What Serano means when she says guys are stuck in the “nice guy/asshole” double-bind is that guys have to choose if they want to be considered nice or be an “asshole” to be liked. A “nice guy” is someone who treats people with respect while an “asshole” is a person who treats women badly and only cares about themselves. Some qualities of a “nice guy” would be respectful, caring, and hopeful while an “asshole” has qualities like condescending, arrogant, and selfish. Some men gravitate towards the “asshole” stereotype because they think that this will get people to like them. I agree with the conclusions she draws however I feel like not all women will choose the “asshole” over the “nice guy”.
The predator/prey mindset creates double standards in how we view females versus males sexually. It is damaging for both men and women because men cannot be viewed as sexual objects, nor can women be viewed as sexual aggressors. It is hard for men to walk around as they are viewed as the sexual aggressors, for example, they have a harder time communicating with children because they don’t want to be seen as predators. While women aren’t viewed as sexual aggressors, rather they are seen as open to being sexually objectified by others. This is why rape cases dwell on what the woman was dressed in, and if she is dressed in revealing clothes she is “asking for it”.
The societal phenomenon Rebecca Soling is describing in her essay “Men Explain Things to Me,” is that men tend to silence women by not giving them the credit that they deserve. This behavior is damaging for women because we have had to work our way up to be respected by men and by silencing women we are taking a step back. As men tend to explain things to women, “the slippery slope of silencings” relates to issues like harassment and abuse. This is due to women not being able to talk about their experiences. It is related to abuse as the men seem to invalidate what women are saying and therefore aren’t allowed to speak on their experiences and feel less confident in themselves.
The purpose of telling the story of Megan Phelps Roper and the Westboro Baptist Church is to highlight how people have extreme differences in opinions that can affect people morally. Phelps Roper believed heavily in the worship of God; therefore, she would make Twitter posts about gay people diminishing them because of her beliefs. Phelps Roper then was able to see the parallels because of the media and even considered leaving the church. Social media has a heavy impact on the way one can be seen because everyone can see what you say.
Chen’s essay contradicts Turkles because Turkles believes that we lack empathy because of the internet. In Chen’s essay, he uses Megan Phelps Roper’s story as an example of how conversation can lead to empathy being built. I think that Turkle is more accurate in that we lack empathy because of the internet because difficult conversations need to be in person to learn, listen, and also to emphasize.
What Turkle means by we have undergone “a flight from conversation” is that we are afraid to have difficult conversations in person. Communicating online is much different in person because online communication allows for you to think and process what to say. While communicating in person allows for you to build empathy and listen to others which allows learning to happen. As a result of online communication we have lost the ability to empathize with others. I agree with Turkle because if we don’t have those conversations in person then we aren’t able to fully listen to each other. Face to face communication allows for full attention to be put on the person speaking and this leads to better listening and the ability to learn and empathize with others. When someone is talking to me, I pay more attention to what they are saying in person rather than what they say on the phone. Not to mention with online communication, it is harder to communicate emotions such as happiness, sadness, excitement through text than in person.
“Does the Internet Make You Dumber” by Nicolas Carr makes a better argument because it provides significant evidence by proving the claim with studies. I agree that the internet negatively affects humans. Carr mentions how the internet can lead to decreased attention, and everything we do requires our ability to focus and concentrate. Carr backs up his claim with studies, such as the study at Cornell where half the students were allowed to use their laptops during lectures and the other half weren’t. The results showed that the half that used the internet did not perform as well on the subsequent test on the lecture as the students who were not able to use the internet. Not using the internet allows you to focus on one task at a time such as doing homework on paper. You are able to focus on that one paper until it is finished because you aren’t on the internet trying to multitask.
In “Does the Internet Make You Smarter” by Clay Shirky argues that the use of the Internet allows for the world to be global and information to spread faster. Shirky uses Wikipedia as an example however, this is a bad example because Wikipedia is not always correct because anyone is allowed to edit the information that is posted. Shirky’s argument is less effective because he does not have examples to back up his claim as Carr does. Another example would be the use of news and the spread of misinformation. The news channels are not always correct and people often listen and believe everything that the news says even if it is not true.
Appiah’s argument appeals to me more because I agree with him about the fact we need to coexist. If we can’t coexist as humans, then we will never be able to agree on any subject. However, coexistence doesn’t mean that you have to agree, it’s about the idea that you can agree and disagree on topics. I agree with Gladwell that activism needs to be high risk because it shows the dedication someone has for that cause. In today’s world, most people participate in “activism” to say that they do, not because they are dedicated to that cause. I think that there needs to be a balance between activism and the ability to coexist. There is a fine line between when someone should participate in activism compared to when we just need to be able to coexist.
Gladwell mentions that “we seem to have forgotten what activism is” and what he means by this is that we don’t know how and what activism is because we are influenced so easily by others on social media. This means we sometimes blindly follow others on social media without being able to communicate with people in person. Social media activism is less effective than earlier forms because there is no leadership. Gladwell mentions that successful activism comes with a leader and should be organized and social media does not provide leadership or an organized structure. On social media everyone has ideas and no one to follow up to and therefore nothing gets done and there is no action. I agree with Gladwell’s assessment regarding social media activism, I feel as though everyone has something to say on social media but when it comes time to fight for what you believe in no one has anything to say. Activism in person is a much stronger fight than words on social media.
There were some aspects of the text that confused me and it was related to the stories that he tells. I had a hard time understanding the way that the stories correlated with the message he was trying to tell.
Cosmopolitanism is the ability to engage with other cultures and societies on a global scale with different beliefs but have an open mind to engage and listen to these beliefs with respect. The basic tenets of Appiah’s philosophical rubric is that we don’t need to believe in everything that everyone believes in, we just need to be able to coexist and have respect. I agree with his philosophy because being able to communicate with others regardless of beliefs is essential for society as a whole.
