This post feels kind of sad to me, because it makes writing seem like an exclusive club where only the truly original or profound get to participate. But writing - no matter how generic - is a good exercise for the mind, a healthy hobby, and something everyone should feel encouraged to do, regardless of whether others find it groundbreaking.
And if this is specifically targeting young women in their 20s, it taps into a bigger issue: the way girls and women are so often mocked for enjoying things. Of course, there will be overlap in what they (or we) write about. They’re at similar life stages, navigating similar experiences, and those experiences naturally shape their writing. That doesn’t mean their perspectives aren’t valid or worth exploring. Not everything has to be the most original thought ever to be meaningful.
Undermining other people’s writing just because it doesn’t meet some arbitrary standard of uniqueness doesn’t do much except discourage people from expressing themselves. And that’s a shame, because writing should be for everyone.
I get where you’re coming from but I really did not mean to deter anyone from writing, writing is an art and I’m making fun of the fact that this “substack style” has become recognizable
deciding what is unique is not up to me, and whether this piece makes you sad or not is up to you
I get that you didn’t mean to deter anyone from writing, but I do think it’s worth being mindful of how your work can be percieved by others, exactly the same way you percieve the work of 20-somethings to be “recognizable”. Because yes, writing is an art, but it’s also a skill that takes practice, and dismissing certain styles as overdone or unoriginal can make people feel like they don’t have a place in it.
Also, satire is meant to punch up, not down. If the joke is at the expense of young women who are just trying to express themselves, it starts to feel less like commentary and more like gatekeeping. And sure, whether this post makes me sad is technically up to me—but that feels like the easy way out if you don’t want to take accountability for how your own writing is perceived or the consequences it can have. If people are telling you that something feels discouraging, it’s worth thinking about why that is instead of brushing it off as just their personal reaction. The big difference is “recognizable” posts from young women doesn’t hurt anyone, but this kind of rhetoric actually have the potential to.
It’s not really proper satire if it punches downward though, but it’s fair that you’re not up for discussion about it, I just think that writing pieces like this invites debate. And also, I’m not trying to be a hater if that’s what you gathered from this, I’m just trying to share my view and I wanted to hear yours as well. No offense intended on my part, I just politely disagree.
I guess you violated the unspoken social code that having less than glowing gushing commentary on a trendy writing style (that the writers put online, for consumption) is as bad as insulting their mother
I see a lot of buzzwords - "gatekeeping" "accountability" "harm" "mindful" - but not one reason for this post to not exist.
I think I’ve made plenty of arguments for why satire that punches downward can be harmful. Satire works best when it challenges power, not when it reinforces it at the expense of people who are already on the receiving end of mockery. If the joke is just making fun of an easy target without offering anything new or insightful, then what’s the point?
Also, I’m not saying anyone is violating some imaginary ‘social code’—I’m saying that criticism exists, and if you’re writing something online, you should expect people to engage back. As for ‘buzzwords,’ just because a term gets used often doesn’t make it meaningless. If anything, dismissing concepts like harm or accountability without addressing what they actually mean is the real shortcut in the conversation.
An observation/parody of what has emerged as the dominant style of substack among a certain type of people (by someone who is, as far as I can tell, one of that group - a young woman), is most definitely what I'd call insightful and new. Who are these people that they should be immune from even the most gentle mockery by one of their own? And what is OP's "up" position that she's "punching down" at them from or is it just "has a substack and wrote one post that a lot of people happened to agree with"?
"If you're writing something online, you should expect people to engage back" - the shoe is on the other foot because that's exactly what OP did, just on her own terms. And your reaction bears out what I said.
Writing is still for everyone, these posts don’t dictate who is and who isn’t! I think being able to poke fun n not take everything seriously makes navigating this app sm easier bc Unfortunately there will always be haters and people with contrarian opinions. I do hear where ur coming from for sure and worth bringing up bc it does get to a point, but I hate to see girls on here feeling discouraged bc of what random people behind a screen are saying. Up to us to decide to shine anyway kind of thing :P again I do wholeheartedly agree w u, just another POV!
I totally get where you’re coming from, and I appreciate your perspective too! It’s true that not taking everything too seriously helps make everything more enjoyable, and I absolutely agree that people should post whatever they want.
