Commentary
Oregon Daily Emerald
Monday, May 23, 2005
NEWS STAFF
(541)346-5511
JEN SUDICK
EDITOR IN CHIEF
STEVEN R. NEUMAN
MANAGING EDITOR
JARED PABEN
AY1SHA YAHYA
NEWS EDITORS
MEGHANN CUNIFF
PARKER HOWELL
SENIOR NEWS REPORTERS
MORIAH BAUNGIT
ADAM CHERRY
BRJTTNI McCLENAHAN
EMILY SMrTH
EVA SYLWESTER
SHELDON TRAVER
NEWS REPORTERS
CLAYTON JONES
SPORTS EDITOR
ION ROETMAN
SENIOR SPORTS REPORTER
STEPHEN MILLER
BRIAN SMITH
SPORTS REPORTERS
RYAN NYBURG
PULSE EDITOR
AMY LICHTY
SENIOR PULSE REPORTER
JOSHUA UNTEREUR
PULSE REPORTER
CAT BALDWIN
IOHN PALMER
PULSE CARTOONISTS
AILEE SLATER
COMMENTARY EDITOR .
GABE BRADLEY
ANNEMAR1E KNEPPER
CHUCK SLOTHOWER
JENNIFER MCBRIDE
COLUMNISTS
ASHLEY GRIFFIN
SUPPLEMENT
FREELANCE EDITOR
DANIELLE HICKEY
PHOTO EDITOR
LAUREN WIMER
SENIOR PHOTOGRAPHER
NICOLE BARKER
TIM BOBOSKY
PHOTOGRAPHERS
KATE HORTON
ZANERITT
PART-TIME PHOTOGRAPHERS
BRET FURTWANGLER
GRAPHIC ARTIST
DUSTIN REESE
SENIOR DESIGNER
ELLIOTT ASBURY
WENDY KIEFFER
AMANDA LEE
IONAH SCHROGIN
DESIGNERS
SHADRABEESLEY
IEANNIE EVERS
COPY CHIEFS
KIMBERLY BLACKFIELD
JOSH NORRIS
SPORTS COPY EDITORS
GREG BILSLAND
AMBER LINDROS
NEWS COPY EDITORS
|ENNY GERW1CK
PULSE COPY EDITOR
ADRIENNE NELSON
ONLINE EDITOR
WEBMASTER
(541)346-5511
JUDY RIEDL
GENERAL MANAGER
KATHY CARBONE
BUSINESS MANAGER
IAUNADE GIUST!
RECEPTIONIST
IERED NAGEL
PATRICK SCHMERBER
HOLLY STEIN
1ANASWANSON
ROB WEGNER
CAROLYN ZIMMERMAN
DISTRIBUTION
ADVERTISING
(541) 346-3712
MELISSA GUST
ADVERTISING DIRECTOR
TYLER MACK
SALES MANAGER
MATT BETZ
HERON CAUSCH-DOLEN
MEGAN HAMLIN
KATE HIRONAKA
MAEGAN KASER-LEE
KELLEE KAUFTHEIL
MIA LEIDELMEYER
SHANNON ROGERS
SALES REPRESENTATIVES
CLASSIFIED
(541)3464343
TRINA SHANAMAN
CLASSIFIED MANAGER
KORALYNN BASHAM
ANDO
KAXY GAGNON
KER1 SPANGLER
KATIE STRINGER
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
ASSOCIATES
PRODUCTION
(541) 3464381
MICHELE ROSS
PRODUCTION MANAGER
TARA SICIAIM
PRODUCTION COORDINATOR
IEN CRAMLET
KRISTEN DICHARRY
CAMERON GAUT
SABRINA GOWETTE
IONAH SCHROGIN
DESIGNERS
The Oregon Daily Emerald is pu6
lished daily Monday through Fri
day during the school year by the
Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing
Co. Inc., at the University of Ore
gon, Eugene, Ore. The Emerald
operates independently of the
University with offices in Suite
300 of the Erb Memorial Union.
The Emerald is private property.
Unlawful removal or use of
papers is prosecutable by law.
Bret Furtwancler | Graphic artist
■ In my opinion
Removing Mtl from WOttUin
He’s just not that into you.
It’s a phrase that’s taking single
American women by storm, thanks
to a recent book of the same name.
Crafted by “Sex and the City” alums
Greg Behrendt and Liz Tliccillo, the
book contains a message of utmost
simplicity: Sometimes, ladies, he’s
just not that into you. If he hasn’t
called you, isn’t following up on
plans, isn’t being intimate, cheats on
you, doesn’t want to get serious, has
disappeared ... he’s just not that into
you. The book’s merits with respect
to women, and feminism in particu
lar, are huge.
When you hear the book’s title,
the concept seems obvious. Reading
the book is the same; each chapter
elicits a resounding “duh.” Often,
when learning a new idea, it’s easy
to look it over, see how clear every
thing is, and assume you already
knew it. But the synthesis of ideas
the book offers is truly novel to pop
ular culture and should be lauded
for that. It’s perfectly apparent to
women that we “shouldn’t settle,”
and yet culture never gives us a
break from the dating game. All men
represent chances for relationships,
and relationships are, for many
women, life’s ultimate goal. Not that
there’s anything wrong with having
the goal of a heterosexual romantic
coupling, but it is sad that women
are not allowed to look beyond this
reality and explore what life path
will make them happiest.
The book’s true epiphany comes in
realizing that women already know
these things and yet never put them
into practice. It’s obvious that if a guy
doesn’t call, he’s just not that into
you. If he doesn’t care about your
friends or family, he’s just not that
into you. If he only wants to see you
when he’s drunk and in his under
wear, he’s just not that into you.
