes we are messy. No one likes to be given “harsh” enlightening feedback, especially by a new commenter who does not normally read us. It’s like a stranger observing another parent in a restaurant and feeling they have the right to weigh in on that person’s parenting. Not cool.
So, if you want to hang out here, and can dig that, you are welcome. You don’t have to agree, like I said. You do have to by civil and polite. Civility is not the same as being “sycophant women commenters”. As I clearly here display.
Comment #18 by Tracy MFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 9:59 pmDeep breaths (hee hoo) everybody.
Comment #19 by mormonhermitmomFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 10:00 pmNatasha, (#17) I am growing weary…
Comment #20 by Tracy MFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 10:02 pmNatasha
We rarely get serious here. Unless you find a post where all the commentors are anoymous odds are we are just relaxing and having fun. Go read Adventures in Arizona. You will get the true gist of this blog.
Comment #21 by SarahFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 10:03 pmWell, I thought it was pretty obvious that it was satire. But hey, what do I know?
Why would you think we are all aspiring writers? Because we have a blog? Please ’splain.
And yes, I will protect and defend the other bloggers here, as they have protected and defended me.
Comment #22 by The WizFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 10:11 pmIt wasn’t a boast. It was a response to the comment that I wouldn’t have been able to find anything else to say either. I responded using my stats. (P.S. I’ve blogged much longer collectively. That one blog is only 7 months.)
I am aware that the blog is old, which is why it did not occur to me that the bloggER was new.
I AM very understanding as a rule but I’m not charitable when I come across people being judgmental and rude and then bringing the church into it to add religious arrogance into the mix, WHICH IS HOW IT APPEARED TO A NEW READER. When my righteous indignation is flared up, I’m not going to be all apologetic. If you want an example of my understanding and charity, read my recent post about how I reacted when a woman from church came within one inch of killing my daughter under her truck, by backing up recklessly in the church parking lot. THAT was an accident. This didn’t appear to be by me.
Yes, it should have occurred to me that MAYBE this wasn’t a diatribe against Paltrow. I don’t know why I was so quick to reaction as I’m not usually. Like I said, I’ve only ever had one other comment on a blog that had this same degree of indignant tone and outspokenness, but it was still respectful enough that the blogger and I became friends right after.
I think my uncharacteristic reaction was because 1) I’m tired and sick, and 2) Jane linked to it and because of that, I had a completely different expectation of what the post would be.
You are right that civility is not the same as sycophant commenters. But we’re talking about two different things. The commenters here not only agreed with the blogger, but with the same tone. Would anyone have dared say anything POSITIVE about the subject? I don’t know how sycophanty things get around here but I see that all the time on mommy blogs and I was just venting to Jane about that the other day, so my back was already up.
You pose an interesting comparison. Let’s say you were at McDonald’s and you saw and heard a mom call her kid an idiot.
Huh.
You could do nothing. Walk away and think of how awful that was.
You could say, “What the heck is the matter with you?” which could be both appropriate for the occasion and yet not because you don’t know the mom at all and you have no idea what stresses she might be under at all or whether or not it was uncharacteristic of her. Besides, she could have said it satirically. (Ha! Joke. Ahem.)
Or, you could have said… “Hey, that wasn’t very nice.” or something with the same degree of… calmness.
Well, the thing is, that last choice could have two responses from the mom. She could either feel ashamed. Or, she could easily brush it off because it was meek enough. After all, someone who calls their kid an idiot publicly is probably not a meek person and they’d want to dominate the situation.
Saying nothing wouldn’t seem to be morally appropriate. It wasn’t a PRIVATE wrong, it was public. Because the mom said it publicly, she affected not only the child but everyone around her. Therefore, it’s completely appropriate for someone to say something about her morally wrong action.
Saying, “What the heck is the matter with you?” would not have been nice, I agree. But if the action was harsher, say the mom HITTING the kid in the face, then it would be an understandable question, right?
Well, from my viewpoint, the post was not tantamount to a mom slapping a kid. But because it was written out and posted, there was a LOT more forethought than the scenario above. And as I said before, anyone can fall upon this post as their first one and if they don’t see the effort towards satire, it could be a poor representation of what Mormons are like.