That being said, I just feel that posts like this can sometimes (maybe unintentionally) discourage those who are just starting out with their writing. If someone’s new to sharing their work online, they might see something like this and feel like they’re not “good enough” to post. I would just hate for someone’s spirit to get crushed, especially if they’re still finding their voice 😭🫶🏼
i got that vibe from this post too tbh. and yeah i think it just comes down to viewing satire/"satire" in a specific lens, while obv its a joke, some new writers would still see their own writing reflected back to them and feel like the butt of a joke with no payoff. it's important to critique, especially when you're apart of the demographic you're critiquing, but it does unfortunately give off a "not like other girls" tone. but at the same time yeah the substack style is getting a little overplayed: for a lot of people it'll hopefully be a stepping stone into a more individualized technique. idk. both things can be true.
soffety, you're doing the lord's work in these comments. thank you for defending your perspective. it's not lost on me that making fun the things girls do has been popular on the internet for as long as social media has been around—which is kind of ironic considering that the post is about the lack of originality on this platform.
in 2025, we should be encouraging young people to write. even if it's sloppy or derivative. perhaps especially so. you really do have to just keep doing it until you find your own voice. i think a lot about Ira Glass' thoughts on "the gap" between your work and your taste. it's only by going through a volume of (usually bad) work that you will close that gap, and your work will be as good as your ambitions.
but haha lol substack girl writing funny, i guess!!! <3
Thank you so much! The irony is strong with this one, lol. But yeah, completely agree! People act like finding your voice should be instant when, in reality, it takes a lot of ‘bad’ writing to get there. Love the Ira Glass reference, too. We all start somewhere! I appreciate your comment! <333
I want to preface my words with the following note: I understand where you’re coming from, and I respect that you are taking this stance. That being said, I have a number of objections to what you’ve said in this comment and other comments, which I’ll lay out here.
> But writing - no matter how generic - is a good exercise for the mind, a healthy hobby, and something everyone should feel encouraged to do, regardless of whether others find it groundbreaking.
I think writing is *not* necessarily a good exercise for the mind. That depends on what you are writing, why you are writing, how you are writing, and yes—absolutely, absolutely yes—in which style you are writing.
In particular, there are plenty of genres of writing. TikTok captions are writing; LinkedIn posts also qualify as writing; AO3 fanfiction—from tasteless smut to Pokemon rational fiction—is certainly writing.
Imagine a TikTok mocking “every [X-subculture] TikToker’s videos,” or a YouTube video mocking “every new YouTuber’s editing style” (MrBeast ripoffs, let’s say.) I suspect you likely wouldn’t have problems with these hypotheticals: after all, these hypotheticals are about content creation, not self-expression, right? To you, I suppose the important difference would be that you ascribe some special quality to writing—writing must be self-expression, and people ought to express themselves. Let no one’s spirit get crushed.
But just because something is of a certain medium does not endow that thing with the quality of “self-expression.” (Refer to the previous examples.) I am of the strong opinion—and I suspect the author and many others agree with me—that a lot of what’s being gestured at here is *content creation*, adaptations of a popular writing style, with intent less to express the self and more to bandwagon on what works.
Certainly this is not always the case, and some people best express themselves through this sort of voice; but are there not people who express themselves through videos that have MrBeast-style editing? Should we then not mock that style (certain types of thumbnails, certain types of video titles, etc.) just because it might turn off some people from genuine self-expression? (And then, doesn’t that mean that inevitably, everyone converges to this method of producing videos, thus making YouTube overall worse?)
> And if this is specifically targeting young women in their 20s, it taps into a bigger issue: the way girls and women are so often mocked for enjoying things.
I think this is an extremely unfair reduction of the author’s intent, which surprises me, given that you seem to care so much for other “Substack girls’” intent.
My interpretation—which is not necessarily the author’s interpretation—is that the author is mocking slop. There is slop produced everywhere: Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, novels, fanfiction.net, AI-generated published poetry, and Substack, too.
I acknowledge that there are cultural factors at play given how girls and women are often mocked for enjoying things. But I contest that it is not a bad thing for slop to be mocked. It generates discussion. It improves people’s taste. It forces people to think more deeply about what they are writing—because they ought to, after all; they’re putting it into the public sphere. (Again, how writing and content creation are irrevocably tied on Substack…) And if you want to discuss the second-order effects of mocking slop (i.e. some writers will be put off, driven away), what of the second-order effects of letting slop be, letting slop become popular, letting slop go unchallenged (i.e. some writers will be put off, driven away?)
You seem quite insistent that “the joke is at the expense of young women who are just trying to express themselves.” I think the joke is at the expense of people creating slop content.
> I think I’ve made plenty of arguments for why satire that punches downward can be harmful. Satire works best when it challenges power, not when it reinforces it at the expense of people who are already on the receiving end of mockery. If the joke is just making fun of an easy target without offering anything new or insightful, then what’s the point?
Firstly, I’m unconvinced that the author is punching down.
There is so much soft cultural power in attaching yourself to a certain style that works, that is known to successfully lead to popularity. Nancy’s not particularly big on Substack. In fact, I’d wager she was smaller than most (if not all!) of the accounts that this post targets. Moreover, that this style is so dominant and easily recognizable indicates to me that if anything, this post clearly punches *up*—at a well-established, popular cluster of writers.
Next, I’m unconvinced that these people were already on the receiving end of mockery.
This post struck a nerve with people! That’s why it blew up so quickly! If the prototypical “Substack girl” were already getting mocked all the time, this wouldn’t be anything new or special, and it certainly wouldn’t have gotten exponentially more likes than anything else Nancy’s written.
