Perspectives On Gender Equality

Aiden Crowley

We live in a world where gender inequality is talked about now maybe more than ever. It is evident through conversations such as the me too movement and feminism. Over the course of time there has been a long history of gender inequality where females have been repressed by society. Men have abused positions of power and maintained a societal system that benefits them over the course of history. This inequality has taken many forms over the years and shifted from voting equality to ideas such as equal pay. It was not all that long ago that women were forced to stay home, clean the house and watch the kids in our society. While this way of life has changed it is not completely gone and many of these ideals still persist among the population. The way we look at gender equality has shifted with the times to modern discussions of job opportunity disparity and work life balance amongst genders. Through articles from Slaughter, Reiner, Sandberg and Dorment an issue of socialized gender behavior emerges as a factor playing a major role in this disparity amongst genders. While very real inequality still exists through pay gap and job positions held. The question that is raised from this is what does a gender equal society look like?

Anne-Marie Slaughter

In Slaughter’s article Why Women Still Can’t Have It All she addresses gender inequality specifically in positions of power. Women are severely under represented in high positions of our society. In corporate level positions women “top out at 15, 16 percent”. A focus of Slaughter’s paper is striking a “work life balance” as there are unrealistic expectations put on women. According to Slaughter women are deprived from these positions because of maternity and social pressures. In her opinion there is an overemphasis on working extra hours or “macho time” as she puts it that is inefficient. She puts some pressure on businesses to get away from overemphasizing the vitality of being able to work all the time. Only when this way of thinking is removed will there be enough room for women to work up into high ranking positions. When this is achieved and women are appointed to positions of power while representing 50% of congress will there be gender equality.

Slaughter faces some opposition even with people on her side of the debate. Throughout Slaughter’s article she emphasizes being a mother before every speech. Her thinking is that normalizing being a mother in positions of power will overtime normalize this behavior, allowing for more acceptance in the workforce. Despite her intentions she is met with opposition from other feminists. These feminists claim that she must only be seen as a strong independent women and should stop feeding these gendered stereotypes that women can only be mothers. Slaughter’s point is that women should not have to hide their identity as a mother just as men do not have to as a dad. For society to be equal there should not be any emphasis on being a mother or taking maternity leave as it does not matter for the efficiency of the company. This feminist perspective in many ways perpetuates the ideology that being strong and a hard worker can not go hand in hand with being a mother. This brings up the question whether equal representation is actually equality if the values that are still being held are those of strength or what is considered masculine values. Some people may find Slaughter as unrelatebale as she was head of Policy Planning for the U.S. Department of state where her boss was Hillary Clinton when compared with the average person.

Sheryl Sandberg

Sandberg addresses the issue of gender inequality through her Ted Talk presentation Why We Have Too Few Women Leaders. Like Slaughter, Sandberg also agrees that the issue lies in the roles women are excluded from but differs in how to go about solving it. To Sandberg, women need to be more assertive and demand a spot on the table. They must have confidence and believe that they are deserving of the position. This theory seems to imply that women are socialized throughout their life to be more passive and self contained. Sandberg is telling women to abandon these norms embracing what is considered more masculine qualities to get what they desire. She states that “women systematically underestimate their own abilities”. According to Sandberg to achieve equality women must break this institutionalized barriers that are repressing them and “sit at the table”. Sandberg receives criticism from the likes of Slaughter that she is blaming the women for not achieving instead of institutional factors. In some ways this argument ties to Dorment’s argument that it is a matter of choice. One could argue that Sandberg being the COO of Facebook may overemphasize her own accomplishments instead of looking at social factors such as coming from a wealthy family and attending Harvard that provided her the opportunity to “sit at the table”.

Richard Dorment

Dorment in his article Why Men Still Can’t Have It All claps back at Slaughter and Sandberg. He does not think that there are considerable advantages in life being born a male versus a female. Dorment does acknowledge that institutional sexism and pay discrimination is a thing but are rare. He states “the opportunity gap between the sexes has all but closed but yet a stark achievement gap persists”. According to this article men and women have reached an equilibrium and too much blame is being put on men. Richard Dorment demises that the argument that is being made from the likes of Slaughter and Sandberg is over work life balance and happiness with work. When it comes to this argument he says men have it just as bad if not in some cases worse than women. He states “if anything, it is men who are twice as likely to say they are unhappy”. If the measure on gender inequality is happiness and work life balance then men are actually the disadvantaged not the women according to Dorment. Additionally, in this article he finds that women when given the option prefer to work part time which is contributing to the gender pay difference. He claims it is because women are working part time that they do not make as much as their male counterparts.