I hope that explains my perspective better.
Comment #23 by NatashaFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 10:22 pmSomehow I’m not surprised that Natasha’s reader feels comfortable disagreeing with her.
Melissa, I read this a second time substituting the name “Oprah” for “Gwynneth,” and it works just as well. Now I’m about to read it a third time, trying out the name “Martha.” Then maybe a fourth time, with the name of a personal acquaintance.
I’m sure glad you’ve signed on, Melissa.
Well, my donut rhythm tells me it’s past my electronic sunset, so I’m off to destress with my pillow.
Comment #24 by Ardis ParshallFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 10:25 pmThe Wiz: I didn’t mean “aspiring writers” as in writing novels, necessarily. Seth Godin refers to group blogs such as this as being like newspapers. People take them more seriously, in general, than single writer blogs. Bloggers on a group blog are not writing just for their kids or families, right? They want to be read. And this is a long standing blog, so I figured you must take it somewhat seriously and no, I don’t mean that you only post serious topics.
Who said anything about protecting and defending?
I actually HAVE read TWO other posts before, about a year ago. They were clearly serious posts so I had no idea this was a humour blog. I’ve never heard of it having that reputation.
Comment #25 by NatashaFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 10:27 pmSo, I had to look up “satire.” Usually when I think of satire I think of things like Swift’s a “A Modest Proposal” or SeriouslySoBlessed.blogspot.com, both of which are, as Natasha contends “obvious,” although several readers of both were unaware of this in the beginning.
Besides being obvious, I though satire usually (if not always) was pretty synonymous with parody. (That is, not even mentioning the original text but rather being an exaggerated example of the same form).
Anyhoo, dictionary.com says satire is:
1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3. a literary genre comprising such compositions.
Under that definition, this post definitely qualifies as satire, but, ironically, all of the sudden I’m not sure I should be enjoying satire so much. I was hoping satire was more like, you know, funny, light poking at absurd things.
Comment #26 by JaneFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 10:31 pmJane, you’re looking for the joke pages in the Reader’s Digest.
Comment #27 by Ardis ParshallFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 10:35 pmJane, there are many examples of satire in art that are not obvious at first. But if an entire blog is satirical or an entire book or an entire play, they have time on their side. One short blog post does not have time on its side and does not have inflection and that’s why I think it has to be glaringly obvious.
Also, there are dictionary definitions and then there are cultural norms that redefine.
Comment #28 by NatashaFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 10:36 pmGosh, had I known all of this was going on while I was watching the Oscars, I would have TiVo’d it and come to my own defense! So sorry for the mispelling…thanks for the correction. That’s why I named my kids TOM and ANN so I wouldn’t have to worry about stuff like that.
Hooray for Gwen and her GOOP. I wish her all the success with website and her hotels, restaurants, her uniform and macrobiotic diet. But it’s SO NOT my life, Mormon or otherwise. Three cheers for the newbie! My husband won’t even read my posts. I think I had a grace period in my blog contract that could be revoked at any moment.
Comment #29 by Melissa McFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 10:42 pmOh, it’s a humour blog. How else do you think we all stay sane?
Comment #30 by StarababaFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 10:52 pmIf I saw a mom call her kid an idiot, I might ask her if there was anything I could do to help- maybe keep an eye on her kid while she got a soda… or offered her some fruit snacks and an ear. Telling her she’s screwing up is a sure way to make it worse.
Comment #31 by Tracy MFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 11:02 pmAnybody besides me as old as dirt and able to remember the “Goops” books of my childhood? Here’s one online: More Goops and How Not to Be Them: A Manual of Manners for Impolite Infants.
I wonder if somehow Ms. P had those Goops in mind when she named her website?
Comment #32 by Ardis ParshallFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 11:05 pmI’ve never heard of those, Ardis, but they look amusing! Perhaps Ms. P had those in mind after all…
Comment #33 by Tracy MFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 11:10 pmIf I read a post that offends me, I usually don’t comment and move on. I think Natasha came on a little too strong but having read one of her posts on one of her blogs, I can now get where she is coming from a little. I can also see where Mc is coming from, and I feel mostly okay with this post.