Anyway, I want to finish off this comment by reiterating that I do respect the stance you’ve taken here: it is good to say things like “I would just hate for someone’s spirit to get crushed, especially if they’re still finding their voice.” But I think the post is far more lighthearted than you are making it out to be! There are literally “Substack girls” in the comments here laughing along. And beyond that, I think there are other things you are not considering, which I laid out above. I hope this clarifies what my stance is (and what many others think, plausibly.)
First of all, I find it frustrating that you spend so much time trying to tell me what I probably think or mean instead of engaging with what I’m actually saying. You keep attributing arguments to me that I never made, which just sidesteps my actual points rather than responding to them directly.
I see writing—like any other creative outlet, including video creation and editing—as a form of art. I don’t place writing on a pedestal above other creative mediums, and I don’t think there’s anything inherently less meaningful about one over the other. Of course, not all creative output is great—there’s slop in every medium—but I wouldn’t call “Substack girl writing” slop, because it’s a personal form of expression. If anything, slop would be things like churnalism, where the writing serves no real purpose for the writer or the reader.
Second, regarding trends and how people mock them: when something becomes popular, it usually starts with a few people who find major success with it—like Emma Chamberlain on YouTube (or MrBeast for that matter), whose specific editing style made her incredibly popular. After that, hundreds of people followed, experimenting with the same techniques, but they didn’t achieve the same level of success. The same thing happens with writing styles, including the “basic girl writing” trend on Substack. A handful of people made it popular, and then many others tried it out—some because they found it creatively interesting, others as a way to explore their own writing voice. And that’s a good thing. Experimenting with different styles is how people develop as writers, regardless of whether you find it “sloppy”.
But it’s never the original creators—the ones who actually made money and built a career from it—who get criticized. It’s always the people who are still figuring things out, who are using it as a stepping stone, who end up being mocked. Maybe the style is overused, but that’s not their fault—they’re just part of the trend, not the ones who made it big from it. That’s why I don’t think this kind of satire is really “punching up.” It mostly affects the people who are still trying to find their own voice, not the ones who have already secured their success.
Third, the original post clearly has an infantilizing tone toward how some women write on Substack, as if it’s inherently dumb or shallow when, in reality, it’s just a personal writing style. There shouldn’t be some set of rules dictating what people are allowed to use their own platform for. And if the real concern is about Substack being a space for “quality writing,” then maybe more focus should be placed on the hundreds of men spreading toxic self-help advice about finances and life decisions—things that can actually have serious consequences for people. There’s a real moral dilemma in that, but somehow, controlling how women use their own platform seems to be the bigger concern.
Finally, the fact that the post was well-received just reinforces that the person who wrote it already holds the dominant narrative. They’re in a socially powerful position, which means their satire inevitably punches down, whether they intended it to or not. Some people might find the post funny or agree with it, but they’re probably not the ones who are just starting out and experimenting with writing. The people actually trying something new—the ones who haven’t fully found their voice yet—might see something like this and feel discouraged from even trying, as I’ve stated before.
I don't want to get drawn into a long argument, so I'll keep it short and note a few things.
1 - You talk over and over about "personal form of expression," "explore their own writing voice," "fully found their voice." I think this is optimistic; I think the vast majority of this sort of writing is less about finding a voice and expressing the self and more about creating content. Goal-optimizing, Goodharting, blah, not necessarily attempts at some notion of "art." Writing and content creation are irrevocably tied up on this platform.
2 - You bring up how "more focus should be placed on the hundreds of men spreading toxic self-help advice about finances and life decisions—things that can actually have serious consequences for people," as some sort of alternative to "controlling how women use their own platform." This doesn't make sense to me on a few levels: 1) this is *one person's satirical blog post*, and this *one person* is interested in this particular topic; 2) there's no reason why we can't have both (and you could be the change you want to see in the world!). Let people enjoy things; not everyone has to focus on the biggest problem at hand?
3 - "the fact that the post was well-received just reinforces that the person who wrote it already holds the dominant narrative." I don't agree with this. Every social media platform has its own bubbles and pockets. Pretty much every type of content will go viral on Twitter.
4 - "it’s inherently dumb or shallow when, in reality, it’s just a personal writing style." I think there are writing styles that are inherently shallow, and I stated this previously. Shrug.
It seems like you’re trying to straw man me—you say you don’t want to get drawn into a long argument, yet you still want to have the last word while misrepresenting my points to make them easier to dismiss.
You keep insisting that most of this writing isn’t about self-expression or finding a voice but rather just about content creation and optimization. But those things aren’t mutually exclusive. Of course, some people write with the goal of going viral or making money, but that doesn’t mean that others aren’t genuinely exploring their voice and interests. And even if someone starts out imitating a trend, that doesn’t mean they won’t evolve into something more original over time. Writing, like any other creative field, involves imitation as part of the learning process. If you think this particular style is shallow or purely content-driven, that’s fine, but dismissing the entire phenomenon as just “goal-optimizing” ignores the nuance of why people engage with it in the first place.
