In light of Valentine’s Day, I recently watched the appropriately hackneyed He’s Just Not That Into You. At one point, Drew Barrymore’s character complains about the struggles of modern dating:

“I had this guy leave me a voicemail at work so I called him at home and then he emailed me to my Blackberry and so I texted to his cell and then he emailed me to my home account and the whole thing just got out of control.”

For us millennials, her plight might not seem that daunting. We frequently juggle multiple forms of technology to communicate with each other (some discount us as easily distracted; I’d argue we’re just better at multitasking). Today, for example, I’ve emailed a professor, texted my boyfriend, instant messaged a co-worker, Facebooked two friends and asked my TA a question in a SmartSite chatroom. I even chose to reach a company’s customer service through their “live chat” option, as opposed to a phone call.

Things did not get “out of control,” but I did notice a trend — all of these forms of communication allowed for delayed responses.

Even in a fast-paced electronic dialogue, each person has a little extra time to think of what they’re going to say. I can write my response, reread it and decide to tweak something before I hit “send.”

Because of this, many conversationally challenged young people such as myself prefer to text, IM and email. In many ways, these new ways of connecting are a godsend. They’re convenient, often quick and discreet, and generally more conducive to multi-tasking.

But they are also changing how we connect with each other, especially romantically.

It is not unheard of nowadays for a relationship to start with some flirty texts, a friend request or a well-timed poke (forgive me). One might tweet about a recent date or write a hopeful post on Like-a-Little. Some may even sink to the depths of scanning Craigslist’s “missed connections.” The fact is, from meeting potential partners to blogging about your wedding, technology plays a bigger role in our romantic lives than ever before.

Before our generation hit the scene, dating had pretty straightforward rules, at least in the heterosexual sphere: boy gets girl’s phone number, boy calls girl, boy asks girl out, boy pays for dinner, boy drops girl off. Boy and girl eventually break up or boy and girl get married.

Now, things are a little more complicated. Gender roles are becoming progressively less defined, and heteronormativity is no longer implicit. Dating websites, for example, are making it easier (and more common) for women to make the first move. More casual forms of communication, like texting, are less risky and allow people to test the waters before jumping into dating.

And though I’m all for gender equality, the prevalence of electronic communication also has its drawbacks. It is near impossible to convey sarcasm, and emoticons are no substitute for the intricacies of tone and body language. Most texts and IMs are also written while doing other things, even while holding simultaneous conversations.

Controversial apps like “Bang With Friends” may make it easier for our so-called “hookup culture” to find one-night stands, but they also take away the risk of putting ourselves out there. Rejection is a part of growing up.

Technology can even interfere once a date has been planned. According to Match.com’s most recent “Singles in America” survey, 48 percent of women and 38 percent of men look up their dates on Facebook before they meet in person. What’s more, 49 percent of women and 27 percent of men would cancel a first date because of something they dug up while stalking — I mean, researching — that person online.

And don’t even get me started on texting during the date itself.

Though the dating scene of Generation Y comes with the benefit of indistinct gender roles, it has also been changed significantly by new technology. Electronic communication can make it easier for people to connect, but it can also be abused.

So next time you meet a potential partner, try to resist the ease of excessive Facebook stalking and texting. Letting the relationship develop more organically may come as a pleasant surprise.

MARISA MASSARA can be reached 24/7 via text, Facebook or instant message, but she prefers you email her at mvmassara@ucdavis.edu.

On Feb. 27, there will be informational pickets of labor environmental and student activists at the Whole Foods near campus at 5 p.m., and then additional pickets outside Freeborn Hall starting at 7 p.m., in response to the hosting of Whole Foods CEO John Mackey by the UC Davis Graduate School of Management Dean Steve Currall.

Mackey will be promoting his new book, Conscious Capitalism: Liberating the Heroic Spirit of Business. The book presents a “free market” of competing — yet ethical — businessmen such as himself, as the only hope for a just and sustainable world. This promotion of feel-good capitalism coincides with the privatization of our campus, which has been characterized by tuition hikes, increasingly austere contracts of workers, program cuts and police brutality.

Conscious Capitalism presents the fuzzy veneer of Whole Foods, while downplaying actions by Mackey that contradict his ethical image. For instance, in 2007 Mackey used a pseudonym to promote his brand and trash competitors on a Yahoo Finance forum.

More troubling is Mackey’s political advocacy. In 2009, Mackey attacked the Affordable Care Act as “socialism,” prompting liberal organizations to boycott Whole Foods. This year, he apologized for the comment, modifying his position that the Act is, in fact, “fascism.”