Throughout this article Dorment appears to allude to the fact that there is a biological component as to why we see this achievement gap. He claims that in most cases women do not want to work as much and are more content with working part time; which is preventing them from making it to the top. This idea is in direct opposition with the idea that there are socialized norms in our society that influence women to think this way as made evident by Slaughter and Sandberg. Dorment receives a lot of push back from people claiming that he is mocking of Slaughter and Sandberg in the way he composes this article. There are also claims that his audience is just young wealthy white males who do not want to see women make more than them. These criticisms help emphasize the fact that there are gendered stereotypes playing a role in this argument one way or another.

Andrew Reiner

Reiner in his article Teaching Men To Be Emotionally Honest indirectly aims at a solution to this gender inequality. In this article Reiner addresses socialized gender behavior in a way similar to what Slaughter says for women. Men are often taught to repress their emotions and “be a man” to not cry. He states “boys are taught, sometimes with the best of intentions, to mutate their emotional suffering into anger”. This does not provide males an outlet which often leads to anger. Reiner advocates for safe places for males to express their emotions in safe ways. He argues that giving males this outlet actually benefits women. Women are often the outlet for males problems and therefore carry the burden of their problems and the males. Some argue against Reiner claiming that he is just contributing more to the problem by providing more for the privileged males instead of really addressing the problem at hand. Arguments like these suggest again that males are on the receiving end of a lot of benefits which opposes some of Dorment’s claims.

What emerges from these debates over gender inequality is a fundamental disagreement on what a future of equality actually looks like. As shown, it is not as simple as merely looking at average pay between men and women. There are underlying debates such as whether our social structure inhibits women from making it to the top or potentially biological reasons. Are institutions the real problem or does it come down to the individual to really want it to achieve in life? There are disagreements on what we should even look at to measure equality. How should our society look? Is it a society that has equal representation in positions of power amongst genders or a society where males and females are equally happy? Should men be allowed to express “feminine” emotions or should women adopt “masculine” values. These moral questions emerge from these discussions and only add to the complexity of the debate. Are we striving for a society that both genders make the exact same amount or is it a society where gendered stereotypes are completely dismantled that allows both genders to finally be equal? Or have we already reached equality? Depending on who you ask you will get drastically different answers. So can we all have it all? It may not be as simple as a yes or no.

Work Cited

Dorment, Richard. “Why Men Still Can’t Have It All.” Esquire, 7 Oct. 2017, http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/a22764/why-men-still-cant-have-it-all-0613/.

Reiner, Andrew. “Teaching Men to Be Emotionally Honest.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 4 Apr. 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/education/edlife/teaching-men-to-be-emotionally-honest.html.

Sandberg, Sheryl. “Why We Have Too Few Women Leaders.” TED. 2010. Lecture.

Slaughter, Anne-Marie. Why Women Still Can’t Have It All. Oneworld, 2015.

Kennedy Turner

“Because I am a female I am expected to aspire to marriage. I am expected to make my life choices always keeping in mind that marriage is most important. Now marriage can be a source of joy, love, and mutual support which I think can be a good thing. But, why do we teach girls to aspire to marriage and don’t teach boys the same?” These impeccable words were spoken by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie.

This quote introduces the idea that the concept of marriage is primarily implemented into the minds of women in oppose to men. Why? In a culture consumed by the idea of change and equality for all, when will they reach the deep rooted problems taught at young ages that define the ways in which people live their lives.

Normalized Gender Norms

The natural upbringings of boys and girls are gendered. Whether it be how they play, what colors they like, and what they want to be when they grow up. More importantly, what goals they should expect to achieve. These gendered concepts have been normalized for decades. It is common to adopt the idea that girls should be princesses because it is basic knowledge amongst the American culture. However, marriage is also a concept embraced by American culture. Why is it important that girls know to work toward it to truly fulfill their lives? Societal norms frown upon middle aged women who are not yet married.

We Should All Be Feminists

In Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s Ted Talk,  We should all be feminists, she suggests that the culture is not to blame. She states, “Culture does not make people, people make culture.” The accusation that it is not society but the people within society causing societal issues baffles many people. Many would justify marriage being an aspiration for women because that is just the way the culture is… But, we are the culture and we believe in equality? Until modern culture accepts that they are the ones reiterating traditions and tired beliefs, there is no room for change.

She goes on to discuss how women are taught to behave in the eyes of men. She says, “We teach girls to have ambition, but not too much… to be successful, but not too successful otherwise they’ll threaten the man”(Adichie 2012). This correlates directly to the claim because all the different ways in which girls are taught certain things can be connected to aspiring to marriage because it is for the attention of men. She says, “We praise girls for virginity, but we don’t praise boys for virginity..”(Adichie 2012). This suggests that it is shameful to want to do some of the things that boys get to do. Because it is not respectable, or acceptable for a woman.