You argue that criticizing the satirical post for focusing on women instead of more harmful content like toxic male self-help is unfair because it’s “one person’s blog post” and “not everyone has to focus on the biggest problem at hand.” Sure, no one is obligated to tackle the most pressing societal issue in every post, but that doesn’t mean we can’t question why certain topics get so much attention while others don’t. It’s worth pointing out that people are often much quicker to satirize and mock women’s online expression than they are to challenge actually dangerous misinformation. The fact that this post resonated so widely suggests that there’s a broader cultural tendency to police how women write and share their thoughts online.
You say that viral posts don’t necessarily reflect a “dominant narrative” because every platform has different bubbles. But this post didn’t just go viral in some niche—it was widely shared, which means it clearly aligns with a larger, existing sentiment. The fact that it was well-received doesn’t just mean people liked it; it suggests that its critique was already socially acceptable and widely agreed upon. When something is popular, it tends to reinforce rather than challenge dominant ideas.
You state outright that some writing styles are “inherently shallow” and just shrug that off. That’s fine, you’re entitled to that opinion. But to me, this just reinforces my original point—certain forms of women’s expression are constantly dismissed as frivolous or unworthy of serious consideration, while equally repetitive or low-effort content from men doesn’t get the same scrutiny.
Ultimately, I don’t mind if you disagree with me, but at least engage with my points as they are instead of reframing them to be easier to argue against. If you truly didn’t want to keep debating this, you wouldn’t have responded with a list of counterpoints—you just wanted the last word while making it seem like you were disengaging.
"that doesn’t mean we can’t question why certain topics get so much attention while others don’t." -> I am not convinced the topics you claim are not getting attention (shitty men's writing about self-help and finances) are actually not getting attention. (How much (correct) discussion is there about Substack being a platform with plenty of RW grifters, exceedingly stupid claims about gender from incels, etc.?)
"The fact that it was well-received doesn’t just mean people liked it; it suggests that its critique was already socially acceptable and widely agreed upon." -> I don't think this claim is accurate. I think it's far more likely that this post highlighted / showed something about the writing people engage with, and people realized this about themselves. (You can actually see this in the comments / restacks of this post!)
I don't think I'm reframing your points. I think that you are making a bunch of claims that seem innocuous that have hidden claims *behind* them that *support* them (that is, you make explicit claims that seem innocuous, and those explicit claims rest upon implicit claims that I don't think are true.) Those are the things you state I am "reframing."
I noticed that all the comments disappeared just as I was about to respond, and then I realized it was because you blocked me to get the last word. While I understand it’s within your right to do so, I don’t think it’s a very fair move in a debate. Blocking me to avoid engaging with my points feels dismissive, and it cuts off the opportunity for a real, constructive exchange.
You’re not disproving my points—you’re just expressing doubt without offering counter-evidence.
Yes, there’s critique of right-wing grifters and incels, but does it come in the same mocking, viral, dismissive form as what’s directed at women’s writing? No. If you think it does, show me an example of a widely shared post ridiculing self-help bros in the same way. And even when those male-targeted blogs are criticized, the focus is on the real harm they cause—misleading financial advice, toxic masculinity, actual consequences for people’s lives. Meanwhile, this Substack critique is just making fun of how some women write. There’s no real impact to justify the ridicule—it’s mockery for mockery’s sake.
You say the post resonated because it revealed something, not because it reinforced existing views—but why did people so easily agree? Because they were already primed to see that style as silly. That’s exactly my point.
Instead of engaging with what I’m actually saying, you’re focusing on what you think I secretly mean. That’s just another way to sidestep the argument. If you disagree with my stated points, address those—don’t speculate on hidden premises I never claimed.
I probably won’t be able to respond anymore, as this account might get blocked as well—if anyone should be reading along. In a debate, fairness is key—allowing both sides to engage openly helps foster a healthy conversation. Blocking someone to shut down their ability to speak feels more like a tactic to silence dissent rather than engaging in meaningful discussion, and frankly, it’s extremely poor debating etiquette to silence someone like that.
i look out the window and its shining really bright today. i think about the worries on my mind, how they're floating like the wind. this past year i spent a lot of time thinking about myself, and where i want to be in 10 years. hopefully i can write like general zuo by then!
This post feels kind of sad to me, because it makes writing seem like an exclusive club where only the truly original or profound get to participate. But writing - no matter how generic - is a good exercise for the mind, a healthy hobby, and something everyone should feel encouraged to do, regardless of whether others find it groundbreaking.
And if this is specifically targeting young women in their 20s, it taps into a bigger issue: the way girls and women are so often mocked for enjoying things. Of course, there will be overlap in what they (or we) write about. They’re at similar life stages, navigating similar experiences, and those experiences naturally shape their writing. That doesn’t mean their perspectives aren’t valid or worth exploring. Not everything has to be the most original thought ever to be meaningful.
