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