The Psychology Behind It

Three researchers in psychology, Marianne Taylor, Marjorie Rhodes, and Susan Gelman at the University of Michigan, created a study for children called : Boys will be boys; Cows will be cows. In this study, they asked young children a series of questions regarding animal species and gender role tendencies. Results at the end of the study were collected.

The psychologists state, “Children, based on the findings in this study, assume that girls are born with innate and unchangeable characteristics that fundamentally differ from the innate and unchangeable characteristics that boys are born with” (Brown par 4). Also in this study it is stated that, “Some may ask does it matter whether children think all girls sew and that all boys collect baseball cards? We know that with increased labeling of gender, our tendency to think that all boys have one set of attributes and all girls have another increases. But does that matter when we are raising our own kids? Yes, because once these stereotypes kick in for a child, they are extremely hard to change”(Brown par 6).  

This relates back to the claim because once stereotypes are embedded in a child, they continue to believe and trust in society. Which can be reason to believe that women are taught to aspire to marriage.

American Idol

Girls are raised and inspired to be like the women they watch and idolize. But, do they idolize specific women because they are taught to? And what makes the women they are taught to idolize, different than the ones they are not? Is it there clothing or self demeanor? Most importantly. Are the women we do not teach them to idolize married? It can be reasonably concluded that the men boys idolize are not married in most cases.

For example, Cinderella. Cinderella does a great job of teaching young women to aspire to marriage. She only finds true happiness when she lives happily ever after with Prince Charming. She tirelessly works everyday hoping she will eventually be swept off her feet and saved from her treacherous life. Insinuating, that a woman will only be safe and happy when she finds a man and keeps a man.

The Naysayers

Some make a very valid argument that teaching women to aspire to marriage is an aspect of the past that was well needed and that it doesn’t happen anymore. Many women relied on men for financial security, reproduction, safety, and more. Which was mostly arranged through marriage in the past. Kris Gage, author of the article Does Marriage Even Make Sense Anymore?, suggests that it is understandable for women to have felt the need to get married in earlier times but the obligation to teach it now no longer remains. She writes, “Women didn’t have access to the workplace, so they needed financial security. Men had income, but needed heirs. The exchange was simple”(Gage 2018).

This article accurately compares what life was like for women in the past vs. the present. It easily can display reasons for women to not get married because of all the things they can do on their own or without a legal document of monogamy. This connects back to the claim because this article gives reasonable explanations as to why young women do not have to be taught to aspire to marriage. However, the old traditions of movies and television still ring true for many families when teaching their daughters to aspire to marriage.

Living Single

The stereotypes of single men and women are endless. Women who are single at a certain age face significant backlash. They can be perceived as hard to love, or too attainable. Many women constantly have to keep in mind if they’re being too easy, too bossy, too smart, or too confident when trying to attract a man. And if they are single, it is easy to perceive them as women who are those things. Bella DePaulo, author of the article Is There A Bias Against Single People?, suggests that people without a marital status face harsh judgement from modern culture. She writes, “They were viewed as less happy, less secure, more immature, more fearful of rejection, lonelier, more self-centered, and more envious”(DePaulo 2016).

This connects back to the claim because many women are taught not to be too easy, not to be too bossy, for the attention of men. Ultimately, so that they can be the ideal woman a man would want to marry.

At The End of The Day…

The conversation of whether or not women are taught to aspire to marriage is ongoing with more than one answer. It is important that the conversation takes place and that society today acknowledges what the youth are being taught. If the main ideals of modern culture are change and equality, there is reasonable cause to believe they should start at the beginning, with the kids today.

Works Cited

Adichie, Chimamanda Ngozi. “We Should All Be Feminists.” TED, Dec. 2012, http://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_ngozi_adichie_we_should_all_be_feminists?language=en.

Brown, Christia S. “Children’s Ideas About Gender Differences May Surprise You.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 16 Apr. 2014, http://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beyond-pink-and-blue/201404/childrens-ideas-about-gender-differences-may-surprise-you.

DePaulo, Bella. “Is There a Bias Against Single People?” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 19 Oct. 2016, http://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/living-single/201610/is-there-bias-against-single-people.