I guess it just seemed to me that some kind of ugly PMS confrontation was going on here in the comments here. I think we all get “indignated” sometimes, but maybe there’s a better way to express it no matter what your point of view?
Comment #34 by mormonhermitmomFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 11:11 pmAlthough I do agree we could replace Gweneyth with Oprah, we can at least put an * by her name, since she has actually lived a much more poor underprivlaged life than all of us, when she was young. Oh and she admits she’s 200lbs, hello brownie points.
Anyone that has read TAMN’s blog knows that an entire blog from front to back, top to bottom and around and through knows that blog is in it’s entirety is Satire, yet there are new commentors every day, that totally miss that’s it’s a fake satire blog.
Natasha, kind of still scratching my head at the mormon offense. When reading Melissa’s post I really didn’t think it had anything to do with being Mormon. I’m pretty sure I could be a catholic, baptist, methodist, wiccan, jewsih or even Unitarian and still laugh at GOOP. I know it is Mormon Mommy Wars, but as Ray can attest it’not always anything to do with being Mormon or a Mommy and we Rarely talk about Wars (although this post sure felt like one for a while).
Comment #35 by SarahFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 11:14 pmArdis
That link scared me.
Comment #36 by SarahFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 11:20 pmmormonhermitmom– You’re right. Usually I express myself quite well, I think, without getting ANYONE upset, which is why I think my commenters don’t mind disagreeing with me: Because their disagreements are never like mine here and my comments back to them are never like mine here. Like I said, I don’t know WHY I got so upset. If it wasn’t a churchy blog, I have to say, I wouldn’t have even cared enough to comment.
I HAVE learned my lesson: The next time I read something that I find particularly galling, I will take a breath and do more investigating to find some background info, or ask questions. Questions are *usually* my strategy.
I don’t think I’m PMSing yet. Hmmm. I hope not. Stupid bleeding habit….
Tracy M– Yes, I might offer help as well. You missed my point, though. I was comparing my original perception of the post to the mom actually HITTING her child in the face, because both held the same amount of offense for me.
Comment #37 by NatashaFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 11:33 pmSarah– it was this comment: “(They could have stayed domestic and investigated the American term – “Relief Society,” instead.” which was mocking the African idea of ubuntu. If taken seriously, it’s arrogant on two counts.
Also, if taken seriously, the criticizing of someone one doesn’t know, in an arguably snotty fashion, does not represent Mormons well. Or any religion, but hers is LDS.
Comment #38 by NatashaFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 11:37 pmArdis — I’m tempted to make some joke about bathroom reading and such, but … wait, are you saying I can’t handle the truth? Man.
I think this blogstorm points up a few really interesting things about blogging, and I hope it doesn’t discourage the new blogger. I liked where she was going with this, agreed with many of her points — but I am uncomfortable with the Relief Society reference.
Perhaps this is because I consider Relief Society to be a “Mormon” term rather than an “American” one, or maybe it’s because the assertion that “Relief Society” is a good alternative for “Ubuntu” (as the goop site defines it) is a *bit* underminded by the critical tone of the piece. (What with the references to “the humanity we show each other” and such.)
But the blogging points I thought of are 1) writing for audience, 2) reasons for blogging, and 3) social media & blogging.
1) How do you balance writing for “anyone” and writing for your regular audience?
Be too general and bland and you won’t offend anyone but you won’t really interest anyone either. Too pointed and opinionated, and you might be surprised at the response.
(I’m usually say “screw ‘em” about those who wilfully misunderstand me, but the whole thing with Senator Buttars in Utah (the Church had to release a statement saying his homophobic remarks do NOT speak for the church) suggests that, if you have a “Mormon” blog, there might be some confusion for some people as to whether and to what degree you represent the church.)
(This is an issue in real life, of course, too.)