Undermining other people’s writing just because it doesn’t meet some arbitrary standard of uniqueness doesn’t do much except discourage people from expressing themselves. And that’s a shame, because writing should be for everyone.
I get where you’re coming from but I really did not mean to deter anyone from writing, writing is an art and I’m making fun of the fact that this “substack style” has become recognizable
deciding what is unique is not up to me, and whether this piece makes you sad or not is up to you
I get that you didn’t mean to deter anyone from writing, but I do think it’s worth being mindful of how your work can be percieved by others, exactly the same way you percieve the work of 20-somethings to be “recognizable”. Because yes, writing is an art, but it’s also a skill that takes practice, and dismissing certain styles as overdone or unoriginal can make people feel like they don’t have a place in it.
Also, satire is meant to punch up, not down. If the joke is at the expense of young women who are just trying to express themselves, it starts to feel less like commentary and more like gatekeeping. And sure, whether this post makes me sad is technically up to me—but that feels like the easy way out if you don’t want to take accountability for how your own writing is perceived or the consequences it can have. If people are telling you that something feels discouraging, it’s worth thinking about why that is instead of brushing it off as just their personal reaction. The big difference is “recognizable” posts from young women doesn’t hurt anyone, but this kind of rhetoric actually have the potential to.
i know it’s meta to hate on a hater but if you don’t like satire then don’t read satire
It’s not really proper satire if it punches downward though, but it’s fair that you’re not up for discussion about it, I just think that writing pieces like this invites debate. And also, I’m not trying to be a hater if that’s what you gathered from this, I’m just trying to share my view and I wanted to hear yours as well. No offense intended on my part, I just politely disagree.
I guess you violated the unspoken social code that having less than glowing gushing commentary on a trendy writing style (that the writers put online, for consumption) is as bad as insulting their mother
I see a lot of buzzwords - "gatekeeping" "accountability" "harm" "mindful" - but not one reason for this post to not exist.
🥲 thank you, exactly
I think I’ve made plenty of arguments for why satire that punches downward can be harmful. Satire works best when it challenges power, not when it reinforces it at the expense of people who are already on the receiving end of mockery. If the joke is just making fun of an easy target without offering anything new or insightful, then what’s the point?
Also, I’m not saying anyone is violating some imaginary ‘social code’—I’m saying that criticism exists, and if you’re writing something online, you should expect people to engage back. As for ‘buzzwords,’ just because a term gets used often doesn’t make it meaningless. If anything, dismissing concepts like harm or accountability without addressing what they actually mean is the real shortcut in the conversation.
Who is the supposed 'victim' of this 'punch'?
An observation/parody of what has emerged as the dominant style of substack among a certain type of people (by someone who is, as far as I can tell, one of that group - a young woman), is most definitely what I'd call insightful and new. Who are these people that they should be immune from even the most gentle mockery by one of their own? And what is OP's "up" position that she's "punching down" at them from or is it just "has a substack and wrote one post that a lot of people happened to agree with"?
"If you're writing something online, you should expect people to engage back" - the shoe is on the other foot because that's exactly what OP did, just on her own terms. And your reaction bears out what I said.
Thank you finally someone gets it!
🫶🏼🫶🏼❤️
Writing is still for everyone, these posts don’t dictate who is and who isn’t! I think being able to poke fun n not take everything seriously makes navigating this app sm easier bc Unfortunately there will always be haters and people with contrarian opinions. I do hear where ur coming from for sure and worth bringing up bc it does get to a point, but I hate to see girls on here feeling discouraged bc of what random people behind a screen are saying. Up to us to decide to shine anyway kind of thing :P again I do wholeheartedly agree w u, just another POV!
I totally get where you’re coming from, and I appreciate your perspective too! It’s true that not taking everything too seriously helps make everything more enjoyable, and I absolutely agree that people should post whatever they want.
That being said, I just feel that posts like this can sometimes (maybe unintentionally) discourage those who are just starting out with their writing. If someone’s new to sharing their work online, they might see something like this and feel like they’re not “good enough” to post. I would just hate for someone’s spirit to get crushed, especially if they’re still finding their voice 😭🫶🏼
i got that vibe from this post too tbh. and yeah i think it just comes down to viewing satire/"satire" in a specific lens, while obv its a joke, some new writers would still see their own writing reflected back to them and feel like the butt of a joke with no payoff. it's important to critique, especially when you're apart of the demographic you're critiquing, but it does unfortunately give off a "not like other girls" tone. but at the same time yeah the substack style is getting a little overplayed: for a lot of people it'll hopefully be a stepping stone into a more individualized technique. idk. both things can be true.
soffety, you're doing the lord's work in these comments. thank you for defending your perspective. it's not lost on me that making fun the things girls do has been popular on the internet for as long as social media has been around—which is kind of ironic considering that the post is about the lack of originality on this platform.
in 2025, we should be encouraging young people to write. even if it's sloppy or derivative. perhaps especially so. you really do have to just keep doing it until you find your own voice. i think a lot about Ira Glass' thoughts on "the gap" between your work and your taste. it's only by going through a volume of (usually bad) work that you will close that gap, and your work will be as good as your ambitions.
but haha lol substack girl writing funny, i guess!!! <3
Thank you so much! The irony is strong with this one, lol. But yeah, completely agree! People act like finding your voice should be instant when, in reality, it takes a lot of ‘bad’ writing to get there. Love the Ira Glass reference, too. We all start somewhere! I appreciate your comment! <333
I want to preface my words with the following note: I understand where you’re coming from, and I respect that you are taking this stance. That being said, I have a number of objections to what you’ve said in this comment and other comments, which I’ll lay out here.
