So, there's another less than flattering article about Mommy Bloggers out there.

The Detroit Free Press reporting on World of Sex, Lies and mommy blogs (how very salacious) is the latest entry (that I know of) since the New York Times' Honey, Don’t Bother Mommy. I’m Too Busy Building My Brand.

Here's the deal: these types of articles aren't entirely accurate, we know that, and I'm pretty sure they're not intended to be.

But, honestly? And, this may be an unpopular stance:

Some (did you read the "some" part?) of the wailing and gnashing of teeth in response to these articles isn't really doing much to dispel the press notion of silly little minivan-driving women scouring the Internet (after our husbands teach us how to use it by installing a special browser just! for! mom!, of course) for coupons* and playing online games.

I don't for a minute pretend I know what you think, how you feel or how you should respond, but, stop for just a moment and think about it: There was something inaccurate on the Internet? Really?

Of course, blogging isn't all about the stuff of many of these articles.

I know that. You know that.

Journalists can be sensationalistic and antagonistic, this is nothing new. This is what sells papers, gets page views or whatever.

It's their job.

And, our reactions? Probably just give credence to the belief that it's a hot topic that should be written about over and over from every controversial angle.

Are inaccurate perceptions frustrating? You betcha. (/Sarah Palin)

Hello? I'm Catholic. I know all about inaccurate perceptions, but I'm probably not going to be able to change them by a scathing comment or blog post.

Are you going to change people's minds by protesting on a blog they think is stupid in the first place?

I don't know, but aren't these the same people who think Twitter is only people talking about what they had for lunch? (A cheeseburger, thank you very much.)

Are these people who are going to listen to anything? Do they really have to know "our side" at all costs?

It just seems like it would be more productive for bloggers to just keep doing what they do, and respond by example so when curious onlookers click over (if the newspaper even bothers to provide a link) they find out for themselves and say. "What's the big deal? I don't see what that writer is talking about, I actually like this."

And? I know that the beauty of blogging is that anyone can write about whatever they please, and I know we should be able to stand up for what we believe in, but, the unflattering stereotypes do have roots somewhere, take a moment to consider: are you contributing to them?

(You might think that was the "rhetorical you", but it wasn't, I'm talking to you in the yellow over there on the left.

Yes, you with the new iPad. Hand it over, and I'll quit talking smack about you.)

And, good grief, no that doesn't mean I think these portrayals are "deserved".

I just think it would be good if everyone looked inward for a bit, but as with most things, I fear the biggest offenders will never see themselves.

I do, however, reserve the right to rail on endlessly if blogging is called a "modern day coffee klatch" one more time, though.

*Nothing against women, minivans or coupons, I'm just indicating that this seems to be the perception of what "mommies using those complicated ol' computers" are doing online, judging by my PR pitches.