Blog 4: Free for all

I wasn't sure what to write about this week, but from reading everyone else's, it just seems like everyone is writing about what they hate about the internet.  I'm not sure why the internet inspires such polarized reactions from people, unlike other mediums of creative expression.  Yes, there are people who use the internet for less than noble causes.  However, there are many books written by authors whose opinions I do not agree with, yet I do not dismiss literature as dangerous, hurtful, sexist, racist etc.  I think what people are missing is that people who create online material, just the same as people who create published writing or art, have opinions that you may not respect or agree with.  The internet as a medium is not to blame.

I also think there is some sort of mass hysteria going on about privacy on the internet.  Like if you have a Facebook page or a blog you are inviting sexual predators into your life.  I definitely do not mean that there is no possibility of a person with bad intentions finding you online and causing you harm, but there is so so much you can do to prevent that.  You can make yourself unsearchable of Facebook, so no one you aren't friends with even knows you exist or have a page.  You can have an anonymous blog, and be careful not to include details that would give away what you might feel would be too much information.  In fact, if you are so concerned about it, throw away your router and don't use the internet.  Or just use it for research, never publish anything.  You can even encrypt your IP address.  There are an infinite number of ways you can protect yourself online.

It seems like people are extremely afraid of what is going on behind the computer screen, since they cannot see the millions of other users sitting behind their own computers.  However, if you want to be a part of this technological world, where your livelihood may revolve around the internet, you are able to take responsibility for your own safety online.

Response 3: On Porn in the Library

So, on Tuesday we all went to University Day and asked strangers whether or not the Dimond Library should have a porn policy.  To my surprise, none of the people we asked were aware that a registered sex offender was caught viewing child pornography in the library over the summer.  Most people were surprised to hear about it, and disgusted.  After hearing the news, four out of five people said that there should be a porn policy in the library.  The main reason seemed like it would be to ensure child porn was not being viewed, because most people did not seem too worried about someone watching legal porn in the library, although it would make them uncomfortable.  Only one person surveyed said she would report it.  One person, admittedly playing devil's advocate, asked what if someone was doing research on pornography.  She had done a research paper on prostitution and wondered if a policy against explicit materials would have negatively impacted her research.  However, it seemed that of the people we surveyed, they would all be receptive to a discussion about implementing a policy against pornography in the library.

My opinion on this was similar to those of the students I spoke with.  I am pretty neutral about pornography (obviously excepting child porn- illegal activities should not be sanctioned in the public library!) but I believe there is a time, and particularly-A PLACE for such activities.  That place is not a library that is open to the public, and should be an environment in which everyone can read, research and learn comfortably.  Just like you wouldn't have sex in the library, you shouldn't watch sex in the library.  Nobody wants to see that!  From what I learned through the survey, I would predict a positive reaction to the discussion of a porn policy in the school's library.

Blog Response Two

Eve Shapiro's comment about women's bodies and medical technologies was really interesting.  She says on page 50 that women's bodies are seen as unnatural, a deviation from the normal male baseline in the medical community.  As supporting evidence she names the non-existence of a birth control pill for men.

In one respect, I totally agree with her.  I find it extremely disturbing that birth control pills are handed out to everyone, usually without a full discussion of the risks involved in flooding your body with synthetic sex hormones.  A large part of the reason why the risks are not discussed is because no one fully understands the risks, including the doctors prescribing them.  Birth control was approved by the FDA in 1957.  It was not used widely until the 1970's.  Women who began taking the pill in 1970 are only now reaching old age, when many medical problems set in.  Personally, I do not believe there has been enough testing to confirm that ingesting sex hormones daily will have no negative effects on women in the long term.  The fact that women are given these hormones without full understanding of the possible effects does lead me to believe that Shapiro is right, that women's bodies are considered valid sites for medical experimentation.

However, there is another part of me that wonders whether or not it matters if women's bodies are perceived in this way if the result is improved lives for millions of women everywhere.  Would it be better if they had not approved the Pill? Absolutely not, according to the 12 million American women who take it.  Without effective pregnancy prevention options, many women would find themselves trapped in unwanted pregnancies and possibly dangerous relationships.  A similar situation, although more immediately life threatening, is the advent of HIV/AIDS medication.  This medication, though surely untested over an adequate time period (in my opinion) had saved and improved the lives of many people.  On a personal note, my sister works in a clinic for women and children at risk for the disease in New Orleans, and met a man who was given a week to live in the eighties, the same week that a new AIDS drug was approved.  His doctors gave it to him, just for the heck of it, and he has an undetectable viral load over 20 years later.  Would he rather they have fully tested this drug, until the people in the studies reached old age? I bet not.

Eve Shapiro's argument is very compelling, but also must be taken with a grain of salt.  I really believe these issues must be evaluated on a case by case basis, by an ethics panel with the best interests of all people, regardless of gender in mind.  In a perfect world...

Blog Response One

Emory University English professor and author Mark Bauerlein contends that ours is the “dumbest generation” in his new book.  He blames our seeming decline in intelligence as well as interest on the ubiquitous technology of this digital age.  It might be possible that many of us have not read Moby Dick, since his evidence of our increasing stupidity is that we don’t read enough, however our generation is savvy in ways that are applicable to the changing world, and already possess useful and necessary job skills. 

 My cousin, a recent graduate with a finance degree, has been having trouble finding work in his field.  He had an internship while in school, and the company recently offered him a position teaching others in the company how to use new kinds of software- software that he had never used before.  He does not have a degree in computer science, just an interest in new technology and is a bit nerdy.  He and many others in our generation do not need to be taught to use new programs, we can pick it up easily.  Computers and other forms of technology come to us as a second nature, we know how to navigate the digital world.  This is a function of being a “digital native,” as Bauerlein would say, but in my opinion, this is an important skill that we have and “digital immigrants” do not.

Increasingly, life takes place on the internet, on the computer, cell phone or other form of technology.  Whether this is good or bad almost doesn’t matter, its just a fact.  However, the fact that our generation is well equipped to engage in the job force because we picked up skills editing our photos for Facebook, or learning the shortcuts in Excel may be more beneficial to us, and the greater community, than whether or not we have read all of the novels on the Classics syllabus.  Bauerlein may be correct that we are getting worse at some things, but are we better at the more relevant things?