> But writing - no matter how generic - is a good exercise for the mind, a healthy hobby, and something everyone should feel encouraged to do, regardless of whether others find it groundbreaking.
I think writing is *not* necessarily a good exercise for the mind. That depends on what you are writing, why you are writing, how you are writing, and yes—absolutely, absolutely yes—in which style you are writing.
In particular, there are plenty of genres of writing. TikTok captions are writing; LinkedIn posts also qualify as writing; AO3 fanfiction—from tasteless smut to Pokemon rational fiction—is certainly writing.
Imagine a TikTok mocking “every [X-subculture] TikToker’s videos,” or a YouTube video mocking “every new YouTuber’s editing style” (MrBeast ripoffs, let’s say.) I suspect you likely wouldn’t have problems with these hypotheticals: after all, these hypotheticals are about content creation, not self-expression, right? To you, I suppose the important difference would be that you ascribe some special quality to writing—writing must be self-expression, and people ought to express themselves. Let no one’s spirit get crushed.
But just because something is of a certain medium does not endow that thing with the quality of “self-expression.” (Refer to the previous examples.) I am of the strong opinion—and I suspect the author and many others agree with me—that a lot of what’s being gestured at here is *content creation*, adaptations of a popular writing style, with intent less to express the self and more to bandwagon on what works.
Certainly this is not always the case, and some people best express themselves through this sort of voice; but are there not people who express themselves through videos that have MrBeast-style editing? Should we then not mock that style (certain types of thumbnails, certain types of video titles, etc.) just because it might turn off some people from genuine self-expression? (And then, doesn’t that mean that inevitably, everyone converges to this method of producing videos, thus making YouTube overall worse?)
> And if this is specifically targeting young women in their 20s, it taps into a bigger issue: the way girls and women are so often mocked for enjoying things.
I think this is an extremely unfair reduction of the author’s intent, which surprises me, given that you seem to care so much for other “Substack girls’” intent.
My interpretation—which is not necessarily the author’s interpretation—is that the author is mocking slop. There is slop produced everywhere: Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, novels, fanfiction.net, AI-generated published poetry, and Substack, too.
I acknowledge that there are cultural factors at play given how girls and women are often mocked for enjoying things. But I contest that it is not a bad thing for slop to be mocked. It generates discussion. It improves people’s taste. It forces people to think more deeply about what they are writing—because they ought to, after all; they’re putting it into the public sphere. (Again, how writing and content creation are irrevocably tied on Substack…) And if you want to discuss the second-order effects of mocking slop (i.e. some writers will be put off, driven away), what of the second-order effects of letting slop be, letting slop become popular, letting slop go unchallenged (i.e. some writers will be put off, driven away?)
You seem quite insistent that “the joke is at the expense of young women who are just trying to express themselves.” I think the joke is at the expense of people creating slop content.
(Possibly relevant: the quote-tweets of https://x.com/jasminewsun/status/1883573966356582591)
> I think I’ve made plenty of arguments for why satire that punches downward can be harmful. Satire works best when it challenges power, not when it reinforces it at the expense of people who are already on the receiving end of mockery. If the joke is just making fun of an easy target without offering anything new or insightful, then what’s the point?
Firstly, I’m unconvinced that the author is punching down.
There is so much soft cultural power in attaching yourself to a certain style that works, that is known to successfully lead to popularity. Nancy’s not particularly big on Substack. In fact, I’d wager she was smaller than most (if not all!) of the accounts that this post targets. Moreover, that this style is so dominant and easily recognizable indicates to me that if anything, this post clearly punches *up*—at a well-established, popular cluster of writers.
Next, I’m unconvinced that these people were already on the receiving end of mockery.
This post struck a nerve with people! That’s why it blew up so quickly! If the prototypical “Substack girl” were already getting mocked all the time, this wouldn’t be anything new or special, and it certainly wouldn’t have gotten exponentially more likes than anything else Nancy’s written.
Anyway, I want to finish off this comment by reiterating that I do respect the stance you’ve taken here: it is good to say things like “I would just hate for someone’s spirit to get crushed, especially if they’re still finding their voice.” But I think the post is far more lighthearted than you are making it out to be! There are literally “Substack girls” in the comments here laughing along. And beyond that, I think there are other things you are not considering, which I laid out above. I hope this clarifies what my stance is (and what many others think, plausibly.)
