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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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