2)I find the goop blog very unappealing. I wonder what kind of input/control Gwyneth has over it, and I wonder WHY she’s involved. It seems icky to me in the same way that Dooce’s Christmas Wrapped site for Target was icky and in the way that Pioneer Woman’s blogging for Samsung with the “Moms like us” and “keepin’ it real” taglines seems condescending and un-real.
3) I twittered about this post bec. I enjoyed it; several months back I stumbled a BlogHer friend of mine’s post (thinking I was complimenting her) and then she got the nastiest review on the StumpleUpon site. I was mortified and felt responsible for her being subjected to that. (It was a really nasty comment, worse than anything I’ve ever seen on this site).
Any thoughts on the bloggy aspects?
Comment #39 by JaneFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 11:38 pmIs blogging media or social relationships or a mixture of both? In the sense we don’t see each other face to face, we may think of blogging as media and thereby think more along the lines of “I’m free to say whatever I want because my constitution says so.” In the sense that we get feedback on our posts, and sometimes on our comments, we may think of blogging as another social conversation, where if we want to make friends, some etiquette is required to foster those relationships.
Comment #40 by mormonhermitmomFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 11:46 pmJane, I somehow found Gwyneth’s GOOP thing before it even started. I can’t, for the life of me, remember how. I signed up for the newsletter out of curiosity before the first issue came out. They’re very simply done. No fuss. She made it sound like it was completely her idea and her writing it and I think it’s cool that she’s reaching out in such a personal way via social media. I haven’t even looked at the website. I just get the newsletters. I don’t enjoy all of them but that’s like ANY publication. Some general conferences are more enjoyable than others but that’s not really a reflection of general conference, is it? I have some of her newsletters in a Gmail folder because the recipes were very good or because she posted a video from her trainer of exercises anyone can do in their home, with no equipment, and her trainer had a different perspective from other trainers and this interested me.
Comment #41 by NatashaFebruary 22nd, 2009 at 11:54 pmWhat mormonhermitmom said.
In blogging, you are free to say whatever you want. On. Your. Own. Blog. When you are visiting a new site, or even a site you frequent, there are manners. There is decorum and there is etiquette.
Don’t yell. Don’t type in all caps. Don’t insult someone’s intelligence or their story. It’s pretty basic. If you must, disagree- but don’t disagreeable.
And blogging is a mixture of both media and social relationsihps. I have fantastic friends that I know via blogging- friends that have moved from only my computer, to people I love and value in real life. For me, it’s more about the relationships and support than it is about any media or writing kudos. That’s just side benefit.
Natasha, don’t make me pull this car over…
Comment #42 by Tracy MFebruary 23rd, 2009 at 12:03 amThat’s why it’s called “social media”. It’s social. AND it’s media.
Tracy, if a blogger is being hateful, I think it’s perfectly fine to respond exactly the way I did. It’s not always needed but if your honest reaction is shock, that’s your reaction and you’re free to display that and it would be perfectly justifiable. I already explained that I thought the post WAS bordering on hate. Since I found out it wasn’t, have I been disagreeable? If so, then I think it’s your bias.
I have never “yelled” here. If you thought so, you misinterpreted my writing. See how easy that is on the internet when you don’t know someone??
Comment #43 by NatashaFebruary 23rd, 2009 at 12:13 amI agree we often feel like we can say whatever we want (although we know WIZ will delete us if were naughty enough). With my son’s illness we have followed many children who have life threatening, terminal diseases and I’m amazed at the horrible horrible comments people leave on there blogs. (and i’m not saying that anything close has happened like that here). Your absolutely right. People can blog without a name and a face and leave whatever biggoted or self righteous or mean spirited comments they want just to be mean. I will never understand that. I have certainly red blogs, heck read facebook comments i just toally disagree with, but I find it’s usually best, unless they are absolutely asking for different opinions, to just let it be.
Now on the topic of mean spirited comments, can we have a bash Senator Buttars thread???? I know it’s bad, but it sounds like so much fun.
Comment #44 by SarahFebruary 23rd, 2009 at 12:13 amNatasha, here is a site I think you might find more to your liking.
I am now going to bed.
