I'm concerned that sharing content is corrupting our epistemology.
Culture is a function of media, not vice-versa. You can debate the validity of this in a vacuum, but the historical applications of media on culture are indisputable. It should be firstly assumed that digital articles, social media accounts, news outlets, celebrity endorsements, and major university publications are primarily
instructive, not informative. This has been the correct way to view media since the 1930's onward, regardless of how many people get upset and call you names because you negated or didn't regurgitate their naive ideals.
Academics, public relation firms, and media conglomerates openly discuss how they use media to shape culture to their desired image on a regular basis. They themselves even make popular, easily accessible documentaries where they interview each other on how their team achieved their cultural and political goals (eg.
Century of the Self and
Hollywoodism).
If you'd still rather argue that media is instead a
product of culture, then you can also read public UK government documents on nudge teams or the CDC's policy on propaganda protocols for covid. You can get these documents off of official government websites right now if you want. None of this is secretive. They openly tell us how they're going to manipulate our culture in advance, in direct language. Those who still insist on calling others "paranoid conspiracy theorists" can watch the latest video from
Lock Picking Lawyer. You have no excuses.
Ok, so we're all on the same page now?
That being said, the content that OP regulary links to poses a problem for us. It ruins the way we think problems through by starting us off with faulty assumptions. It's incorrect to think of this blog as a kind of bottom-up source of information that relates in any way to what the average person thinks (ie. Emily Gould is not some average woman sharing her life experiences in the marketplace of ideas. She's a bonafide propogandist for medium-high level media whose very career is to change culture in a professionally predetermined way. The people interviewed in Century of the Self
are same people she goes to meetings with).
The correct way to interpret it is instead "this blog is instructing women to believe/behave X, Y, and Z" You can't base any understanding off of it since whether those ideas get adopted or not is yet to be determined. It is in no way, shape, or form a representation or insight into female thought (but it will likely be in the near future, since propodana works).
I see this kind of content linked here often.
Please stop consuming it or reacting to it. That food is for the pigs.