Ethics! Module 4: Ghosting

A woman looks anoyed while a man looks at her.

Photo: Vivian Zink / NBC.

Content Note

The following module includes a disturbing example of a man’s intense hostility when being rejected by a woman as a romantic partner.

Have you ever been ghosted by a romantic partner? If so, I suspect you found it an unpleasant experience. Indeed, there are those who argue that ghosting is morally undesirable. This module has you analyze an argument that, in certain situations, it is morally justified for women to ghost men.

We have 3 learning outcomes for this module. By the end of it, you will be able to…

Explain the general structure of a 4-sentence paper,
Apply that 4-sentence template to summarize Nicole Dular’s argument in favor of ghosting, and
Reflect on the extent to which you find Dular’s argument persuasive.

Read & Annotate This:

Boy Bye

Context

In her article, Nicole Dular (2021) wants to argue that, in heterosexual dating relationships, it is okay for women to ghost men. In doing so, she draws on some recent work in social philosophy about misogyny and patriarchy. With that, her argument is that ghosting is a powerful way for women to not only protect themselves from misogynistic behavior but also resist patriarchal presuppositions.

As part of this module, I will also introduce you to the 4-sentence paper. (In the optional “Curious for More?” section below, I’ve included an article by Dennis Earl (2015) explaining it in great detail.) As you will see in my videos, the 4-sentence paper provides a nice template for both summarizing the arguments of others and outlining your own arguments. Indeed, it almost seems like Dular wrote a 4-sentence paper justifying ghosting and then used that as an outline for her whole article!

In her article, Dular (on page 69) presents a rather disturbing iMessage exchange where a woman explicitly rejects a man as a romantic partner. If you are curious about where Dular got this from, I have included (in the optional “Curious for More?” section below) the original tweet from Mrs. McG (2019). This is especially interesting because it also includes another iMessage exchange where the original woman is talking to the (male) friend of the man she rejected.

Reading Questions

As you read, keep these questions in mind:

According to Nicole Dular, what “three types of common responses” (2021, p. 70) do women often experience when they explicitly reject men as dating partners? Have you (or anyone you know) ever personally experienced any of these? If so, how did those responses make you (or the person you know) feel?
What does Dular mean by “misogyny” (2021, p. 71), and how does she argue that those three responses (from the previous question) are misogynistic? In particular, according to Dular, what patriarchal entitlements do these responses presume, and how is each response essentially a form of punishment for denying those entitlements?
How does Dular justify her claim that ghosting is a form of self-protection for women? According to Dular, why does that make those instances of ghosting morally permissible?
Even if only a small number men engage in those three misogynistic behaviors (from question 1), what reasons does Dular give to show that it is still morally permissible for women to ghost men instead of explicitly rejecting them?
What does Dular mean by “blocking” (2021, p. 76), and how does she argue that ghosting—especially when a women explicit rejects a man and is confronted with his misogynistic responses—is an act of blocking? How does she use this to support her conclusion that ghosting on those situations is morally laudable (praiseworthy)?

Although I strongly suggest that you write out brief answers to these questions, you do not have to turn in written responses. You do, however, need to be prepared to answer questions like these on module quizzes and the unit exams.

References

Dular, N. (2021). Boy bye: A feminist defense of ghosting. In B. Fischer (Ed.), College ethics: A reader on moral issues that affect you (2nd ed., pp. 67–81). Oxford University Press.

Earl, D. (2015, March). The four-sentence paper: A template for considering objections and replies. Teaching Philosophy, 38(1), 49–76.

Mrs. McG [@mrsmcglover]. (2019, July 10). This is truly mind blowing (or maybe not). The first screen cap is an exchange with a guy who got [Images attached] [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/mrsmcglover/status/1149058072511307778