T
hink of the number of
hours that you spend
on your phone per day.
Whether you relentlessly post
on Instagram or you regularly
read the news, I’m sure that
you spend way more time on
your phone than you would like
to admit.
I recently began consciously
monitoring my phone usage,
and if you’re anything like me,
you probably waste at least a
few hours a day on your phone.
Initially, I thought that a few
hours a day wasn’t terrible. This
reaction, however, was simply
a way to resist my ultimate
realization: I was addicted to
my phone.
If you think about it, I’m sure
many of you are the same way.
We check our phones as soon
as we wake up, all throughout
the day and then one last time
right before we fall asleep
(usually
for
several
hours
before actually falling asleep).
We hit the home button, hoping
for
a
notification,
anytime
we feel bored or awkward or
anxious. Our phones are there
for us, with an infinite amount
of stimulation to distract us
whenever we need it.
I began thinking about my
phone
usage
(and
overall
technology usage) when several
publications,
including
The
New York Times and The Wall
Street Journal, reported on
an open letter sent to Apple
Inc. about the negative effects
smartphones
can
have
on
children. The media has begun
scrutinizing these companies
for
potentially
exploiting
human behavior in search of
excessive profits.
Our phones, paired with
the
social
media
apps
on
their interfaces, captivate us
with their consistent, never-
ending
information
stream.
In an essay, Nicholas Carr, a
renowned author on the subject
of technology and its impact
on society, wrote, “(the brain’s)
attention is drawn toward any
object that is new, intriguing
or otherwise striking.” Social
media relies on this truth to
profitably
capture
as
much
attention as possible. YouTube
keeps
us
watching
with
its
“autoplay”
feature,
and
Instagram keeps us scrolling on
the “explore” page.
The addictive nature of
phones and their apps have
harmful
consequences
for
each and every user. The
Journal of the Association for
Consumer Research published
a report that noted even the
presence of a smartphone
can
significantly
reduce
cognitive performance on a
variety of tests. Our phones
are constantly asking for our
attention — even when we’re
not necessarily using them.
The research demonstrates
how our phones can inhibit
us from reaching our true
cognitive potential.
The consequences of social
media are even more severe.
Holly
Shakya,
associate
professor at the University
of
California,
San
Diego,
and Nicholas Christakis, Sol
Goldman
Family
professor
at Yale University, found in a
landmark study that “the use
of Facebook was negatively
associated with overall well-
being.” Meaning, the more time
you spend on social media, the
unhappier you feel. Frequent
social
media
users
report
feeling depressed and lonely,
and
they
also
experience
resentment, or jealousy, of
their supposed “friends” when
checking social media.
It’s
not
just
academics
scrutinizing the tech giants.
Investors are even starting
to call for change. Two Apple
Inc. investors, who control
approximately $2 billion of
the tech company’s shares,
recently sent a letter to its
board of directors criticizing
the
iPhone’s
influence
on
children. The investors, along
with much of the public, have
become concerned over the
effect that phones will have on
Generation Z, the generation
that is growing up surrounded
by smartphones.
In addition, the Campaign for
a Commercial-Free Childhood,
a group of pediatric and mental
health experts, wrote a letter to
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg
urging
him
to
discontinue
the
new
Messenger
Kids
app. The group is concerned
with
Facebook
preying
on
a vulnerable portion of the
population in what is likely an
effort to create lifelong users of
the social media platform.
Lawmakers
are
similarly
beginning to scrutinize these
companies because of the
negative
externalities
that
their products and services
bring to society. Facebook was
initially scrutinized because
of the alleged Russian efforts
to influence the latest U.S.
presidential election via the
platform,
but
lawmakers
are now raising important
questions
relating
to
not
only
misinformation
with
Facebook but also consumer
protection with regard to all
of the tech giants.
Tech giants may face heightened
regulations in the coming years,
but I hope that they will realize
their externalities to society
and make meaningful changes
on their own. These companies
have a unique opportunity to
make their products and services
more
responsible
without
governmental intervention, and
I hope that they take advantage
of it. I hope that they will
develop safeguards for children
and reduce or eliminate their
platform’s
habit-forming
qualities without being forced
to do so.
Those affected may already be
addicted, but the least we can do
is help the coming generations
use these products and services
more wisely.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Thursday, February 8, 2018
DAYTON HARE
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
ALEXA ST. JOHN
Editor in Chief
ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY AND
ASHLEY ZHANG
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Samantha Goldstein
Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Lucas Maiman
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Ali Safawi
Kevin Sweitzer
Tara Jayaram
Ashley Zhang
I
t’s no secret that gender
norms
are
perpetuated
in
society
and
have
undoubtedly
spawned
a
restrictive
set
of
socially-
acceptable
behaviors
that
dictate how people should act
based on their gender.
