
We are in an abusive relationship with our phones - pavel_lishin
https://conversationalist.org/2019/09/13/feminism-explains-our-toxic-relationships-with-our-smartphones/
======
ryanolsonx
> “Put up your hand if you like or maybe even love your smartphone,” I asked
> the audience of policymakers, industrialists and students.

> Nearly every hand in the room shot up.

> “Now, please put up your hand if you trust your smartphone.”

> One young guy at the back put his hand in the air, then faltered as it
> became obvious he was alone. I thanked him for his honesty and paused before
> saying,“We love our phones, but we do not trust them. And love without trust
> is the definition of an abusive relationship.”

For this and other reasons, I'm switching to the Light Phone 2 [1]. I get it
later this month. Devices like this don't solve all of our problems, but they
certainly solve many.

[1]: [http://lightphone.com](http://lightphone.com)

~~~
lostmsu
> An abusive relationship is an interpersonal relationship characterized by
> the use or threat of physical or psychological abuse.

I.e. the author is manipulating facts. Trust has nothing to do with it.
Obviously, if a person does not trust anybody, not every relationship they get
into is abusive to them.

~~~
beat
Within the framework applied, trust has everything to do with it. What makes a
relationship abusive isn't the distrust, but rather the distrust combined with
the inability to escape (which is often about love). We love our smartphones,
but we don't trust them. That's very different than, say, distrusting some
random stranger. The way to deal with not trusting a stranger is to not engage
with them. How do you deal with, say, not trusting your father?

------
5trokerac3
Something I like to do to minimize this effect is to forward my calls to a
dumphone whenever I don't need the smartphone.

My family uses alternative messaging with me while I'm at work and you'd be
surprised how people really don't care if you don't text them back until the
end of the day.

When I get home, the smartphone goes upstairs where I'll hear it ring if
someone calls. At this point, it's a glorified GPS and Spotify/Audible device.
The only time I'm actively on it is in between sets at the gym in the morning.

------
teddyh
> _Feminist analysis of Gamergate first exposed the online radicalization of
> legions of angry young men for whom misogyny was a gateway drug to far-right
> politics._

Um. I feel that the article could have done without this snipe.

Like I once wrote¹, this came out of nowhere, and is presented as if every
reader should obviously agree with it. Is “far-right” supposed to be something
which is obviously inherently bad? I can see the case for using the term “alt-
right” in that sense. But right/left? The whole point of the right/left
terminology is that it’s not settled which of them is correct. If it _were_ ,
we’d just call them good/bad instead of left/right.

In an article which has nothing to do with actual politics, to bring up “far-
right” as a stereotypical bad thing, shows that it’s written by someone living
in a bubble.

1\.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18160488](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18160488)

~~~
derp_dee_derp
keep reading after that sentence and this article continues to undermine
itself by actively portraying feminists as the greatest thing ever and men as
evil.

> Next thing you know, women will be wearing trousers and thinking they can
> vote.

what does this sentence in the article have to do with anything phone related?
Women can wear whatever they and they've had the vote for over 100 years.

the article makes a decent point and then goes full crazy. Too bad.

~~~
ghostbrainalpha
>> Women can wear whatever they and they've had the vote for over 100 years

Women have had the vote for ALMOST 100 years.

August 18, 1920

------
beat
This is a really interesting and spot-on analysis. If it makes you
uncomfortable, it should.

~~~
ReptileMan
What exactly should make us uncomfortable? Except from the writing style.
Everything she writes as harmful side effects from smartphones has been
written before. Probably even in 2012. There is nothing novel

~~~
beat
Using highly developed feminist framework and applying it to cell phones is
novel, or at least I haven't seen it before. Developing solutions to problems
requires understanding the problems, and putting it into a well-understood and
successful framework points to solutions.

Unfortunately, feminist thought makes a lot of men uncomfortable and often
ugly in their reactions. Just read the comments here.

------
ReptileMan
I don't know - judging by the cracked screen, missing pieces, cracked back, I
am not so sure who is abusing who ...

On a more serious note - that we are overdepended on smartphones is common
knowledge and not some epiphany. Ditto with them helping alienating from the
others. The second part of the article is extremely cringe inducing. She is
trying to cram every feminist buzzword and talking point ever.

------
churchianity
She's not wrong on a lot of points about what tech and phones do to
individuals, just it's a super contrived topic that's existed for as long as
tech has - she said nothing even close to new there.

The elephant in the article is _so what?_. What are we going to do about this?
This is why so many people feel as though feminists are plagued with a
victimhood complex - the only agent in the relationship she draws parallels to
is the person. There is only one person to blame.

I understand the vast social consequences of not owning a phone - but I know
plenty of people who have healthy relationships with their phones. Probably
the one thing they have in common is that they don't blame others for their
problems.