Gage, Kris. “Does Marriage Even Make Sense Anymore?” Medium, Personal Growth, 18 Feb. 2018, medium.com/personal-growth/does-marriage-even-make-sense-anymore-70e10f4d8c18.https://medium.com/personal-growth/does-marriage-even-make-sense-anymore-70e10f4d8c18

The “One and Done” rule is a term that basketball fans should know very well. In 2005, the NBA, under former-commissioner David Stern, ratified a new rule requiring draftees to be at least 19 years old and one year removed from high school, to be eligible to play in the league. The common reasoning at the time, was that a lot of high schoolers just weren’t ready for the NBA. And by declaring early, and voiding their college basketball eligibility, it was hurting them in the long term. In 2005, Gerald Green: one of the last players of the high school draft era, said in a New York Times Article: “Everybody’s not LeBron James. I’m not LeBron James, Martell’s (Martell Webster) not LeBron James, there’s only one LeBron James. He came in ready and he dominated the league. There’s a lot of players that have to get developed. Me, I’ve got to get developed. But I guess that age limit, that one year of college experience, can get you more developed and I think that’s pretty good.” And while Green’s comments were fairly common at time, a lot has changed since 2005. David Stern has since retired, and under new league commissioner: Adam Silver, serious talks have begun about changing the league’s collective bargaining agreement, and allowing 18 year-olds to be drafted again.

The issue and stakes of this rule are multifaceted. Certainly more multifaceted than what Howard Beck: a writer for the New York Times, in 2005 described as: “the right of teenagers to get rich playing basketball.” In a lot of ways, this debate is very similar to the one concerning the U.S.’s legal drinking age. Both are predicated around the fundamental idea of whether we should allow 18 year-olds the freedom to make decisions that could ultimately hurt themselves. Affirmers of Adam Silver’s recent statements regarding NBA eligibility, would argue that it’s this same “freedom of choice” that is of primary concern in this debate. Take Zion Williamson, for instance. In the coming 2019 NBA Draft, he’s practically guaranteed to be the number one overall pick. At 6’7, 285lbs, and with the jumping ability of a human-kangaroo, he perfectly fits the phrase of “a man playing against boys”. For guaranteed prospects like him, why should he have to waste his time in college when he could be making millions of dollars in the NBA? He’s legally an adult. Shouldn’t he have the freedom to choose between the NBA and a year of college? On the flip-side of this argument, you have those who say that this about more than just money; it’s about development. According to a well known sports publication called “The Ringer”, Hall-of-Famer: Charles Barkley, had this to say: “When did we get to the point that all people care about is money?” Charles Barkley said last week on Inside the NBA about the possibility of Williamson shutting down his season to prepare for the draft. “I get so mad when people act like money’s the only thing that matters in the world.” By forcing prospects to wait a year before entering the league, defenders of the rule, like Barkley, argue that it allows them to not only mature physically, but mentally. College athletes get to train in top tier facilities, play against the best non-professional players at their age-level, and gain the experience that come with living on a college campus. It’s this balance between “freedom of choice” and “quality of development” that permeates this controversy. And it’s through the analysis of several articles, that I will attempt to give more insight into this debate.

I think the best place to start analyzing this controversy, is by understanding the perspective of someone who might have the most impact on its outcome: Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. According to a 2018 ESPN Article, NCAA president Mark Emmert asked former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to chair a special NCAA basketball commission. Her task was to make recommendations for the NCAA that would ultimately lead to “decisive action” on combating corruption. And after months of waiting, Rice’s commission finally delivered that recommendation. It was the opinion of the commission that “One-and-done has played a significant role in corrupting and destabilizing college basketball, restricting the freedom of choice of players, and undermining the relationship of college basketball to the mission of higher education.” Rice’s commission believed that in order for college basketball to be freed of corruption, the NBA needed to take action, and give athletes the freedom to enter the league out of high school.

It should be noted that the commission’s opinion is not without its critics. Jonathan Giovany, a writer for ESPN, argues that the commission’s statement is just an excuse for the NCAA to avoid taking responsibility, and start paying its athletes. In the same 2018 ESPN article, he claims that: “It’s preposterous to think that abolishing the one-and-done rule will fix all of college basketball’s problems. The much bigger issue is not allowing players to profit from their likeness, receive endorsement deals or be properly compensated by schools for the huge amount of money they generate — one the commission conveniently deflected, citing ongoing litigation and other issues.” Regardless of Giovany’s opinion, what’s uncanny about Rice’s argument for NBA eligibility, is how much it mirrors the debate we’re having about the U.S.’s legal drinking age right now.

According to an opinion article from the New York Times titled: “Return the Drinking Age to 18, and Enforce It”, Gabriel Glaser argues that: “Raising the drinking age to 21 hasn’t reduced drinking — it’s merely driven it underground, to the riskiest of settings”. Glaser’s opinion is identical to that of Condoleezza Rice’s commission. Just like how Glaser argues that the U.S’s legal drinking age has led to a drinking problem underground, Rice argues that the NBA’s eligibility age has led to a corruption problem in the NCAA. Instead of NBA prospects getting paid the contracts that they would receive in the professional game, they are preyed upon by corrupt agents, sponsors, and college officials, to make deals that ultimately get them into to trouble with the FBI and the NCAA. And while both of their arguments are legitimate; this topic leads us to a fundamental question that needs to be raised. A question that is supported by defenders of the “Stern Rule”. Should we give 18-year olds the freedom to make decisions that could lead them to harm? And I think the best way to approach this, is from a scientific angle.