One report conducted by the
Global Early Adolescent Study
shows the prevailing effects
of
gender
norms
globally.
The
study
questioned
450
adolescents and their parents
across
15
countries.
The
participants ranged from 10 to
14 years old. After looking at the
results, Robert Blum, director
of
the
Global
Adolescent
Study
and
a
professor
at
Johns
Hopkins
University,
concluded, “children at a very
early age — from the most
conservative
to
the
most
liberal
societies
—
quickly
internalize
this
myth
that
girls are vulnerable and boys
are strong and independent.”
Blum’s
explanation
of
the
study’s results reaffirms the
well-known truth that young
girls are raised to be meek
and vulnerable. Furthermore,
young girls are also sexualized
from a young age; one paper
published as part of the study
stated,
“Around
the
world
pubertal boys are viewed as
predators and girls as potential
targets and victims. Messages
such as — do not sit like that,
do not wear that, do not talk to
him, boys will ruin your future
— support the gender division
of power … In some places,
girls come to internalize these
norms to even a greater extent
than boys.”
Of course, it isn’t just young
girls who are controlled by
gender roles; young boys, too,
are often expected to act in a
certain way. An article from
The
Guardian
noted
that
because boys are expected
to be brave and tough since
a young age, “they engage in
and are the victims of physical
violence to a much greater
extent than girls; they die more
frequently from unintentional
injuries, are more prone to
substance abuse and suicide;
and
as
adults
their
life
expectancy is shorter than that
of women.” In addition, men
are often discouraged from
expressing
their
emotions,
and are condemned for crying
in particular. While shaming
a man for crying is sexist
because the act is shamed
for
being
too
“feminine”
(evidenced by common insults
such as “crying like a little
girl”) there’s no doubt that
men are taught that they must
not show any emotions that
exhibit vulnerability.
Gender
roles
have
also
paradoxically
created
the
false assumption that people
must reject all qualities of the
socially-quintessential man or
woman in order to fight gender
norms. Choosing not to partake
in stereotypically “feminine”
activities, such as putting on
makeup
or
shopping,
does
not fight gender norms. The
same goes for men; avoiding
stereotypically
“masculine”
activities
such
as
playing
sports does not help in the
fight against gender norms.
Neither does shaming those
who choose to embody certain
characteristics that make up
gender norms.
For example, many people
shame women who choose to
stay at home with their kids and
take care of the household for
having “easy” jobs. In an article
in the Huff Post, Michelle
Zunter, a stay-at-home mom,
discussed how working moms
will often say to her, “‘I wish
I could stay home like you but
someone has to work and pay
the bills!’”
As someone who knows
several
stay-at-home
moms,
I take umbrage with this
statement
because
I
have
witnessed
firsthand
how
difficult it is to keep an entire
household running, and staying
at home should not be conflated
with not working. In addition,
the assumption that stay-at-
home moms don’t do any work
shames women who choose
to follow gender norms not
because they are forced to,
but because they want to. It
creates yet another standard by
which women feel forced to do
something, instead of choosing
of their free will.
Another example that affects
men
are
the
stereotypes
associated with men who fit
the imposed gender norm of
enjoying sports; for example,
stereotypes such as the “dumb
jock” suggest men who are
athletic are not intelligent. And
though men are often viewed
in society as being superior to
women in terms of intelligence,
these
negative
stereotypes
that punish those who seem
hypermasculine do not help
fight gender roles or sexism;
they
only
create
another
restrictive
label.
Reducing
every man who likes to watch
football to a crazed, violent
sports
fanatic
isn’t
doing
anyone a favor.
I am not trying to champion
those who choose to conform
to gender roles, nor am I
trying to shame those who
don’t. However, I do believe
avoiding qualities associated
with a gender norm is not
helpful: Rather, rejecting the
association of qualities with
specific genders, as well as the
negative connotation associated
with
being
masculine
or
feminine, is what is important.
A woman isn’t “masculine” if
she works outside the home or is
athletic. A man isn’t “feminine”
if he prefers to spend time inside
or if he expresses his emotions
freely. In addition, women who
prefer to work at home and
men who pride themselves on
their athletic abilities aren’t
complicit
in
perpetuating
gender norms.
Using
labels
such
as
“masculine” and “feminine”
is not necessarily bad, but
using the terms to perpetuate
negative stereotypes or shame
others is harmful. The goal
of
rejecting
gender
norms
is not to create a different
set of restrictions, but to
allow people to act how they
want without being shamed.