Comment #45 by Tracy MFebruary 23rd, 2009 at 12:17 amOne more note before I go to bed…my blog post was a result of reading the front page of the NYTimes Sunday Style section today and an article in Entertainment Weekly. My point about the RS and Ubuntu could have been better expressed. I’m not an aspiring writer (as Natasha has over and over again pointed out). I just have opinions and tonight I posted one. Obviously, Natasha took issue. Next time I will post more Favorite Things.
Comment #46 by Melissa McFebruary 23rd, 2009 at 12:19 amGood night John-boy.
Tracy. You’re right. I’ve been there more often than here.
Melissa, I DID apologize for pointing it out “over and over”. I REALLY did feel bad saying so but I also believe in upfrontness and honesty.
Keep in mind that for every person who writes to a company to complain or speaks to a store manager, there are ten other people who agree but say nothing. Marketing rule. I wonder what the rule is in blogging?
Comment #47 by NatashaFebruary 23rd, 2009 at 12:33 amOr nine. Or was it 12? Grrr, I can’t remember. But the principle is common sense.
Comment #48 by NatashaFebruary 23rd, 2009 at 12:34 amI will admit that the RS line had me laughing. I enjoyed the whole post, I thought it was funny. Not because I am a “sycophant”, more because it is my brand of humor. I can’t tell anyone the difference between satire and tongue-in-cheek though.
Comment #49 by JessicaFebruary 23rd, 2009 at 6:08 amThank you Jessica, you are my new BFF.
Comment #50 by Melissa McFebruary 23rd, 2009 at 6:47 amWow. And good morning to y’all.
Natasha, I suppose the same question could be asked of you.
Your first comment was out of line. Way out of line. I appreciate your apology (was there an apology buried up there somewhere? I hope so–I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt) I would ask that in the future, you refrain from calling our bloggers bad writers, and that you refrain from using the term bitch in your comment, or, at the very least, limit yourself to one use per comment.
Not cool, Natasha. Not cool at all.
I also understand your complaints about targeting a celebrity, that they are people too. And okay, Gwyneth is targeting a NICHE (and hey, lookit me, I don’t even need to google it). The problem is she’s just not fully aware of which niche she is targeting, and the idea that she could speak to the average mom is preposterous. And that, my friend, was the point of the post. Clearly, you missed it.
Melissa is new here, but I am not. This is my blog. I have no problem banning people who come on here and toss around swear words and tell us how embarrassing we are. You can disagree with us all you want. But don’t call us sycophants, and don’t call us bitches. It’s not very becoming of a Mormon woman. Like you wrote:
Yes. Exactly.
Comment #51 by Heather O.February 23rd, 2009 at 7:12 amWow. That was exhausting! A bummer after Melissa Mc’s original, funny post. I thought it was hysterical. And yes, I like Gwyneth. She comes across as very genuine.
Comment #52 by AndiFebruary 23rd, 2009 at 7:35 amYou know, one could argue that Ms. Paltrow’s adoption of ubuntu is an example of cultural colonialism, and so the OP’s suggestion that she use a more home-grown version is merely eschewing western appropriationism . . .
And I am neither Mormon, nor a mommy, nor warring against anything, and I quite enjoyed the post. Go Melissa Mc.
Comment #53 by EMAHFebruary 23rd, 2009 at 8:11 amThe post was hilarious and I enjoyed it very much. But I didn’t enjoy the tirade that followed. But hey, I guess that Melissa has the blogging knack. She’s generated controversy, without even trying!
Comment #54 by TiffanyFebruary 23rd, 2009 at 9:40 amSorry, I thought this was the uproariously funny MMW - not the Salt Lake Tribune comments section. I’ll go find MMW now.
Oh, and GREAT post, Melissa. I have the same reaction whenever I hear someone at the Oscars preaching about conservation - you know, the person who flew in his private jet from his third domestic monstrosity, jumped in the waiting limo to an extravaganza that uses enough electricity to light a small third-world country for a month . . . I believe in the principle of conservation, but the sheer hypocrisy of Al Gore’s lifestyle makes it hard not to spew my lunch every time he opens his mouth.