_Mw
AILEE SLATER
FURTHER FROM PERFECTION
Sadly, as a woman, it is usually too
hard to accept that a man doesn’t like
us. Really. In a society in which the
worth of a woman is based on her ro
mantic standings with men, not ful
filling that cultural dream of being the
object of male desire hurts.
“He’s Just Not That Into You”
socks a hard punch. After each ex
ample of a situation in which the
guy is just not that into you (and
trust me, if you are a heterosexual
woman, you will find many to be fa
miliar), author Greg straight up ex
plains the reality of a man’s disinter
est. As a woman, this experience is
surprisingly hard to come by. When
a guy doesn’t call, we tell ourselves
and our girlfriends every excuse in
the book (he has a lot of work right
now, he lost his phone, he broke his
dialing finger in a freak breakdanc
ing accident) but never the one that
is probably the truth: He doesn't like
you. He’s not attracted to you. He’s
just not that into you.
We think it will be too hard to hear.
Too hard? To hear that some guy
you think is hot and datable doesn’t
feel the same way? So What! You
don’t like everyone, even in terms of
friendship, and not everyone is going
to like you. “He’s just not that into
you” is a great phrase because it does
n’t sugarcoat it. This phrase, this
book, this concept, assumes from the
beginning that as a woman, you can
easily deal with the fact that a man
doesn’t desire you. The concept of
“he’s just not that into you” assumes
that women already know that their
self-worth is not determined by how
many guys want to pork them.
When was the last time a piece of
pop culture sprung up with an under
lying assumption like that?
Certainly not in television, in
which women spend episode upon
episode consoling one another over
the failure of potential relationships
(kind of like my kitchen table, come
to» think of it). The underlying as
sumption in these situations is that
losing a man is a sign that you, as a
woman, are not good enough with
out him. Why else do you need all
your peers to console you, and why
else do you make up excuses when
some random guy who asked for
your number at a gas station doesn’t
call? It would be wonderful if conver
sations that begin, “Well, I thought
he was into dating me, but we never
hang out and he hasn’t called,” could
just end with, “Well, I guess he
doesn’t really like you. Hey, what do
you want to make for dinner?”
Someday women can stop being
afraid of offending each other because
the real offense is to insinuate that
something is wrong with a woman
because a man doesn’t like her — that
she needs comfort because gas station
boy is just not that into her. If he likes
her, he will call. If not, that’s cool too.
It is so simple. So why then has this
epiphany taken this long? Social revo
lutions always do. Other feminists
may laugh at my manifesto, which is
pink and green with a phone on the
cover, but I will sit tight and look for
ward to a future devoid of sub-par re
lationships and women wasting their
time, energy, and mental power wor
rying and consoling when a man is
just not that into them.
aileeslater@dailyemerald.com
■ Editorial
Medicine's
future lies
in research
of stem cells
Medical technology represents one way in
which every nation of the world continually
changes and advances. TWo centuries ago we re
lied on leeches; one decade ago prescription
drugs were cutting edge. Today, as we look to
ward the future of medicine, much importance
rests on three little words: stem cell research.
Stem cells, most easily produced from cloned
embryos, promise to make organ transplants
flawless, as stem cells can be used to create new
organs from a host’s own tissue. In addition, stem
cells can be used to treat diseases such as dia
betes and help injuries resulting from tom mus
cles. This research cannot be done with any other
kind of cell; only stem cells have the unique abili
ty to “divide without limit (and) replenish other
cells,” according to The official National Institutes
of Health resource for stem cell research.
Of course, as with any new medical technolo
gy, the potential dangers of stem cell research are
numerous. Some cite the possibility of human
clones and abortion for the sake of medicine as
reasons to oppose this research. They claim that
any cluster of cells that has the potential to devel
op into a living, breathing human should not be
subjected to scientific experimentation.
On Sunday, President Bush once again ex
pressed his opposition to stem cell research that
involves embryonic cells, saying he will veto any
future bill that favors such work. He has claimed
to be against anything that “destroys life in order
to save life.” Like many conservatives in this
country, Bush fears that to be in favor of stem cell
work is to be in favor of abortion.
The flaws in this reasoning are plentiful, the
first being that with proper regulation, in
creased abortion is simply not an issue. Also, as
long as abortion remains legal, there is no rea
son those stem cells should go to waste. Like
wise, until it is scientifically proved otherwise, a
woman’s embryo is not yet a human being; it is
a cell in her body, and if she chooses to donate
that cell to science, she should be allowed to do
so. As for the fear of human clones running
amok, the solution again lies in regulation. The
U.S. government cannot prevent scientific ad
vances worldwide; the most this country can
do is take legal and medical steps to ensure
everyone receives the most benefits and fewest
disadvantages possible. As it now stands, the
movement against stem cell research in this
country is just a conservative wave of reason
ing based more on abstract ideas of religion and
politics than logic, safety or science.
Unfortunately for the United States, this atti
tude results in only our own loss. We may be
ahead in the world of drugs, but the future of
medicine is biotherapy. Countries such as South
Korea and Canada are already making headway
into solving the problems and reaping the bene
fits of stem cell research. In another five years,
while those and other countries are busy curing
disease, the United States will be furiously scram
bling to make up for lost time. Medical concepts
are not always perfect, but with the proper regu
lation and ethical guidelines (which the Bush ad
ministration has barely even considered offering),
there is no reason that our country should not put
forth serious efforts toward stem cell research.
CORRECTION
On Friday the Emerald reported in a cutline that Oregon
sprinter Kedar Inico took home the 400-meters title in the
2005 Pacific-10 Championships with a personal best
time of 45 minu ,s, 61 seconds. It was actually 45.61
seconds.
The Ei era Id regrets the error.