I think some of it's an unintended consequence of Notes. Notes induces more interaction, including from random people who lack context or aren’t part of a community. It triggers learned behaviors from X. That’s my pet theory anyways.
Thoughtful, well-written and well-reasoned, as always, Jeff.
If folks came around to the thinking you expressed in this paragraph, we'd have healthier and more fruitful conversations:
"Still, it’s time we moved beyond a reductive, boys-vs-girls mindset when it comes to issues like the Doyle drama. This isn’t second grade. It’s not Gamergate either. Not every issue has to be filtered through a rigid identity or justice framework. Identity is relevant in some conversations more than others. And when it is, not every opinion from an outside group stems from bigotry or self-interest. So let’s stop assuming that."
Two tangents, since reading your work always helps me arrive at these:
Firstly, there’s this lovely quote: “I find myself uneasy with the genre wherein women publicly expose their personal traumas, and whether intentionally or not, transform their vulnerabilities into a business model.” I might be inclined to agree, but if we correct for the timescale, this is just admission into target universities today. We as a society select for and reward those who can most effectively garner empathy in a zero sum marketplace. Which means we have the best leaders at pitching sob stories, and this has almost no correlation with being good versus adversaries (China) who aren’t motivated so. Hell, that’s how we get a majority of people my age siding with Palestinian terrorists whose evil awarded them the suffering society so exalts.
Relatedly, the second concern is that empathy distribution is zero sum, and that it’s only socially acceptable to blame acceptable factors. It’s a bit like that joke of a man looking for his car keys, which he lost in a park, under the street light because that is the only place he can see. We blame “gun” violence but not people, drugs but not the users, education funding but never public school teachers, politicians but never voters, and men who (body) shame women but never evaluate why bullying is worse in all-girls schools. It’s a grand totem pole.
Side note: there is a pattern to your writing where you put forth emotional vulnerability and sentiments, but you lay these on a very rational framework with pertinence, observables, and evidenced conclusions. Goldilocks zone of the gay writer?
To your first point: well said about competition for empathy. To your side note: thanks for the underhanded compliment. It's not a gay thing. You'll appreciate this — it's a deliberate strategy to (a) embrace a personal essay genre and (b) differentiate from ChatGPT while (c) keeping it grounded in logic and (d) making it fun to read. Here's an old essay where I thought through some of this: https://jeffgiesea.substack.com/p/how-to-write-better-than-chatgpt
Thanks. And not underhanded. I found that many of the writers I really like end up being a gay. It’s a level of emotionality that’s very substantiated.
You know, it’s both funny and strangely optimistic that I can make this blunder. I grew up in a world where saying something is gay is potentially an insult, but rarely one ever directed at anyone who is actually homosexual. And a compliment about something being of this origin is usually a strange form of male chauvinism, where one of our cohort has surpassed the limitations of the straight majority. Arts, writing, fashion, even politics.. In a fantasy world, this would be like the Dwarves of Ethereal Mine Deep who are more graceful than the elves. Yet, I imagine that in your generation the majority of the time you encountered such comments they were probably not well-meaning. I should be more mindful of this.
This reminds me of the "no uterus, no opinion" sign that some women use to protest with regarding abortion rights.
Well, stop me before I opine again, then!
But what if my opinion agrees with yours? Is that OK?
So much of this seems to be license for some women to be assholes--not to strategically advance a cause, but out of some base will to power. Unfortunately, the power they are aiming for is not the persuasive kind--to put it another way, it's the asshole's veto.
This is such a frustrating false dichotomy that you have set up. It's not "women can be assholes and no man can comment on a women's issue or else women are entitled to be assholes." It's men shouldn't comment on certain womens' issues, and women shouldn't be assholes under any circumstances. It's interesting to me that the author only cites examples of someone being an asshole while criticizing the male author's commentary on an issue of a woman's victimhood. Yes this is the data currently available and what actually happened in this case. But would the story hold up if women were politely requesting that the author and men not common on issues of a woman's victimhood? I don't think that would be as well received.
I think you are trying to fit a moral and ethical framework onto something that is a simple zero-sum contest of power. The discourse is writers’ livelihood and folks can and should use all of the tools at their disposal to eliminate competitors.