Sorry, off to find Mormon Mommy Wars.
Comment #55 by RayFebruary 23rd, 2009 at 10:04 amI think doing all that stuff on Goop would stress me out! Who has time for it all?
Comment #56 by mmilesFebruary 23rd, 2009 at 10:18 amThe post made me laugh, not because of any snide or snottiness but because of of the silliness of the assumptions of the Goop website.
Off topic, sorta…. There’s a very popular gardening blog that I frequent and this is what she adds to the bottom of her posts to help curb such excessively verbose and aggressive posters.
————————————————————
Please Read:
Before posting, ask yourself these questions:
1. Is my comment directly relevant to the post above (consider “this made me think something else” rants specifically)?
2. Is my comment worded respectfully, with language that is polite about all people mentioned in my comment?
3. My comment will not insult Hanna or any other commenter directly?
4. Is this comment something you would feel comfortable saying to Hanna in person and within swinging distance?
If the answer is NO to any of the above, please don’t post your comment. The comment will be deleted.
————————————————————
Regarding basic, polite human conduct and social intercourse, regardless of how long Melissa has blogged or whether she has aspirations to become a “writer” or not, doesn’t matter, such crude and disagreeable behavior is unacceptable and should not be tolerated, IMO. Of course, It’s doubtful that such comments (and wow, what a novel, they each where) would have happened IRL.
Comment #57 by All8February 23rd, 2009 at 11:33 amAll8, thanks for the commenting guidelines. Lots of blogs have them, and we just haven’t gotten around to it here, because usually everybody is pretty cool. I hate to think that we have to implement a formal comment policy. Perhaps it’s time, though.
Comment #58 by Heather O.February 23rd, 2009 at 11:38 amRay, I think we’re here somewhere. Keep looking, okay?
Comment #59 by Heather O.February 23rd, 2009 at 11:40 amWow. You get sick for a day or two and wake up to this. This is MMW right? Isn’t this the site where we discuss birds stalking Heather’s home, Tracy’s memorable Target trips and The Wiz watching a couple’s PDA in Sacrament Meeting in Arizona become the funniest thread ever ever?
Melissa, I enjoyed your post and understood your point. So glad you have you here. Aupicious welcome indeed.
Comment #60 by ZinkaFebruary 23rd, 2009 at 12:00 pmBlame the cold meds…auspicious. Spelling doesn’t count on 3 hours sleep right?
Comment #61 by ZinkaFebruary 23rd, 2009 at 12:02 pmWell Melissa Mc, I thought the post was hilarious, and brilliant. Because really, who wants to be “enlightened” by something called “GOOP?” I agree, goop is disgusting. Sometimes it’s the stuff left in the strainer thingy at the bottom of the sink after dishes. Blech. Who wants to find help in that?
Comment #62 by Molly DoeFebruary 23rd, 2009 at 3:41 pmYou know, comments like the ones here this bring up something, and I want to make this clear - I am not trying to represent Mormonism in general. I do not speak for Mormons worldwide. I speak for myself. As do the other writers. When people take us to task for misrepresenting Mormonism, or whatever, it makes me want to give up blogging altogether, because the pressure of representing the church is TOO HUGE for me to handle.
I am not the prophet. I am me. I have faults. Faults that other Mormons may or may not have. I can’t speak for them, nor do I want to.
In conclusion, diabetes sucks. But Diet Dr. Pepper is not bad.
Comment #63 by The WizFebruary 23rd, 2009 at 4:00 pmWiz, my son likes Diet Sunkist and Diet Barq’s Red Cream Soda are wonderful; he thinks Diet 7-Up is the official drink of Hell.
Comment #64 by RayFebruary 23rd, 2009 at 4:49 pmWow, that first sentence got butchered between my brain and my fingers.
Comment #65 by RayFebruary 23rd, 2009 at 4:50 pmThis post absolutely made my day, I laughed so hard. Thanks! I had heard of GOOP a month or so ago, but forgot about it. The person who told me about it had the same attitude as you do—seriously, the majority of the world doesn’t live that life! We’re all juggling work and school and children and dinner and scrubbing the toilet by hand and driving across town in the clunky too-old-car and whatnot.