🥹🫶
First of all, I find it frustrating that you spend so much time trying to tell me what I probably think or mean instead of engaging with what I’m actually saying. You keep attributing arguments to me that I never made, which just sidesteps my actual points rather than responding to them directly.
I see writing—like any other creative outlet, including video creation and editing—as a form of art. I don’t place writing on a pedestal above other creative mediums, and I don’t think there’s anything inherently less meaningful about one over the other. Of course, not all creative output is great—there’s slop in every medium—but I wouldn’t call “Substack girl writing” slop, because it’s a personal form of expression. If anything, slop would be things like churnalism, where the writing serves no real purpose for the writer or the reader.
Second, regarding trends and how people mock them: when something becomes popular, it usually starts with a few people who find major success with it—like Emma Chamberlain on YouTube (or MrBeast for that matter), whose specific editing style made her incredibly popular. After that, hundreds of people followed, experimenting with the same techniques, but they didn’t achieve the same level of success. The same thing happens with writing styles, including the “basic girl writing” trend on Substack. A handful of people made it popular, and then many others tried it out—some because they found it creatively interesting, others as a way to explore their own writing voice. And that’s a good thing. Experimenting with different styles is how people develop as writers, regardless of whether you find it “sloppy”.
But it’s never the original creators—the ones who actually made money and built a career from it—who get criticized. It’s always the people who are still figuring things out, who are using it as a stepping stone, who end up being mocked. Maybe the style is overused, but that’s not their fault—they’re just part of the trend, not the ones who made it big from it. That’s why I don’t think this kind of satire is really “punching up.” It mostly affects the people who are still trying to find their own voice, not the ones who have already secured their success.
Third, the original post clearly has an infantilizing tone toward how some women write on Substack, as if it’s inherently dumb or shallow when, in reality, it’s just a personal writing style. There shouldn’t be some set of rules dictating what people are allowed to use their own platform for. And if the real concern is about Substack being a space for “quality writing,” then maybe more focus should be placed on the hundreds of men spreading toxic self-help advice about finances and life decisions—things that can actually have serious consequences for people. There’s a real moral dilemma in that, but somehow, controlling how women use their own platform seems to be the bigger concern.
Finally, the fact that the post was well-received just reinforces that the person who wrote it already holds the dominant narrative. They’re in a socially powerful position, which means their satire inevitably punches down, whether they intended it to or not. Some people might find the post funny or agree with it, but they’re probably not the ones who are just starting out and experimenting with writing. The people actually trying something new—the ones who haven’t fully found their voice yet—might see something like this and feel discouraged from even trying, as I’ve stated before.
I don't want to get drawn into a long argument, so I'll keep it short and note a few things.
1 - You talk over and over about "personal form of expression," "explore their own writing voice," "fully found their voice." I think this is optimistic; I think the vast majority of this sort of writing is less about finding a voice and expressing the self and more about creating content. Goal-optimizing, Goodharting, blah, not necessarily attempts at some notion of "art." Writing and content creation are irrevocably tied up on this platform.
2 - You bring up how "more focus should be placed on the hundreds of men spreading toxic self-help advice about finances and life decisions—things that can actually have serious consequences for people," as some sort of alternative to "controlling how women use their own platform." This doesn't make sense to me on a few levels: 1) this is *one person's satirical blog post*, and this *one person* is interested in this particular topic; 2) there's no reason why we can't have both (and you could be the change you want to see in the world!). Let people enjoy things; not everyone has to focus on the biggest problem at hand?
3 - "the fact that the post was well-received just reinforces that the person who wrote it already holds the dominant narrative." I don't agree with this. Every social media platform has its own bubbles and pockets. Pretty much every type of content will go viral on Twitter.
4 - "it’s inherently dumb or shallow when, in reality, it’s just a personal writing style." I think there are writing styles that are inherently shallow, and I stated this previously. Shrug.
It seems like you’re trying to straw man me—you say you don’t want to get drawn into a long argument, yet you still want to have the last word while misrepresenting my points to make them easier to dismiss.
You keep insisting that most of this writing isn’t about self-expression or finding a voice but rather just about content creation and optimization. But those things aren’t mutually exclusive. Of course, some people write with the goal of going viral or making money, but that doesn’t mean that others aren’t genuinely exploring their voice and interests. And even if someone starts out imitating a trend, that doesn’t mean they won’t evolve into something more original over time. Writing, like any other creative field, involves imitation as part of the learning process. If you think this particular style is shallow or purely content-driven, that’s fine, but dismissing the entire phenomenon as just “goal-optimizing” ignores the nuance of why people engage with it in the first place.