It’s been well known for a while now, that our brains won’t reach full development until our mid-twenties. According to the website for the Stanford Children’s Hospital: “The rational part of a teen’s brain isn’t fully developed and won’t be until he or she is 25 years old or so.” The significance of this development is the effect it has on our decision making. The Stanford Children’s Hospital continues by saying: “Recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part, but teens process information with the amygdala, the emotional part. And it’s the prefrontal cortex that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences.” This would seem to support what defenders of Stern’s Rule, like Charles Barkley, are saying. If our long-term decision making is lacking until our brains have fully developed at 25, then is it a good idea to allow 18-year olds the freedom to make those same long-term decisions? Then again, what is considered long-term decision making? And if the answer to the previous question is no, then what? Should college basketball players have to wait until their 25 to be drafted? Just like any good debate, I don’t think there’s an easy answer.

What’s ultimately heartwarming about this issue, is that both sides are looking out for who really matters: the players. With Condoleezza Rice, it’s the right of players freedom of choice. Similarly to argument for lowering the legal drinking age, Rice and her commission argue that these players are legally adults and should be able to make their own decisions, in regards to their future. With Barkley, it’s about player development. He believes that an extra year or two in college goes a long way in player maturity and physical development. And without it, players are at risk of doing harm to themselves through poor decision making and a lack of experience. Regardless of their contradicting viewpoints, I think both sides can rest easy knowing that, at the end of the day, the concerns of the opposing side are at least made from the right place.

Work Cited:

Bontemps, Tim. “NBA and Players’ Union Agree: Age Limit’s Days Are Numbered.” Chicagotribune.com, 11 July 2018, http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/ct-spt-nba-age-limit-adam-silver-20180711-story.html.

Beck, Howard. “N.B.A. Draft Will Close Book on High School Stars.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 28 June 2005, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/sports/basketball/nba-draft-will-close-book-on-high-school-stars.html.

Borzello, Jeff, et al. “Tough Talk on Corruption, One-and-Done, but Commission Misses the Mark.” ESPN, ESPN Internet Ventures, 25 Apr. 2018, http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/23304802/condoleezza-rice-commission-recommendations-one-done-nba-draft-corruption-recruiting.

“Default – Stanford Children’s Health.” Understanding the Teen Brain, http://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=understanding-the-teen-brain-1-3051.

O’Connor, Kevin. “The Good, Bad, and Unintended Consequences of Abolishing the NBA’s One-and-Done Rule.” The Ringer, The Ringer, 25 Feb. 2019, http://www.theringer.com/nba/2019/2/25/18239529/nba-one-and-done-draft-zion-williamson.
Glaser, Gabriel. “You Must Be 21 to Drink?” The New York Times, The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/02/10/you-must-be-21-to-drink/return-the-drinking-age-to-18-and-enforce-it.

Examining the Ethics, Morals, and Justifications of Animal Use in Research
– Saul Ocampo Landa

The scientific community is built around asking questions.  Questions involving the human body and its diseases, the space and its stars, Earth and its history, chemicals and their elements, and any other topic worth questioning.  One motivation usually spurs these questions: improving the world as we know it.  In recent decades with the exponential growth of scientific research, more and more animal models are being used in a plethora of fields, including human physiology, psychology, behavior, and natural ecosystems. The same motivation remains: improving the world, but for humans. Despite the many ways humans explore and the many questions we ask, one very important question remains: why do we use animals?  What about animals makes it not only reasonable and acceptable for their widespread use, but sometimes even required?

The answer to this question is given quickly and bluntly by many: the feelings animals may have are simply worth less than the knowledge they will provide, and therefore it is acceptable to use them for these purposes.  Despite its superficial clarity, this answer simply raises a greater question: what is “feeling?” More specifically, what is “consciousness?” How do we define this abstract thought that seems to be the answer to so many questions?  Ultimately at the core of the debate of animal research are the penetrating questions: What is consciousness? Are humans more conscious than animals?  