Although I will say that I’m a fan of Gwyneth’s acting. She’s a great actress, and so cute as Pepper in Iron Man. But she’s never had a normal, average life. Her whole family is in show business. She went to private school. (but not college!) She’s trendy and worldly and on perfume counters. Even though I love her, I don’t want advice from her. I’d rather take advice from my visiting teachers, school teachers, grandma, or anyone who is closer to my standard of living, which is closer to just trying to make it through…survive. Endure.
Comment #66 by AmyFebruary 23rd, 2009 at 5:28 pmAt the risk of offending everyone here but Natasha, I don’t think what she said was so awful it warranted all the flack. Yeah someone could have been snarky back to her and left it at that. She did apologize, a couple of times, I see. Could she possibly be venting because she’s having a bad day and Melissa’s post hit the hot button trigger? I know I’ve been there a couple of times myself and made a major gaffe when I shouldn’t have. Am I now? Sigh.
Too much drama over Gwynnie I’d say.
No, this comment does not have anything to do with the original post, other that the comments it garnered. Sorry in advance for that.
Comment #67 by robynFebruary 23rd, 2009 at 7:31 pmrobyn, your comment is reasonable, calmly stated, and perfectly acceptable. No major gaffes. No major profanity, either, which is always a plus.
Comment #68 by Heather O.February 23rd, 2009 at 8:33 pmOne more point about commenting in general, and then I’ll stop talking about it, I swear.
There are blogs that I have stopped reading because of the tone of the commentors. The posts may be well written and thought provoking, but I don’t frequent the blog because I can predict what it will degenerate into in the comments, and it’s not something I want to be a part of.
As you have seen in this thread, many commentors were put off not by Melissa’s post, but by the tone the thread took after Natasha’s initial comments. Asking her to back off (which was done repeatedly) is not about sycophantic blogging, or not willing to have people disagree with you, or even about having thin skin. This is about maintaining a certian kind of tone on the blog.
Inevitably, when comments turn into personal attacks, it changes the tone of the blog, and never for the better. In turn, the negativity drives out the good, it becomes mostly about the attacks, good people head elsewhere, and what you are left with isn’t pretty. It’s also one reason that the bigger Mormon blogs, BCC, T&S, and FMH, have no qualms about banning people. They have worked hard to make their blog what it is, and they do what they can to keep the blog what they want it to be. And so they should.
I could dissect Natasha’s comments and explain why I found them objectionable, but I’m too tired, and frankly, I doubt most of y’all care. Needless to say, the tirade was unpleasant at best, and it turned an otherwise funny tongue-in-cheek post into…something else.
Comment #69 by Heather O.February 23rd, 2009 at 9:54 pmGreat point, Heather O. I love coming to MMW to read funny observations about the craziness that is being a mother. I don’t really care to read about controversy. If I wanted controversy, I could go to FMH. But I don’t, I just want a few laughs and a feeling of comraderie.
Comment #70 by TiffanyFebruary 24th, 2009 at 7:09 amWhen I think of goop, I think of eye boogers, not “nourishing the inner aspect.”
Thanks for the post Melissa. I thought it was hilarious.
I visit MMW and FMH every day and love both of them. But for different reasons.
Comment #71 by berzerkcarrottopFebruary 24th, 2009 at 10:28 amHi, Heather… Delurking to say that I followed this conversation and went back to read on this woman Natasha’s blog to get some perspective. At the risk of dredging this up when you clearly want to forget it, something happened here that made me uncomfortable and wasn’t fitting for MMW.
You make a good point when you say that it’s a big expectation for us to represent the church. It’s a lot to ask and we’re not perfect. A lot of what we say and do can be chalked up to missteps on the journey to perfection. However, the second greatest commandment is to love our neighbor as ourselves. So, it seems that if there’s anything we should avoid online it is unkind judgment. The scriptures tell us to be a light unto the world.
