Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
Email: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online Edition:
www.dailyemerald.com
Monday, February 17,2003
-Oregon Daily Emerald
Commentary
Editor in Chief:
Michael J. Kleckner
Managing Editor:
Jessica Richelderfer
Editorial Editor
Pat Payne
Editorial
Everyone can
do something
to end culture’s
objectification
Last week, we published an editorial after a rash of
masturbation incidents, including one involving a man
who flashed and masturbated in front of ASUO President
Rachel Pilliod. The point of the article was to reinforce
what we thought to be things that young women could
do in case they encounter a similar situation.
However, we did not include the other side of the equa
tion, and this omission was brought to our attention by
readers and by Pilliod, whose response to that editorial
is running today as well.
Obviously, men need to stop harassment and assault, but
the issue is deeper than that — it’s a social problem. Origi
nally, we didn't discuss the social forces that create a culture
where men commit sexual crimes because we felt helpless.
It seems impossible to change the whole world, and if we
can’t change the culture, women at least need to be able to
protect themselves. But that’s not the whole story. Women
do need to stay safe, but safety will never be enough until
everyone works to stem America’s objectification culture.
The United States is gripped by a culture that changes
women from humans into body parts for men’s sexual
gratification. Television commercials are famous for us
ing women, often in skimpy clothing that maximizes
their “assets” — even that commonly used term implies
women’s value is in their body parts — as window dress
ing or as a subtle message to men: Buy this beer or eat
this pizza or drive this car, and you will get women’s
body parts.
Anyone who has picked up a Victoria’s Secret cata
logue or seen beer commercials knows what we’re talk
ing about. Objectification in mass form leads to a mass
unconscious understanding that women are there to
be used.
So if you want to know how to stop men from commit
ting sexual crimes, here’s a start that everyone, men and
women, can participate in: Stop buying products that are
advertised using objectification. Stop saying it’s accept
able for our culture to portray women in this way.
Stop patronizing movies that glorify rape and sexual
violence or that show women as existing only for sexual
reasons. Stop listening to music that refers to women as
“whores” or seems to infer that it’s OK to rape. In short,
tell those in the media who set the culture’s agenda that
objectifying women is unacceptable. Tell them you want
to see women portrayed as full, complete humans.
Certainly, it is naive to expect that reversing objectifi
cation culture will completely end the problem of rape
and sexual harassment. But if American culture retrains
young males and tells them that women are not simply
items to be used for sexual pleasure, there is a chance of
reducing harassment and date rape. Frankly, one more
incident of sexual assault is too many. It’s time Ameri
cans looked at their culture and tried to change it.
Editorial policy
This editorial represents the opinion of the
Emerald editorial board. Responses can be sent
to ietters@dailyemerald.com. Letters to the
editor and guest commentaries are encouraged.
Letters are limited to 250 words and guest
commentaries to 550 words. Authors are
limited to one submission per calendar month.
Submission must include phone number and
address for verification. The Emerald reserves
the right to edit for space, grammar and style.
Editorial board members
MichaelJ.KIeckner
Editor in* chief
Jessica Richelderfer
Managing editor
Julie lauderbaugh
Editorial editor
Pat Payne
Editorial editor
Jenna Cunningham
Student representative!
Time for action against Iraq
It’s time I put my two cents
in about the impending war
with Iraq by saying: Blow the
bastards away!
What are we saying by not
doing anything? Are we saying
that the United States can talk
a good talk but it can’t walk the
walk? We’re saying that we
threatened them, they called
our bluff; therefore, we will not
act. No, that is unacceptable.
Saddam Hussein has
proven time and time again
that he is
not will
ing to co
operate.
He is
willingly
and
know
ingly
keeping
weapons
of mass
destruc
tion, and
this fact has been announced
by the major networks and
newspapers as well as by Sec
retary of State Colin Powell in
a dramatic address in front of
the United Nations nearly two
weeks ago.
What should America do?
Smile, slap his wrist and say,
“Mr. Hussein, you naughty,
naughty boy,” and then pre
tend that he’ll behave himself?
People like him do not under
stand pretty words of negotia
tions and talk. They under
stand only one thing—action.
The United States must take
action. We have to send the
message that we will not mere
ly sit idle while Hussein uses
the time to plan, and eventual
ly carry out, a devastating at
tack on the United States or
any other nation. He’s done it
before, by overrunning Kuwait
in a blitzkreig.
However, on the opposite
side, why now? Why after all
Salena
DeLaCruz
Say it loud
this time, why after Desert
Storm, when we had the op
portunity to take out the
madman behind the chaos?
It’s all about the money. And
it always will be. America
may not be able to afford war
with Iraq, financially, but can
it afford what will happen if
action is not taken?