“Animals are conscious and should be treated as such” – A Lead Off Viewpoint

Recently, the long-standing question of whether or not animals (non-human animals, as the following article frequently references) has taken the front stage, even beyond the context of animal research.  In 2012, the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness was released, detailing several paragraphs written by prominent neuroscientists that directly propagate the knowledge that non-human animals have the capacity to have consciousness (in the neurophysiological context).  This opens the debate: if animals are conscious and we know it, why is it still acceptable to use them in research?  In his article for NewScientist, Marc Bekoff directly states we need to start treating animals like the conscious beings they are, using the Cambridge Declaration as his weapon of choice.  Bekoff’s article is filled with scientific perspectives, specifically using the evidence and conclusion of a consciousness in animals, to steadfastly advocate for ceasing animal use in research and other endeavors.  Bekoff’s article concludes with this: “We should all take this opportunity to stop the abuse of millions upon millions of conscious animals in the name of science, education, food, clothing and entertainment. We owe it to them to use what we know on their behalf and to factor compassion and empathy into our treatment of them.” Bekoff has provided his call to action in his final paragraph, but also sums up his reasoning in this last point; Bekoff’s main propaganda is consciousness.  While we may find dozens upon dozens of articles advocating for this same final call to action, Bekoff’s reasoning is what is important.  Bekoff advocates that we, as human beings and the apex species, need to provide animals with the compassion and protection their consciousness accredits them.  

This is where this debate will take us.  This is where many will be swayed to and from their beliefs.  Whether you grant animals a conscious or take it away from them, that is where we will ultimately find the core and base of the debate of animal research.

“Why do scientists use animals in research?”
An Unmoved Justification

Naturally, relating testing on humans to testing on animals is a very prevalent perspective in the animal research debate.  In another realm of the Internet, the American Physiological Society (APS) openly endorses and defends the use of animal research in modern experiments.  Here, the APS uses the consciousness lens from a different perspective; instead of asking the question of whether other animals are conscious, we are instead provided that humans are definitely conscious, and thus human testing would be wrong:   “However, the most important reason why animals are used is that it would be wrong to deliberately expose human beings to health risks in order to observe the course of a disease.” The word “wrong” is very important in this context.  By directly attacking the same experiments on humans, the APS defends animal research.  We can ask ourselves this: why are animals not given the same protections as humans?  Once again, the answer lies in the conscious perspective.  Rather than attempting to justify a conscious (or a lack of) in animals, the APS instead provides that human beings are known to be conscious and are able to process feelings and emotions.  Therefore, it would be wrong to experiment on humans because of their conscious.  We have again seen the underlying value of consciousness and awareness in this debate: since humans are conscious and have emotions and feelings, we cannot perform the same experiments on them that we do every day on other animals.  

“The ‘Necessity’ Of Animal Research Does Not Mean It’s Ethical”
A Further Perspective

The topic of animal research has been polarizing for decades. In this sense, many have taken the stance of fighting the status quo we see of testing on animals without a second thought.  For example, NPR’s Samual Garner writes a very direct opinion piece on how (un)necessary it is to use animals in research.  Garner believes research can be complete with other alternative methods.  However, a beginning paragraph provides a large insight into how Garner defines this lack of necessity: “While nonhuman animals cannot provide consent to research participation, we have reasoned in the case of humans that an inability to consent entitles an individual to greater protection and not lesser protection.”  In this case, Garner has established that animals do not have an ability to provide consent for their use in research.  This relates back to an animal’s conscious: if an animal was obviously conscious and able to provide consent, opposition like Garner may be more willing to support its use in research.  Garner relates this back to humans: since humans are obviously conscious and can provide their consent, the same should be established for animals.  Instead, because they cannot provide consent and do not have the conscious ability to do so, the scientific community should actually provide more protections towards animals.  Garner has placed a lot of weight on the lack of consciousness and consent of animals, as this quote is the foundation for his stance and his article.  Once again, we see the thread of an underlying, deep, perhaps even subconscious value in a perspective. Animal testing is wrong because we do not see a conscious, argues Garner.

Who, what, and when to believe: An open conclusion:

           We have examined the broad, polarizing debate of animal research in science and its many caveats and justifications for the way it stands.  One can simply defend either perspective as “wrong” or “right,” but asking deeper questions provides much more meaningful answers.  In examining superficial questions on animal research, we discovered much profound, long-set justifications for such perspectives.  Who defines consciousness?  What value does a consciousness grant someone or something?  Why is consciousness such a value in this debate?  As scientific advancements (with and without the use of animals) continue to emerge, perhaps one day we will see more definite answers to the question of consciousness.  Perhaps, there will be a definite answer on what is right and wrong with animal research.  Until then, we can take solace with what we know of our own consciousness, poking and probing at superficial questions like this one and conducting experiments of our own.

Articles Referenced

Bekoff, Marc. “Animals Are Conscious and Should Be Treated as Such.” New Scientist, 19 Sept. 2012,
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528836.200-animals-are-conscious-and-should-be-treated-as-such/#.UcLtmhZNYRk.