You talk about the critical tone of Natasha’s comment but what of the critical tone in the writer’s post? Think about it… if someone says something, even in everyday conversation, that is seen as being unjustly critical toward someone, how is someone else supposed to be able to comment that such a statement was inappropriate without themselves being labeled as being inappropriate? Even if Natasha’s comment was not ideal, it’s understandable if she thought the entire post was serious and she was responding to something she believed was immoral. So her comment wasn’t perfect. Bloggers can vent but commenters cannot? You should make those rules more clear. The tone of her comments improved vastly as they went on.
If someone is criticizing the negativity of an original comment, that seems fair game to me, and it doesn’t mean the second criticism is as bad as the first, because after all, the second criticism is criticizing a negative, while the original criticism was criticizing just for the sake of criticizing.
The post in question did set the whole tone. It seemed a petty attack on Paltrow, implying that she was out of touch with reality, and that we real moms know better and don’t need to be bothered with her ideas. You said something about only saying what you’d be willing to say in front of someone. I know that if I heard someone communicating in the same manner as Melissa, I’d feel comfortable responding in a manner similar to Natasha, although not exactly the way she did. Particularly if I heard someone at church speak this way. The greatest commandment is charity. Would you all be willing to voice your criticisms to Ms. Paltrow’s face the way you did here?
There are different types of satire, and this played out like critical satire instead of playful satire. I think each post should stand on its own. New readers can’t be reading disclaimers about how they should be expected to approach each post based on the overall atmosphere of the blog. And Natasha said she was not familiar with the blog. You have no commenting policy near the commenting box. It doesn’t say, “Our blog is not like other blogs. We may call it Mormon Mommy ‘Wars’ but really, when you disagree with something, we want you to say it like this: ‘Hey, that’s not cool. I disagree.’”
Also, standing behind satire does not give a writer license to be critical. Is the explanation that the writer was only kidding and wasn’t really being critical of Paltrow? I’d be interested in hearing that explanation. There seem to be scattered elements of satire within the original piece, but as a whole it doesn’t strike me as a satirical piece.
After reading through Natasha’s blog, I think I’m familiar enough with her voice to say that her tone here was not unreasonable or “way out of line”, especially considering she thought the post was entirely serious. It seems to be a similar tone as she uses when joking. I’d describe it as matter-of-fact, to which I relate, and sort of… staccato. And I can’t find where she said Melissa Mc was a bad writer. She only commented on whether or not the piece was suitably satirical. After the apologies, contrite tone, and the smiley faces, I saw no forgiveness shown toward her. The reaction seemed a little bit over-the-top. You seem to be focusing on profanity used and on being nice the way you define “nice”, while ignoring the greater sin: your own uncharitable judgment of Gwyneth Paltrow, in the name of “humor”.
I, for one, was very impressed with her new “commenting policy”, which I suspect was in response to this post. She makes a good point about the slippery slope of censorship.
Comment #72 by racheljFebruary 24th, 2009 at 11:46 pmrachelj- thanks for your well-reasoned response. Since I am the one who jumped in with Natasha first, I’ll respond, but only very briefly. I deleted six comments from her, that is probably why you don’t see some pieces of the puzzle. Is this the right thing to do? I don’t know- but I do know if blog (any blog) administrators do nothing, their blog deteriorates, and the readers leave.
We’ve also had several very long emails from her.
Point of fact- the three other LDS blogs bigger than us (Times and Seasons, By Common Consent and Feminist Mormon Housewives) all ban and delete commenters daily- and they do so without discussion or comment. It’s part of having a blog.
We try to be open and discuss our feelings. It becomes tedious when it’s clear we have differing viewpoints. So we leave it alone.
As far as a comment policy: We have discussed this. Many blogs have them. We have chosen not to, and to address the few instances where it’s come up on an as-needed basis. Most people don’t read them anyway.
You can call me uncharitible towards Gwyneth Paltrow if you want- I’m ok with that. I’m also OK with firmly stating, and would in her presence, that she cannont understand my life. I cannot understand hers. I don’t give her advice on acting, being married to a rockstar, or being a multi-millionare movie star.
The end.
Comment #73 by Tracy MFebruary 25th, 2009 at 12:47 am