Looking at Substack in economic terms, it is not a "simple zero-sum contest of power". If I, a Substack dilettante, conmment on a post by a Subsack star like Ted Gioia - or Jeff Giesea - and my comment receives attention, that is probably more to my benefit than it is to the benefit of Ted or Jeff.
There is certainly a Pareto effect in Substack, but not as strong as in more traditional literary spheres of influence like The New Yorker, Granta or The Hudson Review. And not as strong as in book publishing.
"Us(ing) all of the tools at their disposal to eliminate competitors" strikes me as ineffective, counter-productive and toxically hyper-masculine. Are writers on Substack directly competing? If I read Jeff, does it mean that I won't read Ted? Certainly not. And it is unlikely that criticism or negative action by me could affect them.
I often see the "eliminate competitors" view of the world among highly competitive men who spent too much time in sports and think of the entire world in sports terms - "the bracket", the "knockout round", the "championship", etc. In both business and in the arts, this principle is ineffective and deleterious, both to specific outcomes and to the psyche of the individual.
And, as an organizing principle for a creative, it strikes me as depressingly bitter and counter-productive to the real effort of producing one's best possible work and letting it stand on its own.
Agree with you completely. From a business standpoint, it's a good thing for a marketplace to grow, and the zero-sum, scarcity-mindset claims are falsifiable by looking at the growth of other social media outlets which drove more attention even as creators increased. That said, I'm not as familiar with the market dynamics around individual subscriptions, and I think many writers who want to make a living here don't think enough about creating a moat. Barriers to entry are low. Differentiation isn't substantial. My advice to these people would be to grow a community with community participation because that's one place you can build network effects.
You continuously address women as a class rather than people throughout this piece, subverting your argument that we should not police speech based on gender. Your piece is literally addressing the response of a particular class (women) to your post. Isn't it presumable that a man could find fault with you commenting on a womens' victimhood issue as a man, just as a woman could? But you don't consider that as a possibility.
Ok but you never bothered to ask WHY that woman and a few others were so upset. You didn’t address that in this piece or explain how you are different from the men who comment inappropriately and from a biased place. It’s not “ID politics or not ID politics.” We take things on a case by case basis. Did you say something from a biased take or not? Clearly, those aggressive commenters didn’t really get to that question, they were just mad. Ok so she was aggressive. My question for you is “so what?” Your post stays up for others to read. Why does someone being aggressive mean that you are in any way silenced or wronged? The danger is pieces like this purporting that something is fundamentally wrong when we disagree or someone is triggered and says something mean, when it isn’t. I don’t think this piece contributes anything other than “women, stop being assholes.” Which really just isn’t a great take.
Thanks for your thoughts. You can see my exchange in the image above, and I linked to another example in the post. I never advocated dismissing all critique and agree that we should take things case by case. But in these instances and others, I saw good-faith commentary being critiqued with name-calling on the basis of gender alone, not substance. That’s what I wanted to explore. My point isn't “women, stop being assholes." It’s a message to all of us to not reduce people to their identity and assume bad faith because of it. I see this a lot. I think we should all be allowed to engage honestly, even imperfectly, without being cast as villains from the outset because of our Y chromosome. If you don't see it the same way or think that's a good take, fine.
"It’s a message to all of us to not reduce people to their identity and assume bad faith because of it."
Reducing people to their identity and assuming bad faith are not the same thing though and the second must not necessarily follow the first. The commenter was reducing you to your identity yes. But she was not necessarily assuming bad faith (I'm not in her head, so I can't say either way). She may have legitimately been arguing a point that men should not comment on the issue of womens' victimhood. She may legitimately believe this, as I do. That doesn't mean I'm assuming bad faith. I just legitimately think men don't get to comment on this particular topic. Does someone accidentally walking into a passerby mean they did it because they definitely love bumping into people? No. Does that mean I think it's great to bump into people? Also no.
Does your logic also apply to abortion? How far does this go?
…every day substack edges nearer and nearer to becoming a parody of a suburban high school drama tv show cancelled after one pilot episode on the WB…
True, especially with this Doyle drama
Yes, but why?
And it seems to me that those who are not at the "cool kids" table at the "suburban high school" are dropping away from Substack.
Much is being lost.
I think some of it's an unintended consequence of Notes. Notes induces more interaction, including from random people who lack context or aren’t part of a community. It triggers learned behaviors from X. That’s my pet theory anyways.
Thoughtful, well-written and well-reasoned, as always, Jeff.