Therefore, in order to reject
harmful gender norms, we
must not condemn all of the
characteristics that make up a
norm and instead get rid of the
gendering of said qualities.
This is easier said than done,
but we can take steps to work
toward abolishing controlling
gender norms. We can teach
girls and boys that their place
is where they want it to be,
inside or outside the house.
We can stop telling men
who are not stereotypically
masculine to “man up” and
stop telling women who are
not stereotypically feminine
to act more ladylike. However,
because
fighting
gender
norms also means not blaming
those who may fit the mold, we
must also not criticize women
for being “girly,” or men for
being hypermasculine. Once
again, the point of fighting
gender norms is to liberate
people, not to restrict them in
different ways.
Rejecting gender norms
KRYSTAL HUR | COLUMN
I
f you’ve attended a J
Street U event at the
University
of
Michigan
in the last two years, you’ve
probably heard of Susya. Maybe
you’ve seen pictures of its
children or hillsides. Maybe
you’ve listened to stories from
people who have traveled there.
Maybe you’ve even made phone
calls to government officials
about it or posted #SaveSusya and
#WontLookAway on social media.
The village of Susya lies in
the South Hebron Hills, in the
area of the West Bank, known
as Area C, which is under
full Israeli military control.
Susya is currently home to
350 Palestinian people. Unless
people take action, more than
40 residents of Susya could
soon lose their homes.
The
Israeli
far-right
settler
movement,
led
by
the
organization
Regavim,
has
spent
the
last
few
years lobbying the Israeli
government
to
demolish
Susya and villages like it so
that Israeli settlements can
expand through the South
Hebron
Hills.
Persistent
demolitions
of
Palestinian
communities
deep
within
the West Bank are part of
their strategy of creeping
annexation.
The
far-right
movement hopes to secure a
“Greater Israel,” expanding
Israeli control over land that
would become a future state
of Palestine after a negotiated
two-state solution. In effect,
these efforts are eliminating
the possibility of a two-state
solution to the conflict, and
both peace and security for all
Israelis and Palestinians.
Israeli security professionals
have spoken out about the
dangers of creeping annexation
and the entrenchment of the
occupation.
They
recognize
that the demolition of Susya
would
clear
the
way
for
the
demolitions
of
other
vulnerable
villages
facing
similar threats, and turn the
possibility of a peaceful two-
state solution into an imposed
one-state
nightmare.
These
members of the Israeli security
establishment are joined by
United
States
lawmakers
such as Sens. Bernie Sanders,
I-Vt., and Dianne Feinstein,
D-Calif., who wrote a letter in
November that was co-signed
by eight additional senators
expressing opposition to home
demolitions and the threat of
creeping annexation.
Over the past year, J Street U
students from the Univeristy
and across the U.S. have
developed a relationship with
Susya.
Our
students
have
traveled to the village to speak
with community leaders about
their lives and the challenges
they face. This fall, J Street
U hosted Susya resident and
village spokesperson Nasser
Nawaj’ah at multiple national
gatherings
of
students,
where he spoke about the
uncertainty he feels about
his children’s security and
future.
Through
our
Stop
Demolitions,
Build
Peace
campaign, we have voiced
resistance to the demolition of
Susya through education and
solidarity events.
Now, more than ever, it is
critical for us to stand in
solidarity
with
Susya.
On
Feb. 1, the Israeli Supreme
Court decided to permit the
demolition of seven structures
in the village. These structures
are home to more than 40
people, half of whom are
children
or
elderly.
When
exactly these orders will be
carried out is unclear, but it is
now possible for bulldozers to
drive into Susya at any time.
J Street U University students
call on our fellow students and
community members to oppose
this decision. Statements and
pressure from U.S. leadership
have
successfully
delayed
demolitions in the past. In
response to the court decision
announcement, Feinstein and
Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill.,
put out statements standing up
for Susya. We call on our elected
representatives to follow their
example of leadership on this
issue. It is critical that we make
our voices heard now, for the
sake of the people of Susya and
a peaceful future for Israelis
and Palestinians.
Oppose Susya home demolitions
J STREET U | OP-ED
Saving those not yet addicted to tech
ERIK NESLER | COLUMN
Erik Nesler can be reached at
egnesler@umich.edu.
Krystal Hur can be reached at
kryshur@umich.edu.
J Street U is a national student
organization working for a
two-state solution to the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict and an end to
the occupation.
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds.
Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 550
to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to
tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
HANNAH MYERS | CONTACT AT HSMYERS@UMICH.EDU