4 Opinions

The Pioneer Log, March 18, 2011

Symposium sparks student opinions on gender

Two students weigh in on portions of the 30th Annual Gender Studies Symposium that was held March 9-11, 2011.
BY MEGAN MORIN
Staff Writer

On the role of a college president

BY DYLAN DISALVIO
Staff Writer

Technology changes the way that we interact with the world around us. It changes the nature of our identities and how we express ourselves. The panel Gender in Cyberspace, presented by Monique Halgat (11), Daisy Frearson (13) and Andrew Janeba (11), examined how gender identity and sexuality is mediated by increasingly advanced technologies. One of the conclusions they came to was that these oftentimes anonymous forms of communication allow for increased gender fluidity. While Im a proponent of changing the way this society categorizes gender, these technologies are not the path to liberation. Anonymity and the ability to recreate yourself in an online world degrade the quality of relationships that we have in reality. The issue here is one of authenticity. In her presentation, Frearson made the claim that online identities should be considered as significant and authentic as identities in reality.

There is an aspect of human interaction that cannot be replaced in an online format.

Ill admit that, often times, your online life can affect your reality, and that relationships in cyberspace can contribute to your social life. However, I think there is a vast discrepancy in the authenticity of real life identities and relationships, and those formed in a virtual world. There is an aspect of human interactionfacial expressions, eye contact, gestures that cannot be duplicated in an on-

line format. There is always going to be a difference between how people interact in reality, and how people interact online where you can make yourself into whatever you want to be. It seems to me that the more time people put into online social interactions, the less adept they become in real social situations. Despite the value that some people may place on online relationships, people ultimately need genuine human interaction in their lives. You cant replicate intimacy or comfort or any other feeling that requires physical interaction online. If we forget how to become close with people in reality, which requires so many more components than just typing in a chat box, then well miss out on the most essential human relationships. More often Ive found that anonymity turns people into jerks. Were all familiar with the trolling phenomenon, where an anonymous forum user finds ways to contradict, embarrass or be rude to other users. The internet seems to bring out the rude, petty and base side of people far more often than the genuine or caring. So yes, maybe we can have more fluid gender identities and sexuality online. We can freely seek out pleasure without consequences, we can role-play with different sexes and we can transcend the gender dichotomy in an online world. But ultimately, these changes arent going to mean anything until they are manifested in reality. Perhaps the internet can be a starting point to explore different ways to conceptualize our own identities, but unless we connect these two realities and use those experiences to enhance how we relate to each other in the physical world, these internet personas will be nothing more than another form of escapism.

PHOTO BY LEO QIN

There is an alarming difference between how a colleges president and its students view their schools operations. The difference is worth noting: presidents act as managers of the financial engine powering our education, and their actions have a very significant impact on our lives.

Among the considerable hullabaloo of President Barry Glassners upcoming inauguration, set to take place Apr. 7-9, there is surprising silence and lack of awareness about what it is the president of a college actually does. Essentially, they act as CEOs. A president is the highest-level executive officer of the institution and reports directly to the Board of Trustees. To Glassner and most any college president, the school is viewed as a business that needs to make money. Thus, in performing their job, no student interaction is required. To Glassners credit, however, attempts have been made to connect with students: he recently participated in a Fireside Chat, and all are welcome at his upcoming inaugration and inaugural bash. He was a professor of sociology at the University

of Southern California, so its not as though hes strictly a businessman who came straight from a giant corporation to manage our schoolat least, in this way, hes not completely disconnected from the perspective of a student body. But regardless of his efforts or experience, his job is a high-level managerial one, and it necessitates a different perspective than teaching or attending an institution. Im talking about priorities here, folks. To a college president, an expense is an expense: it doesnt matter to him, for example, if the cost comes from executive bonuses or from science equipment. Either way, money is money, and the College must stay afloat. For students, there is a big difference between executive bonuses and science equipment.

To be honest, I couldnt care less about Barry Glassner; if the college could somehow run without paying a president to manage it, I think thatd be great. What I care about is science equipment, SAAB grants, musical instruments, campus events, updated computers and shuttle service to downtown Portland. The values of the students and those of a colleges president are diametrically opposed. Everything that makes our education more rich and whole makes a presidents job as captain of our financial enterprises more complex and difficult. Only by making themselves consistently available, taking themselves out of their offices and perhaps entering a classroom can a president hope to orchestrate the institution in a way that is most beneficial for students.