Whole Foods is a repeat union buster, with one bizarre incident of Mackey urging employees to “expand into love” rather than organize after management fired two pro-union workers. In 2009, Whole Foods executives led the charge to discredit the Employee Free Choice Act, which aimed to shorten the process of union certification. Concerning labor, Mackey once stated, “The union is like having herpes. It doesn’t kill you, but it’s unpleasant and inconvenient, and it stops a lot of people from becoming your lover.”

Mackey has also been an outspoken opponent of climate-change legislation, stating in an interview with Mother Jones last month that, “In general, most of humanity tends to flourish more when global temperatures are in a warming trend … What I am opposed to is trying to stop virtually all economic progress because of the fear of climate change.”

In a 2004 speech to Whole Foods executives, Mackey described a disturbingly paternalistic view of himself: “I’m this rich father figure, and everybody’s pulling at me saying, ‘Daddy, Daddy, can we have this, can we have that, can we have this, can we have that?”

Such unilateral executive power over an institution is not another of Mackey’s idiosyncrasies, but rather it defines private enterprise. This makes GSM Dean Steve Currall’s comment in a 2011 interview with poetsandquants.com particularly chilling: “We’re reducing our reliance on state funds which makes our business model much more akin to a private university based more heavily on tuition and endowment. That is the model we must pursue.”

The powers that want to shift away from public funding in higher education to tuition and endowment are the same that want to disempower workers, and limit the ability of an organized public to manage our health and environment. Mackey writes that “the lead agents of change need to be those who are engaged in business,” and for the moment, they are. We cannot let this go unchallenged.

DAVID RODDY is a fourth-year student. He can be reached at djroddy@ucdavis.edu.

Religious donations from a tithe box at Islamic Center of Davis were stolen this past Tuesday in the middle of the night by an unknown male wearing a baseball cap with sunglasses on top.

The fashion-impaired thief entered the center from an open window and drove off in a white four-door sedan.

The Aggie expresses sympathy toward the Islamic Center, which has been a wonderful addition to the Davis community since 1982. We hope that whatever funds were stolen are found and returned to such an integral part of the cultural and religious identities of many students on campus.

All theft is wrong in the eyes of the law, but the idea of stealing from a nonprofit organization whose aim is to provide a welcoming space for people of all faiths is particularly vile.

We view stealing from a group that provides a helpful service to the community at no charge on its own special rung of douchebaggery. We hold it akin to stealing from a Red Cross, a Salvation Army, a synagogue or the Food Pantry on campus.

The fact that the tithes stolen came from the pockets of ordinary people, many of whom are students, in observance of one of the five main pillars of Islam, secures this Ocean’s 1 heist in the annals of Davis douchebag history.

For now, we encourage all students to stay safe, keep an eye out for any shady activity and report any and all crime to the city police as quickly as possible.

Last week, the Journalism Club released its first issue of The Davis Beat, an independent publication hoping to deliver investigative journalism and provide an alternate source of news to the campus.

Editor in chief Adrian Glass-Moore and managing editor Kevin Pelstring obtained approximately $1,675 in initial funding from ASUCD’s Club Finance Council (CFC) and $150 from the Student Assistants to the Chancellor to produce the biweekly paper.

With the approximate cost of $460 per issue and a plan to distribute 2,000 copies every other week, The Davis Beat plans to eventually sustain itself through advertisements, as there is a cap on the amount of money a club can receive from the CFC.

It’s no lie that print journalism isn’t as popular as it used to be. And we know all too well the financial needs of producing a daily paper for the past hundred or so years. If The Davis Beat can secure enough print advertisements to stay afloat after the initial funding runs out, then we will be impressed. It’s a hard market, and we wish them luck.

According to the “About Us” section in the first issue as well as the website davisbeat.org, the newspaper wants to make clear that they “recognize the importance of investigative journalism; going deep into stories and pulling out truths beyond what meets the eye.” The paragraph goes on to say that readers “deserve a newspaper that will tackle issues critically … that takes journalistic integrity and factuality with utmost seriousness.”

We did not see these investigative pieces in the first issue, but we hope to see them in the next.

It’s important to note that many of The Davis Beat editors are involved with ASUCD. It will be interesting to see how certain student government topics are investigated, given the many potential conflicts of interest.

Best of luck to the editors, writers and photographers involved with The Davis Beat. We applaud fellow students for taking the initiative to publish their writing and opinions in a startup publication.