“Why Do Scientists Use Animals in Research?” American Physiological Society > Why Do Scientists Use Animals in Research?,
http://www.the-aps.org/mm/SciencePolicy/AnimalResearch/Publications/animals/quest1.html.

Garner, Samual. “The ‘Necessity’ Of Animal Research Does Not Mean It’s Ethical.” NPR, NPR, 14 Feb. 2016, http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/02/14/464265210/the-necessity-of-animal-research-does-not-mean-it-s-ethical.

As we approach the second decade of the twenty-first century, no one can deny that the plight of LGBT people is far from over. While groundbreaking progress has been made in the United States since the gay rights movement of the 1970s, LGBT individuals still face barriers to marriage and gender reassignment, and are lacking the basic protections for job security, house availability, and safety in schools and the workplace. However, there is are new frontiers opening up, and there is one that has seen great leaps and bounds in the past several years: LGBT representation in media. While many people point to the grand increase of LGBT characters appearing on the screen, there is a deep, nuanced discussion about this representation that is broiling beneath the surface.  

More or less, the argument revolves around two central points: quantity and quality. Regarding quantity, it appears on the surface to be a cut and dry debate. The loudest adversaries argue that there are enough LGBT people on TV, and ask: what more could you want? This question is what ties the issue of quality into the discussion, because when supporters respond “More,” it is not a one-word answer. Because the issue of quality is how the LGBT community itself is currently debating as what does or does not count as representation.  

The importance of quality in representation cannot be overstated – this is a common core argument. In an article titled, “Why Queer Representation Matters,” the author, Fabricio Leal Cogo, describes what it was like growing up in Brazil with LGBT representation: “The few times I saw gays on TV, they were always a punchline in a comedy—a source of laughter. Many people, I’m sure, are probably thinking: It’s just a joke, right?” Whatever is shown on media is both what the majority viewers will come to accept as the norm of the minority and what the minority will internalize about themselves. When media is full of people and none of them reflect who you are or how you feel, it leaves you with only one conclusion. Cogo uses a quote from a former University of Massachusetts at Amherst professor, Michael Morgan, that describes this conclusion best. “When you don’t see people like yourself, the message is: You’re invisible. The message is: You don’t count.”  

What counts as inclusion has been one subject of debate. A great example of this comes from the controversy surrounding several children’s franchises, such as the recent backlash faced by J.K. Rowling considering her representation of LGBT characters in Harry Potter and Fantastic Beasts. Rowling has been public about one of the main characters of both franchise, Dumbledore, being gay, but she has yet to ever include any evidence of this in any of the published books or released movies. At the publication of the books, even a non-canonical announcement was a great step forward, but it is something that has continued with Rowling’s work, and LGBT fans and allies are beginning to get more upset.“He can be gay in Rowling’s public appearances and tweets, but not on screen,” said Ian Thomas Malone, a fan of the series that spoke to Kim Renfro, the author of “Why devoted ‘Harry Potter’ fans feel betrayed by J.K. Rowling and the ‘Fantastic Beasts’ franchise.” Renfro writes, “Rowling offered up Dumbledore’s sexuality as a post-book tidbit. But for some fans, that’s simply not good enough.” 

That sentiment is the tip of the iceberg of LGBT representation. Rowling suffered from the quality of her inclusion, but inclusion in published media is also a slippery slope, and there is no better place to look at this conversation develop than to turn to representation in cartoons made for children and young adults. This is an area that has seen a lot more representation as of late, and the fact that there is anything to be remarked on here at all is something that many point to as a milestone of itself. Alex Hirsch, a showrunner for Gravity Falls, said in an article published by Nick Romano on Entertainment Weekly, titled “From Steven Universe to Voltron: The fight to bring LGBTQ characters to kids’ shows,” that “Every time a creator or a network decides to try to go a little further and do something maybe other networks have been scared to do, suddenly we’ve opened up that space.”  

However, not everyone feels these works are sound. Many of the pieces that have received high praise for inclusion suffer from tropes that have plagued LGBT representation for years. Romano glazes over this in his article when discussing Voltron, a show that had announced one of their main characters was gay. When describing feedback from the show, Romano said the only negative response came from “viewers frustrated over a re-emergence of the “bury your gays” trope in the storyline, for which [Voltron’s creator] issued an apology to fans online.”  

While this wording certainly makes this seem very low stakes, the “bury your gays” trope in Voltron is both extremely pervasive in LGBT representation of old as well as incredibly harmful. It refers to the event of LGBT characters being introduced to a piece, only to have them be killed off very quickly. Voltron did this by introducing a love interest of a lead character and then killing him within the same episode. Lily Orchard, a transgender woman that publishes video essays to YouTube that often focus on minority representation in media, expressed the damage this trope can do in her “Glass of Water” series titled “Not Good Enough,” saying that this trope creates the implication that “gay people’s only role in life is to die.”  