If folks came around to the thinking you expressed in this paragraph, we'd have healthier and more fruitful conversations:
"Still, it’s time we moved beyond a reductive, boys-vs-girls mindset when it comes to issues like the Doyle drama. This isn’t second grade. It’s not Gamergate either. Not every issue has to be filtered through a rigid identity or justice framework. Identity is relevant in some conversations more than others. And when it is, not every opinion from an outside group stems from bigotry or self-interest. So let’s stop assuming that."
Thanks Lee
Lovely piece. I hope Substack doesn’t turn into Twitter/X and suffer the tragedy of the commons.
Thanks. It has felt like Twitter in Notes lately. I'm trying to resist that pull.
Two tangents, since reading your work always helps me arrive at these:
Firstly, there’s this lovely quote: “I find myself uneasy with the genre wherein women publicly expose their personal traumas, and whether intentionally or not, transform their vulnerabilities into a business model.” I might be inclined to agree, but if we correct for the timescale, this is just admission into target universities today. We as a society select for and reward those who can most effectively garner empathy in a zero sum marketplace. Which means we have the best leaders at pitching sob stories, and this has almost no correlation with being good versus adversaries (China) who aren’t motivated so. Hell, that’s how we get a majority of people my age siding with Palestinian terrorists whose evil awarded them the suffering society so exalts.
Relatedly, the second concern is that empathy distribution is zero sum, and that it’s only socially acceptable to blame acceptable factors. It’s a bit like that joke of a man looking for his car keys, which he lost in a park, under the street light because that is the only place he can see. We blame “gun” violence but not people, drugs but not the users, education funding but never public school teachers, politicians but never voters, and men who (body) shame women but never evaluate why bullying is worse in all-girls schools. It’s a grand totem pole.
Side note: there is a pattern to your writing where you put forth emotional vulnerability and sentiments, but you lay these on a very rational framework with pertinence, observables, and evidenced conclusions. Goldilocks zone of the gay writer?
To your first point: well said about competition for empathy. To your side note: thanks for the underhanded compliment. It's not a gay thing. You'll appreciate this — it's a deliberate strategy to (a) embrace a personal essay genre and (b) differentiate from ChatGPT while (c) keeping it grounded in logic and (d) making it fun to read. Here's an old essay where I thought through some of this: https://jeffgiesea.substack.com/p/how-to-write-better-than-chatgpt
Thanks. And not underhanded. I found that many of the writers I really like end up being a gay. It’s a level of emotionality that’s very substantiated.
Thanks, I'll take the compliment. I see what you mean and agree.
You know, it’s both funny and strangely optimistic that I can make this blunder. I grew up in a world where saying something is gay is potentially an insult, but rarely one ever directed at anyone who is actually homosexual. And a compliment about something being of this origin is usually a strange form of male chauvinism, where one of our cohort has surpassed the limitations of the straight majority. Arts, writing, fashion, even politics.. In a fantasy world, this would be like the Dwarves of Ethereal Mine Deep who are more graceful than the elves. Yet, I imagine that in your generation the majority of the time you encountered such comments they were probably not well-meaning. I should be more mindful of this.
I don’t lose sleep over this stuff, especially when the intent is benign or positive.
This reminds me of the "no uterus, no opinion" sign that some women use to protest with regarding abortion rights.
Well, stop me before I opine again, then!
But what if my opinion agrees with yours? Is that OK?
So much of this seems to be license for some women to be assholes--not to strategically advance a cause, but out of some base will to power. Unfortunately, the power they are aiming for is not the persuasive kind--to put it another way, it's the asshole's veto.
Identity politics can give people a cover to be assholes, but I think (hope?) most people and the broader culture see through it increasingly.
This is such a frustrating false dichotomy that you have set up. It's not "women can be assholes and no man can comment on a women's issue or else women are entitled to be assholes." It's men shouldn't comment on certain womens' issues, and women shouldn't be assholes under any circumstances. It's interesting to me that the author only cites examples of someone being an asshole while criticizing the male author's commentary on an issue of a woman's victimhood. Yes this is the data currently available and what actually happened in this case. But would the story hold up if women were politely requesting that the author and men not common on issues of a woman's victimhood? I don't think that would be as well received.
I think you are trying to fit a moral and ethical framework onto something that is a simple zero-sum contest of power. The discourse is writers’ livelihood and folks can and should use all of the tools at their disposal to eliminate competitors.