Sustainability is Sexy
Youth organizations need to mature
A weekly column dedicated to environmental issues

BY ADRIAN GUERRERO
Staff Writer

Uma Narayans presentation, Who Doesnt Wish To Rescue Poor Third World Women?: Some Suspicious Centerings in Contemporary Feminism was a necessary slap in the face for Lewis & Clark idealism. Narayan argued that current projects for development and uplift, like microlending, actually reinforce gender inequality. Narayan makes a valid point. We need to move away from single-issue campaigns to a focus on challenging the entire exploitative system of international capitalism. Western movements to rescue Muslim women are based on racism and anti-immigrant xenophobia. For example, a close look at anti-veiling laws will show that they are actually a violation to a womans right to freedom of religion, use of public spaces and use of public institutions like schools. Second, the veil is clearly being singled out from functionally equivalent clothing, like nun habits, under the justification that Muslim women are the victims of patriarchal men. Herein lies the real problem: attacks on the veil are motivated by the demonization of Muslim men; veils are seen more as a threat to Western civilization than to womens rights. Instead of focusing on womenspecific false solutions, serious feminists need to dismantle the foundations of these systemic inequities. Similarly, where microcredit loans

are hailed by the UN, IMF, Citibank, and many feminists as a panacea to third-world suffering, they are actually bolstering international wage slavery. Most of these women go into debt or do not maintain control over the funds themselves and resort to debt recycling to pay off their dues. Microcredit also reduces government expenditures on public services, education and health care, devalues local currency, affects employment and increases food insecurity by supporting crop specialization.

Young adults gather at SPROG, a Sierra Student Coalition summer training

PHOTO COURTESY OF RACHEL YOUNG

BY RACHEL YOUNG
Staff Writer

Microcredit loans are actually bolstering international wage slavery.

Narayan articulated the point well when she said, [microloans] justify shifting responsibilities for securing employment and provisions onto poor women, as state responsibilities for public provisioning and protection from unemployment are dismantled. Programs like microcredit have ulterior motives in that they are often accompanied by exploitative thirdworld structural adjustment policies. Third world women are being patronized with microloans from Western liberals.

Aimless and misguided are generally the descriptions I give to environmental activist organizations, especially those founded and driven by youth. Though I hope to be employed by these agencies in the near future, I have to criticize the youth-driven environmental and climate movement. These youth organizations generally have little to no tangible positive influence towards solving environmental and climate crises. As a result, many youth-based non-profits falter and their leaders become frustrated. Unfortunately, their frustration often turns into a belief that the source of their problems are structural and that by rearranging structure of the organization, greater efficiency, communication and retention will result. This impulsive restructuring is a completely understandable inclination: many youth-based groups will reorganize annually, write new by-laws, start new tasks forces and expend huge amounts of energy doing so. Despite all of this work, attempting to streamline the group often does not prove effective, because the problems were not organizational to begin with. This means that whatever tribulations occurred in the previous structure carry over to the new one. Youth organizations have a rapid turnover rate because these organizations are dependent on volunteers. As a result, very few employees will have been around long enough to understand the down-

falls and shortcomings of non-profits, while seasoned employees must spend their time training new members. To compound the problem, each new set of leaders has their own ideas about how to structure and organize the group. The problem with youth organizations is threefold. Firstly, when dealing with youth volunteers, there are problems with commitment, retention, avoiding burn out and keeping people excited. Secondly, the campaigns often lack strategy and practicality, and are poorly thought out. The campaigns lack luster because youth-based non-profits have limited financial resources and there is a deficiency in creative thinking. Not all organizations have these problems, but national youth groups such as the Energy Action Coalition constantly fall prey to bad campaigns with unimaginative tactics. Lastly, if the solutions and policies being advocated for are not addressed with rigorous thought, they are often impossible to achieve and are constrained by normative, governmental institutions. Climate change is the perfect example of an issue that is nearly impossible to comprehend and solve. It is global in scale, it requires commitments from nearly every person on the planet. The threat is gradual and extends beyond a single lifetime. Though there are some good things to learn from experiences with such groups, more often than not, frustration and regular refiguring of the structure constrains the groups and they end up making little to no impact.