Jul 17, 2023·edited Jul 17, 2023Liked by Tara McMullin
This got me all fired up :) Love it.
It also strikes me that there's this almost (dare I say to the religion major...) origination idea playing out here, where masculine encoded creation springs from...nowhere? The genius head of the creator? Divine inspiration? A lightening bolt?
Whereas feminized creation is always from somewhere and in relationship (and therefor inferior...since it's in relationship to other thinking, people, etc... "derivative"). Content that is perceived or touted as truly original (solipsistic) is more valued.
And then...this is what really kills me about it: they're just making invisible all the relational work, and more importantly lineages of ideas. Like, I believe these (mostly) men who say that say they don't engage all that much with other content. What I don't believe is that their ideas come through them like some sort of Edenic Adam. So what they're really doing is eliding the extraction their engaged in. Erasing lineage and connection is de facto colonialist.
Anyway...not to dunk on Jay because what he's saying is the same thing lots of folks are saying, but also, tell me you're a straight white man without telling me you're a straight white man.
I totally support your theological analysis here ;) I cut the reference to Immanuel Kant and his notion of genius—but it's a similar notion, where the genius is who "gives rule to art." And that, to me, sounds an awful lot like idea of man having "dominion" over creation. And THAT, as you said, is part of the justification for colonialism.
Also, (1) "eliding the extraction they're engaged in" is some fine alliteration. (2) this is what's always bothered me about the culture around online content. Why does "no one" cite their sources? Why does everyone pretend they can pass off ideas as their own that clearly originated elsewhere? Why do people continue to post the same damn formats as everyone else? This is very much my autistic brain talking now—lol. I'm just dumbfounded that we can't see the pattern!
After a decade being off social media, I (begrudgingly) created a website/instagram account two weeks ago to get more work out and connect with the writing community. This post was fascinating and helpful as I wade back into this strange world (Newsflash: Instagram is SO different than it was 10 years ago!!) as writer. Thanks so much for sharing these reflections.
SO DIFFERENT. Like, it's amazing we even call it by the same name! And, I'm biased, but I think the writing community here on Substack is pretty great.
Did you read the post Peter Yang restacked recently about the two types of social media platforms: media and social? It seems like this divide extends to you and Jay as well. One of you wants to use social as a social creator and the other as a media creator/ https://substack.com/@petergyang/note/c-18694961
Oh! I did NOT see that. But I will read it ASAP. I think that's a useful distinction—and I'm also interested in what social+media creation really looks like, the kind that might make use of more human capabilities that just creation/consuming. And I also wonder if that distinction might further inscribe the gender dynamics piece. Who is expected to be a social creator versus who is expected to be a media creator?
I think that's fair. My business partner is a WOC and the things she's expected to talk about is wildly different from me, and vice versa. Even when I do a mindset post in our group, she is thanked for posting it. Meanwhile, if she writes about business concepts, people eviscerate her.
Do you know Becca Syme? She coaches authors, and she created a "stuck deck" to help people get out of writer's block burnout. There are some very cool things happening at the intersection of social and media for sure.
This got me all fired up :) Love it.
It also strikes me that there's this almost (dare I say to the religion major...) origination idea playing out here, where masculine encoded creation springs from...nowhere? The genius head of the creator? Divine inspiration? A lightening bolt?
Whereas feminized creation is always from somewhere and in relationship (and therefor inferior...since it's in relationship to other thinking, people, etc... "derivative"). Content that is perceived or touted as truly original (solipsistic) is more valued.
And then...this is what really kills me about it: they're just making invisible all the relational work, and more importantly lineages of ideas. Like, I believe these (mostly) men who say that say they don't engage all that much with other content. What I don't believe is that their ideas come through them like some sort of Edenic Adam. So what they're really doing is eliding the extraction their engaged in. Erasing lineage and connection is de facto colonialist.
Anyway...not to dunk on Jay because what he's saying is the same thing lots of folks are saying, but also, tell me you're a straight white man without telling me you're a straight white man.
I totally support your theological analysis here ;) I cut the reference to Immanuel Kant and his notion of genius—but it's a similar notion, where the genius is who "gives rule to art." And that, to me, sounds an awful lot like idea of man having "dominion" over creation. And THAT, as you said, is part of the justification for colonialism.
Also, (1) "eliding the extraction they're engaged in" is some fine alliteration. (2) this is what's always bothered me about the culture around online content. Why does "no one" cite their sources? Why does everyone pretend they can pass off ideas as their own that clearly originated elsewhere? Why do people continue to post the same damn formats as everyone else? This is very much my autistic brain talking now—lol. I'm just dumbfounded that we can't see the pattern!
Do colonizers ever "see" their patterns? Domination always requires obfuscation of truth.
After a decade being off social media, I (begrudgingly) created a website/instagram account two weeks ago to get more work out and connect with the writing community. This post was fascinating and helpful as I wade back into this strange world (Newsflash: Instagram is SO different than it was 10 years ago!!) as writer. Thanks so much for sharing these reflections.
SO DIFFERENT. Like, it's amazing we even call it by the same name! And, I'm biased, but I think the writing community here on Substack is pretty great.
Did you read the post Peter Yang restacked recently about the two types of social media platforms: media and social? It seems like this divide extends to you and Jay as well. One of you wants to use social as a social creator and the other as a media creator/ https://substack.com/@petergyang/note/c-18694961
Oh! I did NOT see that. But I will read it ASAP. I think that's a useful distinction—and I'm also interested in what social+media creation really looks like, the kind that might make use of more human capabilities that just creation/consuming. And I also wonder if that distinction might further inscribe the gender dynamics piece. Who is expected to be a social creator versus who is expected to be a media creator?
I think that's fair. My business partner is a WOC and the things she's expected to talk about is wildly different from me, and vice versa. Even when I do a mindset post in our group, she is thanked for posting it. Meanwhile, if she writes about business concepts, people eviscerate her.
Do you know Becca Syme? She coaches authors, and she created a "stuck deck" to help people get out of writer's block burnout. There are some very cool things happening at the intersection of social and media for sure.