There has been much spec
ulation on what will happen
when we do go to war. Will
there be suicide attacks? Will
Saddam let loose his weapons
of mass destruction on our
troops? Will there be a blood
bath in Baghdad? No one can
answer these questions. I can’t
answer these questions. Is
that the reason people balk at
the word ‘war’?
Some people may think
America’s president is merely
finishing what his dad, former
President George Bush, start
ed, and perhaps that’s true.
However, I believed even then
there was a time for action. We
acted, responded to a threat
and launched Desert Storm.
But we never really finished
the job. We never went to
Baghdad and put Hussein
away. If the United States had,
we would be able to put more
effort into the ‘War on Terror
ism’ instead of dividing our
efforts between Hussein and
Osama bin Laden.
There is a time for every
thing. There is a time to talk
and negotiate and a time to
act. That time is now. America
must show the world that our
country stands behind its
leader. We must show the
world that we support war be
cause we want Hussein’s plots
of destruction to be resolved.
We do not want them closer to
our back door.
Let me bring this a little clos
er to home for those who think
war with Iraq is unnecessary. I
see a day of disorder, a day
when Hussein uses those
weapons of mass destruction
ivxy.
Peter Utsey Emerald
because the United States
hoped words were enough. I see
a day when the people of this
great nation will be falling to
their knees for mercy and be
denied that small act. On this
day, once the weapons have
been deployed, what is to stop
them from entering our coun
try and destroying what little
we would have left? Fear and
death would be so much more
than what would be — it would
be closer; it would be here.
It is in our faces now. It is
close to home now. How much
closer will it have to be for peo
ple to want to react? Would you
like them at your home, killing
your loved ones? Would you act
then? No, yes, maybe ... by
then, it would be too late ... by
then, we would have had our
chance, but by then we would
be dead.
Contact the columnist at
salenadelacruz@dailyemerald.com.
Her views do not necessarily
represent those of the Emerald.
Constitution Court petition isn't sour grapes
So on Friday, I filed a petition with the
ASUO Constitution Court, asking it to halt
the Programs Finance Committee’s recall
process until procedures for recall hearings
could be written.
And no, I’m not here to plead my case.
That’s for the court
to decide based on
the Emerald’s com
plaint. Instead, I
want to explain the
conundrum the
newspaper found it
self in, so that our ap
peal to the court
doesn’t appear to be
sour grapes.
It certainly could
look that way. Our
news coverage ex
plained that the ASUO Executive recom
mendation for the Emerald’s incidental fee
allocation represented a nearly #11,000 de
crease to our incidental fee allocation.
Readers could think we were just mad.
On the other hand, before the Emer
ald’s PFC hearing, the editorial board
wrote that PFC was wrong in cutting OS
PIRG’s budget. Readers could think PFC
members recalled the Emerald’s budget
because they were mad.
Michael J.
Kleckner
The editor's office
Both of these situations show the dilem
ma we face as a news organization. Part of
our core duty is to be a watchdog of student
government, and surely that means being a
close watchdog on the arm of government
that handles the money. Unfortunately,
that’s the same arm that holds the purse
strings of our student subscription fee.
Other news organizations have concerns
slightly similar to these: Unduly angering
advertisers or large segments of the sub
scribing population can be hazardous to the
bottom line. That doesn’t mean, however,
that journalists should do their job with any
less scrutiny. And no other American news
oudet has the government controlling all
the dollars of its largest subscriber base.
Regardless of the outcome, we try to
cover student government with the ut
most fairness, including fairly criticizing
the government or running less-than-flat
tering articles if they are warranted. But
for this particular story, I decided we
needed a split between the organization
as fee-seeking group and the organization
as news-gathering group.
As soon as I heard that PFG was recalling
the Emerald’s budget, I removed myself
from any news decisions about the story.
Jessica Richelderfer, my managing editor,
and Brook Reinhard, one of my news edi
tors, are in charge of deciding what to cover
and how to cover it. I told them simply to
think about the story as if it was some other
student group. How would they cover the
story if it was about the Oregon Commen
tator or the Oregon Marching Band?
My role in this is as administrator for the
group. My interests need to be in represent
ing the Emerald before PFC, not in deciding
how to cover our hearing procedure. Cer
tainly, I don’t want our budget cut; we’re do
ing the same job we always have while fac
ing increased costs as well as a larger
student population to serve.
What I hope for the most, though, is a
resolution to this yearly dilemma. It
would be nice if PFC and the Emerald
could develop a formula for the bulk stu
dent subscription that could be used year
after year, so that the appearance of
reprisal or caprice can be eliminated.
After all, regardless of the outcome of
our incidental fee allocation, we still have
to keep reporting on what student gov
ernment does — whether it looks like
sour grapes or not. We can’t change that,
but maybe we can engage the process in a
way that makes it easier for everyone to
do their job.
Contact the editor in chief
at editor@dailyemerald.com.