Orchard is a very divisive personality, but she epitomizes the other side of this debate. She also touches on another trend for LGBT characters in her video, called the “last second relationship” trope. What made this trope skyrocket in cartoons came from The Legend of Korra, a cartoon that ended its last episode in 2014 with their two female leads getting together. This was widely celebrated, despite these characters’ relationship having developed only in the last few minutes of the show. This was more shocking when it aired in 2014, of course, but with it’s still being held up today as wonderful representation, it’s no wonder that a show like Voltron would also suffer from this, with their lead character being shown to marry a character he had no prior close relationship with in the very last episode of the show. 

While the “last second relationship” is certainly less harmful, Orchard uses it as part of her argument: that this sloppy representation is “largely because of both creators and audiences alike being too willing to concede too much ground.” The majority of these creators argue that this is as much as they can do; that the networks producing their shows will not allow more. Joaqium Dos Santos of Voltron said “Are there still boundaries? Well, for this type of ‘action adventure/product-driven/traditionally boys toys’ show the answer is unfortunately yes…. Have those boundaries widened since we first started the show? Yes. Is there still a TON of room to grow? 100 percent YES.” (Romano).  

Orchard argues in “Not Good Enough” that this ‘room to grow’ already exists, because many networks cave at the first sign of trouble. Hirsch of Gravity Falls said that “The truth is they’re scared of getting emails from bigots and they’re cowards. So they’re letting the bigots control the conversation.” (Romano). Orchard responded to this quote with, “Just like how creators are afraid of getting emails from bigots, they’re also afraid of getting emails from actual human beings for being bigots.” Her biggest example is Rebecca Sugar, creator of Steven Universe, and an episode that featured a same-sex wedding. Sugar received pushback from Cartoon Network over the episode, and she threatened to leave the network and take Steven Universe with her if she did not get her way. Cartoon Network caved to this despite, as Orchard points out, the fact that Sugar could not have gotten away with this, as Steven Universe had already seen lowering ratings for years and “her behavior as a creator was only a liability for the network.” This is among several other examples of executive pushback crumbling as soon as a creator questioned their mandates, such as Hirsch himself as well as Daron Nefcy of Star vs. The Forces of Evil, which would produce Disney’s first on-sceen same-sex kiss (Romano).  

Orchard says that this comes from LGBT audiences being “so starved for content” that they do not push back against whatever they’re given. “Creators are accustomed to not having to put very much effort into writing a decent story. The writers of Voltron didn’t even try pressing the studio further than ‘bury your gays’ because they were convinced fans would adore that garbage they’d written.” 

The discussion of LGBT representation in media is deceptively deep. It is clear that more is expected of it; more inclusion, more appearances, more well-written characters. While it might be easy to dismiss it, these points of view each harbor a direction for representation moving forward; these arguments may affect what children and adults alike will see of LGBT characters in a couple decades from now. It is a future that is coming fast, and the results is already long overdue.

Works Cited 

“LGBT Fans Deserve Better.” ClexaCon. 7 November 2016,
https://twitter.com/ClexaCon/status/795732685972869120.

Cogo, Fabricio Neal. “Why Queer Representation Matters.” New America Weekly, New America, 15 June 2017, https://www.newamerica.org/weekly/edition-169/why-queer-representation-matters/. 

Dolan, Tadgh. An old color TV depicting a rainbow. GCN (Gay Community News), 20 September 2018, https://gcn.ie/tv-shows-redefined-lgbt-television/.

“Glass of Water – Not Good Enough.” YouTube, uploaded by Lily Orchard, 19 December 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aFUyC_WhUY&list=PLhZTlV5Uagg_rJd63OTK-XZMbsfcDx5o8&index=7. 

Renfro, Kim. “Why devoted ‘Harry Potter’ fans feel betrayed by J.K. Rowling and the ‘Fantastic Beasts’ franchise.” Insider, Insider Inc., 2 February 2018, https://www.thisisinsider.com/fantastic-beasts-jk-rowling-dumbledore-lgbt-backlash-2018-2. 

Romano, Nick. “From Steven Universe to Voltron: The fight to bring LGBTQ characters to kids’ shows.” Entertainment Weekly, Meredith Corporation, 22 August 2018, https://ew.com/tv/2018/08/22/steven-universe-voltron-kids-cartoons-lgbtq-characters/. 

Willens, Kathy. A crowd waves rainbow flags. NPR, 28 June 2015,
https://www.npr.org/2015/06/28/418327652/after-marriage-equality-whats-next-for-the-lgbt-movement.