I don't agree it's zero-sum (marketplaces grow), but I can see how some view it that way.
Looking at Substack in economic terms, it is not a "simple zero-sum contest of power". If I, a Substack dilettante, conmment on a post by a Subsack star like Ted Gioia - or Jeff Giesea - and my comment receives attention, that is probably more to my benefit than it is to the benefit of Ted or Jeff.
There is certainly a Pareto effect in Substack, but not as strong as in more traditional literary spheres of influence like The New Yorker, Granta or The Hudson Review. And not as strong as in book publishing.
"Us(ing) all of the tools at their disposal to eliminate competitors" strikes me as ineffective, counter-productive and toxically hyper-masculine. Are writers on Substack directly competing? If I read Jeff, does it mean that I won't read Ted? Certainly not. And it is unlikely that criticism or negative action by me could affect them.
I often see the "eliminate competitors" view of the world among highly competitive men who spent too much time in sports and think of the entire world in sports terms - "the bracket", the "knockout round", the "championship", etc. In both business and in the arts, this principle is ineffective and deleterious, both to specific outcomes and to the psyche of the individual.
And, as an organizing principle for a creative, it strikes me as depressingly bitter and counter-productive to the real effort of producing one's best possible work and letting it stand on its own.
What would Montaigne have done?
Agree with you completely. From a business standpoint, it's a good thing for a marketplace to grow, and the zero-sum, scarcity-mindset claims are falsifiable by looking at the growth of other social media outlets which drove more attention even as creators increased. That said, I'm not as familiar with the market dynamics around individual subscriptions, and I think many writers who want to make a living here don't think enough about creating a moat. Barriers to entry are low. Differentiation isn't substantial. My advice to these people would be to grow a community with community participation because that's one place you can build network effects.
There is so much going on here, and to be honest, I wasn't even aware of the controversy until I read your post.
What happens next?
Nothing. It's just a petty, stupid drama. Probably best to just ignore it.
"To be clear, most women weren’t like that"
You continuously address women as a class rather than people throughout this piece, subverting your argument that we should not police speech based on gender. Your piece is literally addressing the response of a particular class (women) to your post. Isn't it presumable that a man could find fault with you commenting on a womens' victimhood issue as a man, just as a woman could? But you don't consider that as a possibility.
Ok but you never bothered to ask WHY that woman and a few others were so upset. You didn’t address that in this piece or explain how you are different from the men who comment inappropriately and from a biased place. It’s not “ID politics or not ID politics.” We take things on a case by case basis. Did you say something from a biased take or not? Clearly, those aggressive commenters didn’t really get to that question, they were just mad. Ok so she was aggressive. My question for you is “so what?” Your post stays up for others to read. Why does someone being aggressive mean that you are in any way silenced or wronged? The danger is pieces like this purporting that something is fundamentally wrong when we disagree or someone is triggered and says something mean, when it isn’t. I don’t think this piece contributes anything other than “women, stop being assholes.” Which really just isn’t a great take.
Thanks for your thoughts. You can see my exchange in the image above, and I linked to another example in the post. I never advocated dismissing all critique and agree that we should take things case by case. But in these instances and others, I saw good-faith commentary being critiqued with name-calling on the basis of gender alone, not substance. That’s what I wanted to explore. My point isn't “women, stop being assholes." It’s a message to all of us to not reduce people to their identity and assume bad faith because of it. I see this a lot. I think we should all be allowed to engage honestly, even imperfectly, without being cast as villains from the outset because of our Y chromosome. If you don't see it the same way or think that's a good take, fine.
"It’s a message to all of us to not reduce people to their identity and assume bad faith because of it."
Reducing people to their identity and assuming bad faith are not the same thing though and the second must not necessarily follow the first. The commenter was reducing you to your identity yes. But she was not necessarily assuming bad faith (I'm not in her head, so I can't say either way). She may have legitimately been arguing a point that men should not comment on the issue of womens' victimhood. She may legitimately believe this, as I do. That doesn't mean I'm assuming bad faith. I just legitimately think men don't get to comment on this particular topic. Does someone accidentally walking into a passerby mean they did it because they definitely love bumping into people? No. Does that mean I think it's great to bump into people? Also no.
Does your logic also apply to abortion? How far does this go?