You argue that criticizing the satirical post for focusing on women instead of more harmful content like toxic male self-help is unfair because it’s “one person’s blog post” and “not everyone has to focus on the biggest problem at hand.” Sure, no one is obligated to tackle the most pressing societal issue in every post, but that doesn’t mean we can’t question why certain topics get so much attention while others don’t. It’s worth pointing out that people are often much quicker to satirize and mock women’s online expression than they are to challenge actually dangerous misinformation. The fact that this post resonated so widely suggests that there’s a broader cultural tendency to police how women write and share their thoughts online.
You say that viral posts don’t necessarily reflect a “dominant narrative” because every platform has different bubbles. But this post didn’t just go viral in some niche—it was widely shared, which means it clearly aligns with a larger, existing sentiment. The fact that it was well-received doesn’t just mean people liked it; it suggests that its critique was already socially acceptable and widely agreed upon. When something is popular, it tends to reinforce rather than challenge dominant ideas.
You state outright that some writing styles are “inherently shallow” and just shrug that off. That’s fine, you’re entitled to that opinion. But to me, this just reinforces my original point—certain forms of women’s expression are constantly dismissed as frivolous or unworthy of serious consideration, while equally repetitive or low-effort content from men doesn’t get the same scrutiny.
Ultimately, I don’t mind if you disagree with me, but at least engage with my points as they are instead of reframing them to be easier to argue against. If you truly didn’t want to keep debating this, you wouldn’t have responded with a list of counterpoints—you just wanted the last word while making it seem like you were disengaging.
"that doesn’t mean we can’t question why certain topics get so much attention while others don’t." -> I am not convinced the topics you claim are not getting attention (shitty men's writing about self-help and finances) are actually not getting attention. (How much (correct) discussion is there about Substack being a platform with plenty of RW grifters, exceedingly stupid claims about gender from incels, etc.?)
"The fact that it was well-received doesn’t just mean people liked it; it suggests that its critique was already socially acceptable and widely agreed upon." -> I don't think this claim is accurate. I think it's far more likely that this post highlighted / showed something about the writing people engage with, and people realized this about themselves. (You can actually see this in the comments / restacks of this post!)
I don't think I'm reframing your points. I think that you are making a bunch of claims that seem innocuous that have hidden claims *behind* them that *support* them (that is, you make explicit claims that seem innocuous, and those explicit claims rest upon implicit claims that I don't think are true.) Those are the things you state I am "reframing."
Soffety here,
I noticed that all the comments disappeared just as I was about to respond, and then I realized it was because you blocked me to get the last word. While I understand it’s within your right to do so, I don’t think it’s a very fair move in a debate. Blocking me to avoid engaging with my points feels dismissive, and it cuts off the opportunity for a real, constructive exchange.
You’re not disproving my points—you’re just expressing doubt without offering counter-evidence.
Yes, there’s critique of right-wing grifters and incels, but does it come in the same mocking, viral, dismissive form as what’s directed at women’s writing? No. If you think it does, show me an example of a widely shared post ridiculing self-help bros in the same way. And even when those male-targeted blogs are criticized, the focus is on the real harm they cause—misleading financial advice, toxic masculinity, actual consequences for people’s lives. Meanwhile, this Substack critique is just making fun of how some women write. There’s no real impact to justify the ridicule—it’s mockery for mockery’s sake.
You say the post resonated because it revealed something, not because it reinforced existing views—but why did people so easily agree? Because they were already primed to see that style as silly. That’s exactly my point.
Instead of engaging with what I’m actually saying, you’re focusing on what you think I secretly mean. That’s just another way to sidestep the argument. If you disagree with my stated points, address those—don’t speculate on hidden premises I never claimed.
I probably won’t be able to respond anymore, as this account might get blocked as well—if anyone should be reading along. In a debate, fairness is key—allowing both sides to engage openly helps foster a healthy conversation. Blocking someone to shut down their ability to speak feels more like a tactic to silence dissent rather than engaging in meaningful discussion, and frankly, it’s extremely poor debating etiquette to silence someone like that.
Oh my god shut up
This stuff isn’t good
Don’t forget you have to be an eldest daughter too
Omg 💀💀
Oh my god I thought I was the only one weirded out by that!!!! When did I miss it becoming the most defining personality trait??????
needs a dash of “phone bad” as well but yes u basically got it LMAO
SCREAMINGGGGG
im never writing a substack post again
I burst into tears laughing. The all lower case 😭
i look out the window and its shining really bright today. i think about the worries on my mind, how they're floating like the wind. this past year i spent a lot of time thinking about myself, and where i want to be in 10 years. hopefully i can write like general zuo by then!
All jokes aside what a great template of what not to keep writing - love when boundaries being pushed and challenged via satire :)
THE HELP TIP AT THE END 😭💔
and i will continue to write like this 😭😭😭 this is so funny i loved it
The amount of time it took you to write this is lame. If you had something of your own to say you would be saying it — this is lazy.
Like ya they do sound like this and it’s stupid so what does it mean that you re-wrote it? Seems even more lame to me idk.
HAHAHHHA stfu
Snbdbndvdndbbsd
Lmao crying
i’m cackling
clocked.
lmao perfect